Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

House Ethics Report [Foley]: Presume GOP-DNC Engage In Unchallenged Misconduct

House Rule XXIII prohibits House Member Conduct that would not bring credit upon the House. The Foley Report fails to sanction the negligence as permitted under the House Rules.

There is a reason the Joint Ethics Committee refused to enforce the House Rules: Both DNC and GOP Members have actively engaged in negligence and other violations of House Rule XXIII.

All sworn information may be introduced into evidence before the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors.

[Rushed for your consideration. Many spelling errors.]

* * *


Key Events Missing From Report

House Rules

Report Discussion/Questions


Other Related Blog Content

Ref Chart: Narrowing Congressional view, excuses to ignore misconduct -- Past, present, future.

Draft Audit Report

House Ethics Committee Report Success Criteria

Foley Ethics Archive

Congressional Oversight Archive

Myth of Bipartisan Oversight

There are many issues missing from the report. The next problem is the compromise on the myths in the report. Once the DNC agrees to a myth, compromising on standards and the facts yield flawed decisions and meaningless oversight.

The DNC and GOP, as demonstrated in the House Ethics report, have proven unable to deal with real priorities. Both parties are asserting an agenda. Once either party is faced with anything out of the ordinary, or off their agenda, they have jointly agreed to sideline investigations, analysis, and accountability.

The DNC has assented in the Foley Ethics Report to nonsense to justify ignoring things. The problem with the "we have an agenda"-argument is multiple. The Congressional leadership, by assenting to a myth in this report, are inter alia:

- not focusing on governance.

- justifying ignoring important issues

- rationalizing putting an agenda before governance

- Implicitly arguing because something has been ignored it's permissible to ignore other things

- Wholly missing the essential issues of governance which were never addressed.

Key Event Missing From Foley Report

Congressional Staffers offered ABC an exclusive interview if the Foley E-mails were not published, suggesting there was not an interest in timely resolving the issues.

However, the House Ethics Report would have the public believe that the staff was very concerned with issues, privacy, and not to be seen as taken partisan sides.

Deliberately attempting to suppress the Foley IMs wholly contradicts and undermines the conclusions of the House Ethics Report.

- Staff knew the importance of the IMs, and contrary to the message of the report, were not interested in resolving anything, but hiding the information.

- Staff were not interested in resolution of any problem, but were more interested in suppressing the problem.

- Staff were not passively negligent, but were actively thwarting the investigation, public knowledge, and needed outside scrutiny putting pressure on Congress to act.

It remains to be understood where else Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional employees similarly hoped to suppress public knowledge of alleged illegal conduct, or other issues which Congress allegedly recklessly failed to review as required under 5 USC 3331, the oath of office:

- NSA-FISA warrantless surveillance: What Staff counsel knew, or should have known, but failed to resolve as required per their Attorney Standards of Conduct.

- Rendition: What Congressional Staff Counsel were led to believe was classified, yet that illegal activity could not lawfully be classified

- GTMO, Prisoner abuse: How much information Member of Congress and Staff counsel knew in 2001 and 2002 related to prisoner abuse, or were negligent in not aggressively reviewing the GTMO prisoner detention policies despite visiting the prisoners in Cuba.

- War Crimes: How much information Members of Congress, Staff counsel and others knew about, and should have probed further, but were reckless in reviewing as required under the laws of war.

When Members of Congress and their staff do not timely act, but actively suppress public disclosure of alleged misconduct, and this action is wholly at odds with the tone and language in the Foley Ethics Report, the conduct casts all events in the opposite light. The approach to the issues was no haphazard, nor with real concern for Foley, but orchestrated, with retroactively crafted excuses designed to justify the original negligence.

More broadly, the American Bar Association and German War Crimes Prosecutor should look at the events in the context of what legal counsel had a legal obligation to do under Article 82 of the Geneva Conventions; and examine to what extent Congressional Staff Counsel are subject to disbarment for their alleged violations of Attorney Standards of conduct requiring competence, care, and full assertion of their 5 USC 3331 oath of office. Also, AICPA Standards SAS 99 and SAS 70 related to fraud indicators and internal controls should aggressively be applied.

The report fails to discuss the basis for staff counsel compensation. The alleged negligence is never discussed in terms of which Members of Congress have filed allegedly false information related to compensation packages. The widespread negligence cannot be reconciled with the compensation packages and the language Members of Congress have periodically submitted in writing to justify the staff compensations.

The report fails to discuss a compliance program to review, follow-up, and actively apply checklists to day-to-day business. Nowhere is there discussed any statement of requirements, procedures to handle issues, methods to identify issues for tracking and closeout, conducting random audits, or methods to identify problem recurrence. At best leadership in both parties have a reckless approach to issue oversight, monitoring, and tracking.


The report is fair warning on what the Congress in both parties’ views as bipartisanship. Congress has shown a reckless approach to serious issues. Compromise in the minds of both parties is somewhere between the standards, and what should have originally been done.

The Foley Report is a list of misconduct which the House Members have actively failed to enforce and a list of misconduct both parties have jointly agreed to do nothing about. The Misconduct relates to their negligence related to 5 USC 3331 oath of office duties, failures to challenge the President and Attorney General for Title 50 and Title 28 misconduct, and other failures to timely review and block appropriations related to illegal warfare.

Any Member of the House, as a point of personal privilege, could have demanded an immediate review of the issues raising questions about the integrity of the House. No member of Congress did this.

Also, Members of Congress had the opportunity to review the statutes with counsel. The statutes clearly provide Members of Congress the option to report misconduct, violations of the House rules, and other allegedly illegal conduct to appropriate authorities. Rather than make these reports, Members on both sides of the aisle have whined that nothing could be done.

This is incorrect. They could have jointly communicated to their Constituents requesting assistance, and work with the minority members in the Senate to block illegal appropriations. This was not done.

Once Members of Congress assent to illegal appropriations, they communicate that they are not serious about their legal responsibilities. It was the failure of the Yugoslavian leadership to hold the government accountable which prompted NATO to conclude that the Yugoslavian government was not serious about complying with its legal obligations, precipitating NATO bombing.

Similarly, this Congress has illegally assented to unlawful appropriations, failed to enforce the House rules, not timely reported misconduct and other violations of Statutes to the US Attorney, and has been equally unwilling to assent to the Geneva Conventions, as evidenced by the Military Commissions Act which substantially repeats the Yugoslavian government's error.

* * *

Members of Congress and their counsel have known the requirements, and have jointly agreed not to enforce the House Rule XXIII. The original misconduct, on top of the subsequent refusals, communicates to the world community the US government is not serious about the rule of law, professional standards of conduct, and is not legitimate.

Members of Congress may not lawfully agree not to enforce the law; nor may the Congress lawfully retroactively grant immunity, exercising Article III Judicial powers.

* * *

The Foley Report identifies issues of Negligence. These are part of the House Rules which prohibit conduct that does not reflect credit upon the House.

Negligence is also a basis to remove from Congressional Staff Counsel those who refuse to do their jobs. There has been negligence. The way forward is to examine what the Staff Counsel have been doing despite their payment streams.

___ Why weren't these staff counsel fired?

___ How can the US Congress justify keeping on the ranks personnel who did not perform a fully days work for the payment they received?

___ What were these staff counsel doing?

___ Where are the referrals to the US Attorney on these Title 2 violations?

___ What got in the way of the ranking and majority members on the committees from reporting the misconduct to the US Attorney?

___ How can any memb4er of Congress argue that doing nothing about illegal violations of the law reflects credit upon the House?

* * *

This Congress has jointly agreed between both parties to illegally condone war crimes, pretend that they didn't need to do anything, and have jointly rewarded inaction. This can hardly be called anything that brings credit upon the House.

There has been widespread malfeasance and negligence. The Foley Report rewards this inaction.

All NATO arguments applicable to the Yugoslavian government apply to the US government.

It remains unclear what reward the DNC and GOP members of Congress hope to get by jointly agreeing not to enforce the House rules; and not to keep the impeachment option on the table.

It is absurd, despite the DNC winning the majority, that they would require the voters to jointly rally the nation to justify asserting the rule of law. Leaders in Congress would lead to gather evidence, not make excuses to defy their oath, and pretend there is no problem.

The US government is no longer legitimate. No American should reasonably come to the defense of a government that puts itself above the law.

Americans should not be confused why foreign fighters hope to destroy the US government. They dare to do what many American might believe should be done: lawfully removing from power those who refuse to enforce the law, and illegally conduct unlawful military force to pretend the issue is someone else's problem.

The Roman Empire fell, in part, because it no longer could justify public confidence in the failed institutions. Outside forces defeated Rome because Rome decayed from within.

America has been defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. It remains to be seen how long this US government survives before it is lawfully destroyed as was Rome. There is no sympathy from this corner of the blogosphere.

* * *

Payment Issues

If someone has not done what they should, and engaged in negligence, there is another problem: They have been paid to do something, but have not done what was required. This is a subsequent violation.

The Code of Official Conduct (House Rule 43, clause 8) instructs Members and officers to retain no one on their staffs ``who does not perform official duties commensurate with the compensation receivedin the offices of the employing authority.’’ Ref

___ Where are the certifications, despite the admitted negligence, that the staff were doing what they should:

The House rules require Members of the Committee to respond to the Committee Chair request certification.

Thus where a Member other than a committee chair (e.g., a subcommittee chair or ranking minority member) directly supervises committee staff, the chair may require the supervising Member to certify the staff’s performance. The Bipartisan Task Force intended that ``[a]ny violation would consequently become the responsibility of the supervising Member.’’ (FOOTNOTE 41)Ref

Once there is a violation by a staff member, the responsibility attaches to the Member of Congress.

___ Where is the request by the GOP Committee Chairmen to have Members of Congress certifying their staff conduct was commensurate with their pay?

___ Once the negligence was known, when did the Committee Chairmen on the Ethics Committee plan to seek evidence from the appropriate committee chairmen that staff conduct was or was not appropriate?

___ What got in the way of exercising the responsibilities as Committee Chairman to determine that staff counsel and committee staff conduct was or was not fully meeting their obligations which they were fully paid?

___ How does the Ethics Committee explain the failure of the staff to do what it should; but not attachment, as the Bipartisan Committee intended, to attach that staff misconduct to the individual member of Congress?

___ How does the Congress explain the failure to document the negligence?

___ Once negligence was known, what steps, if any, did the Members of Congress, as they had the option to do under the House rules, to certify that their staffs were doing what they were being paid to do?

___ How does the House explain the payment to staff, but there is no record that the staff was fully doing what it was being paid to do?

___ How can anyone justify confidence that the Members of Congress are fully enforcing the House rules when they fail to review the staff conduct; there is well known negligence; but there is no request to review or assert that the staff conduct is or is not fully meeting their obligations commensurate with what they have been paid to do?

___ How can anyone believe that the above non-sense does anything but bring discredit upon the House?

* * *

There was negligence. This means the staff wasn't doing what it should be doing. Either the staff:

A. Was doing nothing and getting paid; or

B. Was doing something else, that it should not have been doing; or

C. Was distracted by something that needs to be understood.
Employees may not be compensated from public funds to perform nonofficial, personal, or campaign activities on behalf of the Member, the employee, or anyone else. Ref

The House ethics report says there was negligence. Something was not being done as required.

___ How were public funds used to pay for nonofficial, personal business?

___ Which campaign-related activities were distracting Members of Congress and Congressional Staff from what they should have been doing?

___ What were the staff working on, distracted by, or do not want investigated further?

___ Which nonofficial business were the Staff Counsel distracted by that would explain why there were still being paid, but their conduct does not bring credit upon the House?

* * *

Legitimate Acts

The Foley Report identifies misconduct, negligence, and Members of Congress and their staff not doing what they should. This conduct does not bring credit upon the House.

The Supreme Court has identified specific legitimate acts. The question is what would account for the negligence. Members of Congress and their staff were either

A. doing something else; or
B. were engaged in legitimate acts; or
C. were distracted by something else; or
D. there is another explanation.

However, the Supreme Court discussed such a concept in a different context and noted that ``legitimate’’ activities of a Member include legislative acts, that is, things said or done in the House in the performance of official duties, and representational activities, such as ``legitimate `errands’ performed for constituents, the making of appointments with Government agencies, assistance in securing Government contracts, preparing so-called `news letters’ to constituents, news releases, and speeches delivered outside the Congress.’’Ref

Members of Congress, like their counterparts in Yugoslavia cannot have it both ways. There were specific requirements that they fully assert their oath, not make excuses to ignore the law. Either the conduct was official, and connected with a joint decision to violate the laws of war; or the decision was not official and Staff was paid to do things unrelated to their jobs.

___ What were the Members of Congress doing while they were "not doing" what they should have been doing?

___ Which Members of Congress are arguing, despite a "do nothing" Congress, that they have no time to read bills?

___ Where in the record does it suggest that "legitimate" activities include "doing nothing" about misconduct, malfeasance, negligence, or other conduct that fails to bring credit upon the House?

___ If the Members of Congress, in their certifications to the House, would like to pretend that their conduct was official, how do they explain they failure to do what they should, but their still claiming that their payment was for appropriate conduct?

* * *

The Foley Report identified negligence. Members of Congress have had a shortened work week. They had time to accomplish official business while they were "not distracted" by official meetings Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Members of Congress have granted themselves pay raises, despite no accounting for what was or wasn't done during the period of Foley Negligence.

Members of Congress have a hard time explaining what they were doing.

As with campaign activity, House employees who engage in private
employment may not do so

* to the neglect of their congressional duties;

* on ``official time’’ for which a salary is received from the United States Treasury, or

* if the employment is gained through the improper use of their official positions.

Members of Congress and their staff were not doing what they should.

___ To what extent was the negligence identified in the Foley Report linked with participation in non-official duties?

___ Which private business, commercial interests, or other financial related issues affected the Members of Congress and their staff from doing their job?

___ What effort, if any, did the House Ethics Committee take to review the reasons for the negligence?

___ Did the House Ethics Committee agree on the reasons for the negligence?

___ What review did the House Ethics committee make of the employment, financial, or other non-official duties related to the negligence?

___ To what extent has the House Ethics Committee not reviewed the employment, financial, or commercial-related factors driving the negligence?

___ To what extent has the House Ethics Committee brought discredit on the House?

* * *

Members of Congress and their staff have the power to review any evidence. Members may assert privilege and raise issues when there are substantial questions about the dignity of the House, its members, or the conduct of the staff.

HOUSE RULE IX (9) questions of privilege

Questions of privilege shall be, first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; second, the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, individually, in their representative capacity only; and shall have precedenceof all other questions, except motions to adjourn.

There has been negligent conduct which does not bring credit upon the House.

___ What got in the way of raising this issue which can only be trumped by a motion to adjourn?

___ How can any Member of Congress argue that they are engaged in any dignified proceedings?

___ How can any Member of Congress argue that they have any integrity?

___ How can any Member of Congress argue that they have anything but an abysmal reputation for laziness, inaction, and complete defiance of their oath of office?

___ How can any Member of Congress justify inaction on this issue of negligence?

___ How can any Member of Congress have confidence in the House Ethics Committee report?

___ When the negligence was known, what effort, if any, did Members of Congress take to raise the issues related to the reputation of the Members of Congress?

___ Despite this power to swiftly act under this rule, why was there no interest to timely raise the matters of competence, negligence, and other things that materially destroy public confidence that the US Congress is an effective self-governing organization?

___ Were these issues ever raised during the Ethics Committee Investigation?

___ What is the plan to prevent this widespread negligence from getting rewarded with no sanctions?

___ What is the reason that the Members of Congress did not raise this issue of privilege?

___ How can negligence be argued to bring credit upon the House?

___ How can conduct, unrelated to official duties, be justified to be commensurate with what the staff as getting paid to perform?

___ What was getting in the way of the Members of Congress not doing what they should?

___ Why should we believe what the witnesses said to the House Committee on Ethics related to their reasons, rationale, justification, excuses, or other pretext not to have fully done what they should have done?

___ What got in the way of the Members of Congress asserting this privilege to ask questions about matters which would raise questions about the dignity of the house, Members?

___ What got in the way of going into a secret session?

___ What is going to be done to resolve this issue right now?

___ When this happens again, what will the US Attorney do to ensure that the issues of negligence, malfeasance, and other lines of evidence are prosecuted per 5 USC 3331?

* * *

Duty To Report Violations

The Foley Report identifies negligence. This is arguably a well known pattern of malfeasance, refusal to enforce the House rules, and defiance of the Oath of office.

Members have a duty to report illegal activity.

to report to the appropriate Federal or State authorities, with the approval of the House, any substantial evidence of a violation, by a Member, officer, or employee of the House, of any law applicable to the performance of his duties or the discharge of his responsibilities which may have been disclosed in a committee investigation;Ref

___ Which Evidence of illegal activity has the House suppressed, not permitted to be released?

___ What evidence does the House have, related to evidence related to illegal activity?

___ Is negligence related to war crimes investigations considered "substantial" or "business as usual"?

___ Is negligence on oversight related to Title 50 and Title 28 alleged malfeasance considered to be "substantial" or "business as usual"?

___ What consideration has the House ethics Committee given to the refusal to enforce the House rules?

___ What discussion was there of the implications of not fully enforcing the House rules?

___ Did the NATO bombing of the Yugoslavians get raised?

___ How did Members on the Ethics Committee, if at all, consider issues of NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia in the Committees Decision to do nothing about negligence, alleged malfeasance, and other conduct that did not fully enforce the law or report misconduct related to alleged illegal activity?

___ Did the Committee not review the NATO reasons for bombing Yugoslavia in their deliberations whether to find Members of Congress or their staff had violated the law, had violated a house rule, or there existed evidence of criminal activity, alleged malfeasance, or a conspiracy to obstruct war crimes investigations?

___ What reports to Federal and State authorities have been made related to the Member of Congress negligence?

___ How have Members of Congress and their staff engaged in this negligence been reported in terms of 5 USC 3331 oath of office violations?

___ How has the alleged malfeasance been couched in terms of what Members of Congress failed to do, did not investigate, or made excuses to justify inaction?

___ Which repots which a reasonable Member of Congress should have asked for were not requested?

___ Once it was known that the staff and Members of Congress did not do what they should have done, how was this alleged malfeasance couched in terms of which specific reports or other lines of inquiry they did not ask?

___ How did the House Ethics Committee ask for evidence of compliance or having done what the Members of Congress should have done in terms of Title 50 and Title 28 exception reports?

___ How was the pattern of negligence generalized to look for other lines of evidence related to activities Members of Congress and their staff were doing that they should not have been doing; or things that they were not doing that they should have been doing on more important matter related to Title 50 and Title 28 reporting requirements?

___ The negligence was known, or should have been known. Who failed to review the pattern of negligence to identify the risks that the 5 USC 3331 violations were not being adequately investigated; or that evidence that should have been forwarded was not forwarded as required?

* * *

Confidential Counseling Mediation

The Foley Report identified negligence. Members of Congress and their staff have the opportunity to resolve issues. Once those issues are raised and appropriately documented, the self-disclosure cannot be used against the Member.

The rules are designed to rewarded self-reporting, solutions, not inaction.

One absurd argument for inaction was that Foley might have been discriminated against. If Foley had been inappropriately treated, as was claimed as an excuse to do nothing, then there were remedies.


(a) Counseling. -- An individual aggrieved by an alleged violation of section 2 may request counseling by counselors in the Office, who shall provide information with respect to rights and related matters under that section. A request for counseling shall be made not later than 180 days after the alleged violation and may be oral or written, at the option of the individual.

___ Why weren't the alleged "defects" in the House rules remedied with reforms that would better mitigate similar situations?

___ As with the FISA violations, why weren't the problems resolved with reforms to the rules; as opposed to self-certifying an excuse to do nothing about conduct that may have been illegal, and a failure to modernize the retroactively-argued "outdated or inadequate" rules?

___ Why should this conduct justify confidence in the Congressional Staff counsel's competence, ability to solve problems within the law, or create any sense in the mind of the public that the Congressional Staff can be trusted to assert their oath before justifying inaction?

___ How does the pattern of conduct relate to the inaction on known violations of the FISA, Geneva, and Constitution, but no effort was made to reform the rules?

___ Why should we believe Congress is serious about oversight when it makes excuses to accept inaction, negligence, and failures to reform the rules over the original requirement to comply with the standards?

___ How can there be any case that the FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations will be given any serious review given both the DNC and GOP have agreed that inaction, negligence, and alleged malfeasance on Member of Congress misconduct is "OK" and "not a problem"?

___ Is the House saying that this potential remedy was not explored as a deterrent to not do what might be inappropriate?

___ What review of this rule did the House Ethics Committee Make?

___ Why were the 180 thresholds not included in the analysis?

___ How can anyone claim that negligence is permitted?

* * *

Advisory Opinions

The Foley Report identified negligence. Members of Congress have the opportunity to ask for legal clarifications. The House Ethics Committee has assigned counsel.

The Foley Report states that the Members of Congress allegedly were not interested in raising a legal issue because of an appearance of discrimination related to Foley's sexual orientation.

However, the Committee rules permit secrecy on these investigations. there is no credible claim that the "concerns" with discrimination have any validity: The investigation could have been done in secret.

(FOOTNOTE 1) Section 803(i)(4) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 2
U.S.C. sec. 29d(i)(4), provides as follows: ``No information provided to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct by a Member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives when seeking advice regarding prospective conduct of such Member, officer or employee may be used as the basis for initiating an investigation under clause 4(e)(1)(B) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, if such Member, officer or employee acts in accordance with the written advice of the Committee.’’

Only when there is documentation can we reasonably conclude negligence is protected. Rather, the lack of evidence and documentation is a subsequent offense, especially when the rules permit the matter to be handled, and would have prevented Foley and others cooperating from being used against them.

There are secret methods to handle investigations. The rules permit documentation of the facts which would have permitted Foley and others allegedly engaging in negligence to have been counseled, had the Committee fully involved, and show that there was appropriate action being taken.

Once the Members of Congress and Staff raised the issue and decision that they would prospectively do nothing, this was protected and could not be entered into evidence. Yet, the information is in evidence showing that they did not raise this issue prospectively as they had the power to do, and could have done, if they were serious about showing they were interested in the Rule of Law and showing that they were competent or warranting fully payment for their services.

___ What got in the way of the Members of Congress and staff counsel asking about a decision to prospectively do "nothing" or engage in "negligence"?

___ What is the reasons that assigned staff counsel were not consulted?

___ Why wasn't the issue related to alleged concerns about discrimination against Foley because of his sexual orientation not handled in private?

___ Why should anyone believe these were the real reasons for not taking action?

___ What Staff counsel negligence relates to failures to review legal standards?

___ What was the reason that the known concerns, rumors, or other things about Foley were not privately handled?

___ What counseling was Foley and others provided, offered, or made available directly or indirectly?

___ How can anyone argue that inaction on this issue was warranted, when action could have been taken to ensure Foley was appropriately counseled?

___ What Counseling should the Members of Congress, Committee Staff, Foley, or others on the Congressional Staff Counsel been offered?

___ What written advice was given, per the above rule?

___ What was the reason that the written advice wasn't obtained, thereby documenting the discussions and reasonable basis for the decision?

___ How can anyone argue that inaction on an issue is appropriate?

* * *

Legal Referrals

The Foley Report identified negligence as a contributing factor. Many other members of Congress knew or should have known there was a duty to resolve the issue.

2 U.S.C. sec. 101 sec. 101.

Subletting duties of employees of Senate or House

No employee of Congress, either in the Senate or House, shall sublet to, or hire, another to do or perform any part of the duties or work attached to the position to which he was appointed.

___ Where is the referral related the reasons for Member of Congress and Staff counsel negligence?

___ Which duties, which were otherwise taking precedence over issues warranting report, were trumping Member of Congress and staff counsel to not do what they should?

___ Which duties have been contracted that were similarly not fully done?

___ What information do Congressional Contactors have related to failure of Members of Congress, their staff, and staff counsel to fully do their job?

___ Which contractors, as part of their employment contract, have illegal gag orders prohibiting them from discussing illegal activity which cannot be lawfully classified?

___ Which contract terms in the Congressional Staff delegation contracts have language that prohibit contractors from discussing evidence of illegal activity?

___ Why should Members of Congress, Staff counsel, or the Congressional staff have any credibility reviewing the Verizon-NSA contracts related to gag orders on allegedly illegal activity under Article II-side of the government when Members of Congress assent to similar terms in Article I-side of the US Government?

___ If Members of Congress, their staff counsel, and contractors have agreements to remain silent about illegal activity, why would Members of Congress, Staff, or investigators be in a position to question the contacted investigations that were similarly gagged related to the evidence gleaned from illegal activity?

___ How were these "higher priorities" delegated to contractors who knew, or should have known, that the duties primarily lied with the Members of Congress, their staff, and staff counsel?

___ What's the excuse of the Staff Counsel and Members of Congress for not fulfilling their Constitutional obligations?

___ Which duties, which the Foley report identifies were negligently done, were not done because they had been illegally transferred to someone else?

___ Which duties were not performed as required; and this negligence was related to a decision not to fully assert 5 USC 3331?

___ What's the excuse not to have timely provided a legal referral?

___ Did Members of Congress believe that negligence would not be a subsequent referral?

___ What reward has there been to approve negligence as an acceptable standard?

___ How has negligence on the Geneva, FISA, and Constitutional violations been similarly rewarded?

___ Did Staff counsel appropriately review the issues; or were they doing things that was not consistent with their staff responsibly which they were paid?

___ How do the known legal issues, which should have been reported, square with the legal violations which Members of Congress have not reviewed related to FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations?

___ As with NATO in re Yugoslavia, why should anyone believe that the US Congress is serious about identifying how negligence in one area was not also ignored in areas related to war crimes and Geneva-FISA-Constitutional violations?

* * *

Benefits to Members of Congress for Negligence


41 U.S.C. sec. 22(FOOTNOTE 1)

(FOOTNOTE 1) Codified as Section 3741 of the Revised Statutes.

sec. 22. Interest of Member of Congress

In every contract or agreement to be made or entered into, or accepted by or on behalf of the United States, there shall be inserted an express condition that no member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of such contract or agreement, or to any benefit to arise thereupon.

___ Where are the Title 41 referrals?

___ How have Members of Congress benefited by outsourcing investigation work to contractors?

___ Which contractors have evidence of illegal activity by Members of Congress or the Executive Branch but have been gagged?

___ Which contractors have evidence of Member of Congress complicity, negligence, and malfeasance related to FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations?

___ What benefit, by failing to sanction negligence, do Members of Congress get related to contracted investigations?

___ Which contract clauses related to work that has been outsourced includes language that prohibits disclosure of evidence related to illegal activity?

* * *

Alleged Malfeasance

The Foley Report identified specific acts of negligence. The House rules require conduct that brings credit upon the House.

1. A Member, officer, or employee of the House of Representatives
shall conduct himself at all times in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House of Representatives.

___ What is the reason for the failure to meet this standard?

___ What part of "shall" does the House Ethics interpret to mean, "May"?

___ What part of "all times" does the House Ethics interpret to mean, "Maybe, if they feel like it and won't get caught"?

___ What part of "creditably" does the House Ethics committee interpret to mean, "Negligence is permitted"?

Adverse Inferences

The US Congress is a joke. It has engaged in substantially the same behavior as the Yugoslavian government.

No American citizen should be surprised if, as NATO did with Yugoslavia, foreign powers conclude the American system of government is broken; and the last lawful option remains a humanitarian intervention.

The pattern of gross recklessness by both political parties is stunning. The House Ethics Committee has failed to credibly show it has done a complete and adequate investigation.

No American should have any confidence in a report by a "joint" Committee with members from both parties when the report concludes that clear violations of the House rules do not warrant any sanction.

There have been gross violations of the House Rules. The conduct is pervasive across both political parties. The pattern of conduct, negligence, and malfeasance crosses many issues.

Staff cannot account for what they were or were not doing, but this seems lost on the ranking members of the Committee who have the power to seek US Attorney Assistance. This has not been credibly done.

No Member of Congress can argue that they are serious about their 5 USC 3331 oath of office. Implicitly within the negligence is the appearance that staff work related to investigations has been delegated to someone or no one; but the evidence related to the negligence on FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations has been illegally suppressed.

Members of Congress do not have the objectivity to oversee the President. They have substantially engaged in the same pattern of conduct: Not doing what they should; exercising powers they were not delegated; and rewarding negligence as something that can be the best.

Members of Congress, as representatives of We the People have a very serious problem. The pattern of abuses, misconduct, and violations of the law are widespread. Similar illegal acts were the basis for NATO to bomb Yugoslavia. There is every reason to believe that, if given enough time, the United States could similarly come under lawful attack by outside foreign fighters.

The US government is no longer legitimate. The rule of law has been disconnected form the founding documents. The Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have materially undermined any reasonable public expectation that they will fully execute their oath of office.

The US government cannot credibly claim before any international body that it speaks for We the People. A New Constitution should be accepted that will prevent the above malfeasance, abuses, and alleged war crimes from recurring.

Until the US government and We the People swiftly move to a system of governance that resembles law and order, there is every reason to believe that there is further evidence which Members of Congress are not serious about publicly reviewing. The pattern of negligence identified above shows Members of Congress are allegedly complicit in war crimes, and negligent in not asserting their 5 USC 3331 oath faithfully as they promised.

Bipartisanship is meaningless when the outcome is a joint agreement to defy the oath, not examine evidence, and not hold Members of Congress accountable to the laws of war, Constitution, and Statutes. America has a sham government that fails to credibly show it can competently manage affairs of State.

* * *

Appendix I: List of Conduct Which GOP-DNC Joint Agree is "NO Big Deal

Foley Report indicates the pattern of conduct which the GOP and DNC Members of Congress have jointly agreed to permit without sanction under the House rules.

The evidence is compelling. This misconduct is sufficient basis to conclude the House can no longer effective self-govern. A New Constitution should strip this rule-making/rule-ignoring discretion from the House, and delegate this power to the States.

The Response of Congress is inadequate. The report is not sufficient. The course of action outlined is not appropriate. The inquiry was not full or complete. The review of all conduct was not broadly done. The conclusions are not supported by the facts or the House Rules; and the recommendations are inadequate.

Formal findings should have been made about former officials: Present officials are in a position adjust oversight, rules, and other procedures related to what did or didn't happen under former officials.

The pattern of failure of "following up" is not an isolated problem to Foley, but an endemic problem in the US government, not just Congress. Congress should assent to a GAO audit to modernize its system of governance, rule making, and regulations.

The pattern, decision, and choice to remain willfully ignorant of matters is a concern. This is a course of conduct which touches on FISA, impeachable offenses, Geneva violations, and unconstitutional conduct by Members of Congress and the Executive branch, working hand in glove with contractors. Ignorance is no excuse, especially when Members of Congress are in a position to read the law before enacting it; or in reviewing standards of conduct with counsel before taking action. The Members of Congress have shown they cannot be trusted to read the bills, review the laws, or fully assert their oats. A New Constitution world remedy this willful defiance of their oath of office.

The Subcommittee findings related to violations of the House Code of Official Conduct are neither supported nor credible. The question is not whether these are issues of discretion, but whether the natural consequences of the negligence, and the negligence and willful ignorance was creditable upon the House. No case can be made that willful ignorance is credible.

The basis to assert that conduct does or does not violate House Rule 23 must be revisited. The Subcommittee Report, until it is rejected, should be entered into evidence before the German and Italian war crimes tribunals of evidence of a failure of US governance. Choosing to not investigate or take disciplinary action against any specific person, despite this willful ignorance is unacceptable. However, the greater abuse of power is to fail to see that the pattern of negligence, willful ignorance, and alleged malfeasance does not have bearing on whether Members of Congress and Contractors have suppressed evidence related to Congressional Complicity with war crimes, FISA violations, and unconstitutional conduct. Until the House chooses to expand the inquiry, and review the pattern of negligence, the House should be considered to be no longer an effective self-regulating entity, and illegitimate.

The only meaningful reminder of the rule of law and standards of conduct is an example with discipline. Issuing a report that does neither is neither a strong signal, nor a meaningful deterrent to improper conduct or defiance of the US Constitution.

There remain other options to lawfully prosecute, and target Members of Congress who defy their oath. We the People may lawfully work with international war crimes prosecutors, State Attorney Generals, and others to lawfully compel the Members of Congress to assert their oath, not make excuses to do nothing or remain recklessly ignorant of things that they knew, or should have know, were under their 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligations.

The burden of proof is on the House to demonstrate it is competent. We the People retain the inherent right, and may lawfully enact a New Constitution which radically transform the House and lawfully deprives them of discretion to pretend they are leaders when their conduct shows otherwise.

Failing to exhaust all reasonable efforts is a serious charge, and should be reviewed in the larger context of the willful decision by Members of Congress not to move swiftly on issues of FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations.

The pattern of failing to exhaust all reasonable efforts is something which warrants better understanding, examination, and review by personnel outside Congress, including the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors.

It is no longer an issue with the House may or may have suffered integrity. The House is compromised and is no longer a credible institution worthy of public confidence, trust, or dereference. It has collectively chosen to reward barbarism, inaction, and incompetence. This is hardly an issue of integrity, but fundamental sovereignty. We the People should move quickly to enact a New Constitution to reassert rules which compels the House to maintain its legitimacy, not to mention the integrity of the rule of law.

The evidence before us suggests, in light of the unsupportable conclusions, that the evidence obtained was not adequately vetted, nor sufficiently challenged with an eye toward institutional legitimacy. This is a major problem, mirroring the reckless defiance of the President in re Iraq. Congress is in no position to oversee the President, especially when it issues a report of this abysmal quality.

It is irrelevant how many pages were review. A plain reading of the House rules, contrasted with the requirement for creditability, shows that the 3,500 pages are meaningless benchmarks. The House might as well have burned the US Constitution and waged illegal war. Oh, it already did that, never mind.

We judge the interviews with the Subcommittee counsel were reckless, incomplete, cursory, and highly incomplete. The Staff counsel appears to be conflicted. Staff counsel is in a position to review evidence, but appears to have declined to probe into deeper issues warranting review and comparison with patterns of conduct related to FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations. The pattern of abuse, however described, cannot credibly be called sufficient. The German and Italian war crimes prosecutors should, if denied access to these transcripts, conclude the US Congress is not serious about enforcing the Geneva conventions, or spotting patterns of illegal conduct related to war crimes evidence suppression.

All witnesses are encouraged to provide copies of all notes and other things that they may have provided, and permit We the People to review them independently, and make judgments as to what Constitutional reforms and modernizations are required under a New Constitution.

The explanations for the conclusions belie reason. The recommendations are inappropriately narrow.

The pattern of communications and awareness of the problem is wide. It can hardly be called a simple lapse in judgments to do nothing. There is implicitly a conspiracy to not do what one should as required 5 USC 3331. The failure to find any violation of the House rules implicitly suggests the Committee has made no legal referral to the US Attorney in re alleged 5 USC 3331 violations.

That there were multiple lines of communication on the same issue indicates that the leadership had multiple chances to review, but declined to do what they should have under their 5 USC 3331. This is not a decision to remain ignorant; it is a decision to repeatedly not do what it should do: Alleged criminal negligence, recklessness, and malfeasance. That the Investigation Committee concluded there was no problem indicates that larger patterns of multiple-reports related to FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations have been similarly explained away without referral to the US attorney. Just as Yugoslavia asserted they were immune to war crimes, this Congress through this Committee Report would ask the same. This is inappropriate and warrants increased audit scope, examination, and a second review by a thorough prosecutorial team.

Once the Subcommittee relied on the House Resolution, which was not passed, as a basis to say or not say something, the Subcommittee was in a position to know what might reasonably be expected of a high quality product. This standard appears to have been lost. There is no reason to mention a resolution which was not fully supported; rather, there should be an explanation why the terms of that resolution, when fully enacted, were not well incorporated into the final Subcommittee Report.

It is a concern when, despite subpoenas, the quality of the report is abysmal, and the investigation was supposedly bipartisan. We the People should not expect any different outcome under DNC Control: Use of subpoenas but absurd conclusions.

Quick and truthful answers to narrow questions is meaningless; the proper approach is to broaden the line of inquiry to find the common patterns of conduct, then outline recommendations to remove those obstacles. This report fails to address those needed recommendations.

The speed of the investigation is judged to have been reckless, and materially contributing to a failed review and management of the investigation. The investigation is judged to have been inadequate, cursory, and focused on arriving at a speedy result, not one that reflects well on the House. Not only is Foley's conduct questionable, but the leadership responses are inadequate; equally absurd, is the assertion that this report meets the Rule 23 requirements. It is equally defective and does not reflect credit upon the House. As said before, the report itself, not just the alleged malfeasance is other evidence warranting war crimes prosecutor concerns.

It is of little interest how many times Members of Congress returned to Washington DC. The role of a Member of Congress is to focus on the investigation, not use the known election as the excuse not to fully focus on the assigned duty. Other representatives could have been dispatched to cover the Member of Congress assignments, appearances. This option was not used.

Leadership requires presence, not delegation of oversight. Relying telephones, as was the problem with Foley and the original failed responses, should have been a warning sign to the House Leadership: The investigation is suffering from the same flaws: Failed oversight, excuses, and a preference for other tasks. This does not reflect well on the House. Elections are known every 2-year events by design. The election cannot credibly be pointed to as an excuse to continue reckless conduct, loose oversight, and cursory reviews. Mentioning the communications, telecoms, and other methods of communication does not impress, but sends a clear signal that the Committee was not fully focused on the task. This is a downward revision in public confidence and further undermines the House's legitimacy as an institution.

Arguably, the same flawed staff-Member of Congress communications, defective in re Foley, were similarly defective in the investigation. Failing to hold the Senior House leadership to account send the Elea message that the same defective investigation oversight, and flawed staff-Member of Congress communications would be rewarded, not reformed. This report hardly sends a signal that anything has changed, merely repeated under the guise of oversight.

The reasons cited to "justify" the "accelerated pace" [page 11 of 91] are invalid and meaningless. These are excuses. Serious issues do not require speedy closure, but thorough review. Governance is not measured by the speed of ending the report, but by the legitimacy of the government, and its ability or inability to effectively govern. It had been several years since the pattern of conduct occurred; there is no case to be made that a similar review could haven not examined the larger patterns of conduct, miscommunication, and defective oversight as it might have related to other serious issue related to FISA, Rendition, Geneva, war crimes, and DHS warrantless interrogations.

Fast, flawed answers hardly communicate the Congress is serious, but dubious about governance.

It is meaningless to argue that the speed of the investigation means that the conclusions are sound; or that the recommendations are valid. They are not.

Now that the investigation is complete, We the People should review the evidence, and make conclusions as to whether this US government can or cannot be trusted; or whether a new system of governance would more effectively prevent the abuse of power and protect rights.

Discouraging communications is a meaningless assertion of competence. Members of Congress, despite the speed of the investigation, did consult on matters. The basis for this argument, in justifying confidence in the report process, is meaningless. There is no adequate discussion of whether the report objectives, in asserting speed, was sufficiently met. We judge the excuses for speed are not matched by the flawed conclusions because the reasons for swiftness were retroactively devised, well after the Congress failed to prevent witnesses from discussing issues.

There is evidence the witnesses attempted to orchestrate their testimony, but the reasons for this were not explored; nor was there a fair examination how this orchestration was linked with the White House goals in re FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations.

"Should be" sequestered is not the same as "shall be" sequestered. This is a meaningless standard to enforce and does not inspire confidence in the Investigation Management.

Whether witnesses were or were not complying with the sequestration is not relevant in light of the larger issues and course of conduct which was not examined. Silence on irrelevancies is meaningless, especially when the common GOP-DNC agreement was to make the appearance of competence, not actually review the scope of inaction and negligence in re FISA, NSA, DHS, Geneva and other Constitutional abuses which Members of Congress have shown equal negligence.

"Should comply" is different than "shall comply." [12 of 91]

The Committee does not feel as though negligence on issues is important; it can hardly be argued that negligence is failing to expand disciplinary proceedings against those who did discuss the issues, as they were supposedly prohibited, amounts to any meaningful standard of excellence nor brings credit upon the House.

___ Staff counsel were not effective in communicating with the leadership. Why should we believe that the communications between Counsel and the House leadership was any better? [13 of 91; line 5]

___ Is the Committee willing to on the record that it has reviewed the Attorney Standards of conduct, and there is no basis to believe that Staff Counsel may not have engaged in any malpractice, misconduct, or other communications?

___ Even if Staff Counsel did communicate to others on legal matters, what basis is there to believe that these would not be protected by attorney-client privilege?

___ Were all witnesses sworn before testifying?

___ How does the Committee explain attorneys who supposedly testified, but their duty to their client, not the committee, to report the facts?

___ How did the Committee handle the conflicting duties and loyalties of counsel: they have a superior duty to represent their client, not reveal information that may be adversarial to their clients’ interests.

___ What was the basis for the Subcommittee to conclude that no attorney had engaged in any prohibited disclosures?

___ What would prevent the attorney from talking to staff counsel with other firms, who may have presented information indirectly to other witnesses?

[14 of 91] Members of Congress were given a "dear Colleague" letter to review conversations with previous members of Congress. However, the Subcommittee states in its preliminary remarks that it did not interview these former members of the House. Why should we believe that the investigation was thorough, given there was no obligation of formerly assigned staff to ensure the conversations were complete.

Conversely, if something were known, but not reported, what provision was made to ensure that the communications, once they were made, were correctly reported as they related to formerly assigned staff?

What reforms are included to ensure this does not repeat the errors of the 1960s and 1970s?

Foley's assertion of 5th Amendment right is fair warning of what the Executive Branch will do during hearings, especially when there is not threat of impeachment. [page 16 of 91] All the witness have to do is create in the mind of the House, that the speed of the report takes precedence of a complete report. [17 of 91]

[ 22 of 91 ] DNC on page board. What's the excuse DNC? Inadequate board meetings was behind the concerns in re Enron and PSLRA. Why aren't lessons learned from industry applied to House leadership?

[ 22 of 91 ] "Courtesy" of communications means that negligence is rewarded. Not impressed.

[24 of 91 ] Compensation of Stokke, in re committee work.

[24 of 91 ] Negligence of staff: Yet "pick up loose ends". What were they doing that distracted them from other obligations?

[25 of 91 ] Ted Van Der Meid -- Speaker Counsel. No evidence provided suggesting a robust IT management system. What's the remedy to document, record and track taskings and requirements?

___ What review was made of the Congressional e-mail note system and other electronic data used to record issues, tasks, and other Speaker oversight issues?

___ How were legal issues related to FISA, Geneva, and Rendition included or excluded from these data management systems?

___ What filing, management, data information system was used to "liaise" with the offices; when did the Speaker review, closeout, or issue orders to conduct further inquiry on matters in this filing system?

___ How were staff assignments, tasks, job descriptions documented and included in the compensation packages; or used to assess employee conduct problems; what was the basis for hiring staff; what knowledge of statutes, laws of war, FISA, Geneva, and Constitution required for staff assignment to the Speakers office?

[28 of 91 ] That no one personally observed the incident outside the Page dorm is irrelevant. The evidence does not suggest the Capitol Police assigned at the time of the incident were consulted, as would be required under a thorough review.

___ What efforts was made to speak with all Capital Hill Police assigned when the alleged incident occurred?

___ What effort was made to review the Capitol Hill Police time logs, travel times, or other information unrelated to official reports?

___ Is there no one assigned to the Capital Hill Police who can point to any list of all officers assigned who may have responded, but did not document the report?

___ How many of the Capitol Hill Police assigned 2000-2003 have been deployed to combat zones; or have been killed in action 2001-2006?

___ What investigation, based on multiple reports, should have been made; and what should have been an appropriate review, conclusion, and plan going forward from the time of the initial review had it occurred after 2002-2003?

___ Which Page, formally assigned, can corroborate the incident?

___ How many "similar incidents" are required between 2000 and 2003, combined with patterns of negligence, would warrant a conclusion that the House Member was not acing with credit, as required by the House rules?

[29 of 91] recollections of witnesses: To what extent did the Committee review the credibility of witness assertions that they did or did not recall something?

How were these recollections compared with what would be reasonable to expect, in light of they payment, documented responses in the e-mail system, and the Speaker Management system used to track issues?

[29 of 91] What were the e-mail retention requirements; were they followed; and is the e-mail still available?

German war crimes prosecutors will want to examine extent to which Congressional e-mails related to FISA, Geneva, and other Rendition related activity have not been appropriately retained as they should be.

[31 of 91] How were resolutions to issues communicated to the House leadership; and how were these decisions documented as they related to FISA, NSA, Geneva, Constitutional violations or rendition?

[31 of 91 ] How were issues related to telecoms handled; and how were calls logged related to issues of FISA, NSA, Rendition, Geneva, or Constitutional violations; and Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

[32 of 91] when an issue, task, or problem was assigned to be 'taken care" of, how was it decided when the issue had been fully resolved; what notes were collected; and what information from the General Counsel or Congressional Staff Counsel was included with the Speakers Decision that the issues related to FISA, Rendition, Geneva, war crimes, or NSA were resolved?

[ 32 of 91] Throughout the report we read that Members of Congress, staff, or other concluded that something was "closed." How was this conclusion shared with the Speaker, Staff Counsel, or the Page Board or appropriate Members of Congress involved in oversight on the issue?

[32 of 91] Based on information and belief, we judge there is probable cause to target Rep. Kolbe for allegations related to witness tampering; misstatements under oath; and other alleged criminal activity. Rep. Kolbe assertions are not credible, and suggest that he did not do something that someone would have. Stating "did not attempt to speculate" is not believable. To say that the "act on" the information would imply a narrow construction of the information, but without any credible definition of what was or was not an appropriate resolution. We conclude, and it is our opinion only, that Kolbe has not disclosed all information, and that there are things that he has not disclosed that he should. The response is too orchestrated, suggesting that his private counsel has coached him on the answer. Whether the page war or was not a Constituent is relevant; the issue was for Kolbe to have resolved the manner that brought Credit on the House, regardless the information, or source.

The above chain of events is at odds with the WMD and Iraq approval for force. It is not credible that Kolbe and others would "close" issues based on no speculation; rather, a reasonable person would do the opposite: Inquire, resolve, report, and then ensure the matter did not recur. Recommend 5 USC 3331 review in terms of malfeasance, and allegedly reckless defiance of oath of office in matters Member of Congress had a duty to investigate.

[ 32 of 91 ] Kolbe's comments at notes 94 and 92 are not consistent. First he argues that he did not speculate; then at 94 he says that it "may have" been something. This implies speculation. Why wasn't this inconsistency addressed by the investigating committee?

[33 of 91 ] At 96 -- How can Kolbe argue that he through the issues was "sufficient"[ly] addressed, but he was not consistent on whether he did or did not speculate on the nature of the event, details, or what may have happened? There's no basis to conclude that Kolbe's assertion is valid, or that he fairly concluded at that time that the response was or was not appropriate. We judge the notes at 92 and 94 are a fatal inconsistency suggesting Kolbe has committed perjury; and that he knew, or should have known, that the statement he was making were not correct; and that he did not conclude that the response was sufficient. Rather, the inconsistency suggests that he only now is asserting, despite evidence to the contrary, that his response was sufficient and correct. We judge the "sufficient and correct"-assertion to be counsel-coached, not a present state of mind of Kolbe, but retroactively created. This forms the basis for additional inquiry by the War Crimes prosecute into the reasons for Kolbe's apparent inconsistent statements on what his conclusions were; the basis for his conclusions in 2006; and why his assertions do not match a uniform assertion on what he was or was not speculating on.

[33 of 91 ] We judge Kolbe's assertion at99, that he did not think about it for years, was not true. Kolbe at 92 and 94 was not consistent suggesting that he had thought about it, and has a reason for not being consistent.

Based on the record, we judge Kolbe has allegedly made material, inconsistent, and misleading statements to the Committee for other reasons related to matters and issues which are more important. It is not credible that he is not able to remember things; while he's supposedly able to suggest that he did or did not speculate eon a matter. It remains to be understood which other issues from the 2001-2006 Kolbe and other Members of Congress are allegedly feigning ignorance on matters that they knew, or should have known needed attention: FISA, NSA< Geneva, war crimes, rendition, or other alleged illegal activity of interest to the war crimes prosecutors.

[33 of 91] Note 99 -- Kolbe appears to have become belligerent with the questioner for no apparent reason. Note closely that Kolbe is saying Foley "has resigned anyway" -- this is irrelevant, and known going into the deposition. It suggests despite witness preparation by Counsel, Kolbe is under extreme stress and is sweating.

We recommend Koble's testimony be reviewed by the German War crimes prosecutor for purposes of a subsequent review and possible witness impeachment. The US Attorney should be called into review the apparent deceptions and belligerence. This is a material indicator under SAS99 warranting increased audit scope per SAS70. Major problem is unfolding here.

[33 of 91] Notes at 101 suggest the "That's your decision" about "NOT" reporting the IM do not appear to be consistent with other testimony: That Kolbe did, in fact, have a duty to do something, and could not credibly call the issue "closed" by leaving it up to someone else to resolve. Again, this needs to be revisited, and is a basis to cast Kolbe's testimony in the "do not believe" bucket.

[33 of 91] At note 101, Kolbe's follow-up with the page after the newspaper report appears to have been a fishing trip and an attempt to intimidate the page. Why was Kolbe worried about the issue? We judge it was because Kolbe reasonably knew that he did not, as he testified in 2006, appropriately handle the situation and was having second thoughts, contrary to his testimony that he hadn't through about the issue.

[33 of 91] Note Kolbe is giving the page legal advise in terms of whether the Page was or was not represented by counsel; and knew, or should have known, that the page was not represented by counsel. There appears to have been a reasonable basis for Koble's concern: Not with the Page, but with Kolbe's perception that there was a legal issue. Kolbe appears to have been reckless in not appropriately encouraging the Page to speak with counsel on this specific issue. Rather, by commenting on this legal issue, Kolbe appears to have communicated that he, Kolbe, had already talked to counsel; and that Kolbe had spoken on the issue which he would have us believe didn't give much though to. This further undermines Kolbe's credibility -- he apparently knew of a legal issue, but didn't sufficiently address it as he allegedly should have.

[34 of 91] At note 103, Page informs Kolbe to talk to Kolbe Attorney. Despite this correct legal information from "just a page" it appears Kolbe's problem is that he doesn’t know who's talking about the legal issues with the WaPo.

[34 of 91 ] 102 through 105 -- We judge the issue was no sufficiently resolved, Kolbe was concerned, and that there were other things Kolbe was concerned about that he spoke with counsel. Members of Congress should review the house rules above, and ask which counseling Kolbe should have gotten; and the reason that Kolbe did not get this counseling as he had the power to do.

[34 of 91] Note 105 -- Someone is referring the matter to the Clerks office (meaning it is not resolved) but Kolbe would have us believe that it was closed. This is not consistent. One cannot ask the page to do what Kolbe should have done; nor is there a reasonable basis to conclude the issue is closed if there were previous conversations with other counsel, Members of Congress, staff, and the Clerks office. We judge Kolbe knows far more than he would have us believe and has allegedly committed perjury; this is a material, adverse inference which the German war crimes prosecutor should review in terms of documentation, review, oversight, and commendation between Members of Congress on legal issues related to FISA, NSA, Geneva, war crimes, rendition, and other alleged violations of the laws of war.

[34 of 91] Note 106 -- We judge the news release was cleared by Kolbe's counsel, and related to alleged illegal activity which Kolbe's counsel allegedly should knows or knows is material related to other patterns of illegal conduct.

We judge the assertion of the "single incident" is incorrect, and designed to mislead. Kolbe was too knowledgeable of the events not to have concluded there were multiple incidents.

What Kolbe was told (as reported in writing in the release), and what Kolbe speculated on were not consistent with his testimony at 92 and 94. To suggest that something was or was not done promptly is at odds with Kolbe's concerns with this page's report; and the WaPo questions. This suggests Kolbe was aware of other incidents, but similarly did nothing, as appears to be the case in issues related to FISA, NSA, Rendition, Abuse, war crimes, and other alleged illegal conduct which Members of Congress knew, or should have known were related to war crimes.

We judge all information in this committee report cited press release is unreliable. There do not appear to be any reasonable basis for any assumptions. That the page did or did not raise the issue again is at odds with Kolbe's apparent familiarity, and concerns in light of his legal training and the concern with the WaPo questions. There do not appear to be reasonable grounds for Kolbe to assert that anything did or did not cease, as Kolbe did tell the Page to get legal advise.

What Kolbe asserts he believes is irrelevant and not credible. He does not appear to have confidence at the time the issue was appropriately dealt with. Similarly, we judge (a) this is a concern of Members of Congress in re the Military Commission Bill; and (b) at the heart of this alleged cover-up in re the Foley Page scandal: Asserting that negligence is excellent and not a violation of the House rules. Kolbe's allegedly materially misleading, inconsistent, and non credible remarks deserve further inquiry by a Grand Jury, US Attorney, and the war crimes prosecutor to determine what other issues, legal issues, and concerns in re war crimes, FISA violations, and Geneva violations he and other members of Congress knew or should have known required attention.

Kolbe's responses and assertions are at odds with his demonstrated concerns and actions, warranting increased scrutiny:

___ Who else was doing the same;

___ What did they know about the FISA violations;

___ How was counsel brought into the nexus once Geneva and war crimes issues were raised; and

___ How did outside counsel recommend changes to the Military Commissions Immunity Provisions for purposes of DOJ Staff counsel defense before The Hague.

We judge Kolbe's responses were not prompt; his assumptions were not reasonable; and his beliefs as he asserted them did not correctly capture his real concerns and beliefs about what prompted him to discuss issues with Counsel.

Whether a Page, like a prisoner of war, is or is not subject to jurisdiction, is a legal issue which Kolbe does not appear qualified to assert, judge, or conclude. It remains to be seen how the Pages, like the Guantanamo Prisoners, were also asserted to have been "not subject" to the process, when Kolbe and others knew, or should have known that they were. Kolbe's actions fail to credibly communicate that he really believed he was doing the right thing. Rather, it appears he was concerned that his assertions would not be believed and that he had a legal duty to resolve the issue, but failed to act, as he should have done; and that he knew he wasn't doing the right thing. This appears to be no different than the alleged pattern of conduct Kolbe and both the DNC-GOP took on matters related to Title 28 and Title 50 reporting requirements, as in the statutes.

[34 of 91] We judge Kolbe's testimony is alleged perjury, and material information related to alleged war crimes evidence, and other alleged malfeasance which Members of Congress know, or should know, are war crimes related issues under Geneva, as per 5 USC 3331. The US Attorney needs to be brought into this nexus immediately.

[35 of 91] Note 109, War crimes prosecutors will want to examine the contracts which Members of Congress use to maintain home IT systems:
- How information was stored
- where backup emails are stored
- Records related to the IP, emails, and other communications intercepted by GCHQ, outside US control
- Evidence that Members of Congress knew of illegal activity, but illegally pretended the information was classified, when they knew, or should have known it was related to illegal activity

We judge the backup systems will show that Members of Congress well know, and discussed, the Military Commissions Bill, and this evidence could be presented after disclosed through WMD hearings by Westminster. All NSA and GCHQ personnel reviewing this information, or connected to the National Command Authority linked with the Mational Counter Terrorism Center [NCTC} should know that you are reading evidence of alleged war crimes related information; and this information must be immediately reported to your commanders. Failure to report this information could be grounds for a UCMJ court martial under the laws of war, and subject to prosecution before the Hague.

___ What is the plan of NSA and NSC to fully cooperate with the German war crimes prosecutors?

___ Which contractors have installed classified e-mail systems in US government employee homes so they can read Intel Link e-mails or other classified information at home?

[ 38 of 91 ] Where was the counseling for Foley? Note 125

[39 of 91] Conduct shown to cover back; yet assertions of no problem. Note 126. This is not consistent. Why wasn't this elevated?

[39 of 91 ] Note 127 -- Fordham claims nothing shard. Not credible. To say silent on an issue which he had personal knowledge defies reason. Never was there a situation where any issues related pages came up? This defies reason.

[39 of 91] Note 128 -- Van Der Meid was in a position to act, review, and get many inputs. Record suggests inaction. Same conduct appears to have been applied with FISA< NSA, and Rendition.

Note 131 -- Once aware of this incident outside the dorm, doesn't appear as though there was timely review of the matter. we judge the excuse of "appearance of discrimination against Foley" is a retroactively-devised excuse, as was the FISA-NSA justification for not complying with the law. Same retroactive excuse-generation machine.

[ 40 of 91 ] We doubt the credibility of Van Der Meid's assertion about mentoring at 133. Trandahl’s assertion of a clear line appears more credible, and Van Der Meid appears to have selectively asserted a convenient excuse, if not reconstructed. How many other issues did Van Der Meid handle the same in re Geneva, FISA, NSA, and Constitutional violations?

[ 40 of 91 ] Keep in mind, someone inside the WaPo was hearing something. If everyone is saying "We didn't tell anyone", how did the WaPo find out about this. Someone else must have known, or was involved; but relying on this testimony, we're asked to believe "nobody knew." The WaPo knew. It doesn't matter who told them; what matter is that the story doesn't add up. The witnesses would have us believe that the issue was closed/or resolved/or not mentioned; yet, they were concerned with the WaPo questions: It must have dawned on them: Despite our assertion that we didn't communicate, someone is talking. The story doesn't add up.

[40 of 91 ] Note 136 -- Assertion that someone was or wasn't "dealing" with the issue is not believable. Worry that someone was talking is an indication that that the issue was not being dealt with; was known not to be dealt with; and there were people talking about this who supposedly "had no way of knowing" despite the end of the conversations. Someone was talking, and this does not indicate the concerns were resolved, closed, or handled -- and they knew this at the time. 2006 representations cannot be believed. Forward to Grand Jury and war crimes prosecutors: Credible basis to believe Van Der Meid allegedly lied under oath. Van Der Meid's "impressions" are not believable.

"I don’t' even know what I could have done." -- Van Der Meid appears to have not be making a credible statement. Staff Counsel would know the law, have an understanding of legal issues, and would have to be in a position, at this pay grade, to seek legal assistance. We judge the assertion of feigned ignorance is material, and suggests a pattern of illegal conduct that Van Der Meid and others knew, or should have known in re FISA, NSA, Geneva violations that they should have consulted with on Congressional Staff counsel. Given Kolbe's statements in re attorneys it is most likely that Members of Congress and personnel like Van Der Meid could have easily discussed the issues, options, and legal strategies with senior personnel, sought counseling, or sought legal advise. Not knowing is not a credible assertion and a meaningless defense. Had a duty to find out, not claim ignorance.

___ When Van Der Meid and others were aware of reports of illegal conduct, did they not consider discussing the issues with Counsel? This is absurd. How much are they being paid to feign ignorance? This allegedly doesn't qualify as anything more than sheer mockery toward the investigators and criminal justice system.

[40 of 91] Note 140 -- Note the problem: Trandahl says he "believes" subsequent communications were related to original/prior events. There is in the mind of Trandahl a belief that there is a connection.

___ What did Trandahl rely on to reach this conclusion?

___ Was there something specific?

___ How was this concern documented?

___ If there was a link between these events, how can anyone argue that the matter was resolved?

___ If Trandhal "believes" something was related to a "visit", but nobody can remember that visit, why should we believe his belief is based on anything; he must have believed it for a reason, or is he asking us to believe there was a "connection" between two things which may not have been real? This is absurd.

[40 of 91] Note 141 -- Fordham and Trandhal are frustrated. When did they meet to share their concerns; and how did the private e-mails to members of Congress reflect this frustration?

___ How was Van Der Meid, if at all, part of the brainstorming sessions with Trandhal and Fordham?

___ What did Trandhal and Fordham share with Van Der Meid by way of solutions?

___ Once Van Der Meid indicated (paraphrasing) had "no ideas" what to do, did Trandhal and Fordham bother to get back to Van Der Meid to share their "new ideas"?

___ What were the "new ideas" that Fordham and Trandhal discussed? When did they review the House Ethics Manual, or the standards of conduct; or Title 41 reporting requirements to the US Attorney?

[41 of 91] Did the WaPo reporter surface during this conversation?

[42 of 91] War crimes prosecutors: there were weekly whip meetings. See Note 145.

[42 of 91] The meeting appears to have started early because they believed they well knew the issues; or the meeting never occurred, and Trandhal was not invited because the meeting was fabricated. The conversation could have been by e-mail on the phone, and they may not have necessarily met as they stated in testimony. Note 150.

[43 of 91] Palmer appears to have little motivation to deny a meeting that is of little consequence: The conduct was well known, and whether the other meeting did or didn't take place hardly seems (at this juncture) the relevant issue: Regardless whether there was or wasn't a meeting, what other conversations should have triggered an action? That is the problem: There were too many assertions that things were closed; but now we're asked to believe that people had unresolved concerns. This isn't adding up.

[44 of 91] Note 153 Whether the meeting did or didn't occur is not as important as the larger issue: Kolbe and others were already allegedly talking to counsel, worried out the WaPo. Even if there was a meeting, Kolbe and other Members of Congress knew enough to have mentioned lawyers; it is not appropriate to rely on the good graces of Staff to make Members of Congress do something when it is the Members of Congress who allegedly know of the problem, but have not done what they should. This goes back to Kolbe and whether he reasonably closed out the issue. Whether Staff did or didn't tell him is meaningless -- Kolbe and others knew enough to talk to Counsel; and had information (from somewhere) that the WaPo was reviewing the issue.

[44 of 91] Koble interactions with Trandhal; we find out Kolbe is interacting with the pages. Perhaps Koble has something else he's concerned about, and the reason he's very familiar with counsel and WaPo. Trandhal appears to have well communicated to many people connected to Kolbe for Kolbe not to have through about the issue [See notes 92 and 94]

[45 of 91] Note 155 -- Koble is saying "mind their own business" on something that the WaPo had asked about; and Koble apparently discussed with counsel. What is Koble's motivation here to thwart review; and what is the larger legal issue Kolbe is hoping to deflect attention from?

[47 of 91] Inadvertent disclosures: War crimes prosecutors. Note 164 indicates that Members of Congress staff communicate using e-mail to lobbyists. This means the alleged evidence of pre 2002 Iraq invasion planning is allegedly housed in computers outside US government control, and is not protected by privilege. Under Executive orders, information related to illegal activity as it relates to FISA-Verizon-NSA cannot lawfully be classified. Note 164 is a fatal admission that former Members of Congress or their staff were in a position to work with personnel who were both inside and outside the Congress on issues allegedly related to Iraq WMD, FISA, Verizon, NARUS STA, Terremark, NARUS STA 6400, Abraxas, Rendition, contactors used to detain prisoners, and Boeing who was instrumental in coordinating movement of CIA personnel and contractors to support the rendition effort.

[47 of 91[ "are you showing these e-mails to anyone?" -- Was this question prompted by the WaPo questions; and what other communications were similarly of concern related to alleged sensitive information, government decisions, or other things that have been disclosed? Once the information is disclosed, it can no longer be claimed to be related to a government decision and is not privileged. Note the statement does not say that it is a requirement that the information be classified; it is only a request, and not apparently linked with a formal contractor-Government confidentiality agreement.

___ What prompted the alarm?

___ Was there a reason for this concern?

[47 of 91] Note the forwarding to the House Democratic Caucus and to another lobbyist. This is important to consider when reviewing the linkages between lobbyists, contractors, Members of Congress, and the reporting issues. Once war crimes related evidence is obtained, the information doesn’t sit there; at some point counsel would be brought into the nexus.

___ What can Westminster shed light on in re the 2002 pre-invasion planning; and how were lobbyists and counsel involved in the discussions?

[47 of 91] Note also at note 166 that Miller is with the Democratic Caucus, indicating that there were two channels into the DNC, and this was not a unique GOP issue under the Speaker. Was this when Koble was concerned? [Need a better timeline of the overall communications; use a schedule chart this verbal/narrative is not going to work in Germany.]

___ What was the basis for Miller to conclude "nothing would come" of a discussion with the Page Board/Committee on Standards?

___ Did Miller have experience in this area?

___ Was there a reputation that nothing would be done?

___ What basis was Miller making the conclusions that there was "not evidence the commission of a crime"?

___ What prevented Miller from forwarding them to Law Enforcement for a review to see if there were other reports related to a similar pattern of conduct?

___ Did Miller not consider this option?

___ What made Miller do the following inconsistent action: (a) Assert nothing would be done (implying he had experience); yet (b) asserting that law enforcement might want to see them -- was Miller aware of the issue from another source; and given his reluctance to believe the Page Board would so something, why not go to the Press?

___ If Miller was convinced that nothing would come of the visits to the Page board and Committee of Standards, is Miller saying that he knew of something that would have gotten in the way that law enforcement might want to be aware?

[48 of 91] What Miller didn't know was that other Members of The Democratic Caucasus, other than Miller, had gotten the information, note 169.

[48 of 91] Note 173 Foley "spoke with the reporter personally" -- how was this determined if Foley was not available for the Committee questions?

___ How does Miller know this?

___ How does Miller, in the DNC, know what someone in the GOP is or isn't doing?

___ This isn't adding up: Why should we believe Miller's telling of the events, given Koble's apparent-alleged perjury?

[49 of 91] War crimes prosecutors: Notice Alexander got a call from the Reporter. This means that someone has communicated from the Government to the press with information about a formerly assigned government employee.

___ How often is this happening?

___ Which Member of Congress or staff gave the reporter the identifying information of the page?

[49 of 91] War crimes prosecutor, Note 178 -- This will give you an idea of the e-mail retention, what is kept, how long it is kept, and whether subsequent information has been retained in a different matter. [Alleged evidence destruction members of Congress/Staff/Counsel knew and allegedly destroyed in re FISA, Rendition, NSA, Geneva, and other alleged illegal conduct.]

[50 of 91] "Did not have to talk to the reporter." Note 180. What role did legal counsel have in this communication; and was the aim to suppress evidence, in a like matter related to questions related to other evidence?

___ How frequently are Members of Congress, Staff, and Counsel calling civilians to suggest they do not need to talk to the Press on issues of FISA, NSA, war crimes, rendition, or other alleged war crimes?

[50 of 91] Note 181 Alleged witness tampering.

___ Who is attempting to leave the impression that something is not an issue?

___ How would this communication affect testimony on other legal issues?

___ Was the communication made known to the Speaker?

___ What induced Alexander to comment that this was not an issue?

___ How are "partisan" issues painted as "something we can't dare do" as an excuse not to act?

___ Who has called Members of Congress to suggest that inquiry, review, and keeping options on the table is a "partisan" issue?

___ Why should we believe the polls that say, "there is no support" when the legal issues related to impeachment have not been fully investigated by the war crimes prosecutors?

[50 of 91] Note 182, even if there had been a request by the father not to review the matter, what would this have done?

___ Why is a Member of Congress or Staff Member making a decision about what would "creditably" reflect well on Congress; but that decision is the wishes of a parent?

___ How can a parent credibly be given the power to decide or not decide whether an alleged criminal matter would or would not be investigated?

___ What relevance does a parent's opinion on a political-legal-staff conduct issue have with respect to the House rules?

Answer: Nothing.

The Staff member told the family that the issue was "partisan" (when it may be legal) they were not in a fully informed decision to state whether the matter should or should not be pursued.

Alexander's staff appears to have created the false impression that a potential criminal matter was a political issue; then asked the family to make an irrelevant decision not to peruse the matter.

This suggests there was a scheme to induce the family to refuse; then use that refusal as an excuse not to have taken appropriate action. This is not a credible legal position to justify or defend negligence, alleged malfeasance, or other violations of the House rules. Rather, it suggests Alexandar's staff discussed a course of action to dissuade action, suppress the information, and create a false impression in the mind of the (uninformed) family that the issue was something else; then use their refusal.


___ Since when is a family member's input trumping the Speaker’s responsibility to mange affairs of the Article I branch in the House?

This is absurd. The motivation of the Alexander staff appears connected to a larger objective; and appears to be a normal course of business for damage control.

___ How was this approach used by the DNC and GOP to jointly dissuade reporting comments, and information from Contractors related to FISA violations, NARUS STA, NSA abuses, rendition, Geneva, and alleged war crimes?

[51 of 91] Note 184 -- Inducing the knowledgeable to plead for silence.

___ How are NSA contractors, NARUS employees, Abraxas Personnel, Members of Terremark, and other contractors allegedly linked with Boeing, SAIC, and the CIA in re Rendition similarly dissuaded from discussing legal issues related to alleged war crimes?

___ Which contract terms part of the descriptive summaries and DoD-NSA-CIA contracts are using language that bar discussion of illegal activity, in violation of ORCON?

___ Are the CIA public affairs personnel, formerly assigned to Cheney's office, using the same language when calling CIA-DoD-NSA contractors when dissuading discussion on innuendo?

___ How have the SAIC personnel reviewed their legal obligations under the laws of war, Geneva, and the precedents from Nuremburg to conclude whether they should ignore the CIA requests for silence; or whether they have a legal obligation to fully cooperate?

___ Does Boeing have an explanation why it is ignorant on a matter, but it still discusses the issues of Rendition with the open media?

[51 of 91] "Alleviating media pressure"

___ Note 185: What kind of questions from the war crimes prosecutor were deemed to be "pressure" that would induce Members of Congress, Staff, and contractors to ask for assistance?

___ How were these concerns instrumental in Members of Congress asking for a Military Commissions Bill immunity for alleged war crimes, illegal prisoner abuse, and other Geneva violations 2001-2006?

___ What would tell members of Congress that there was a likelihood of prosecution?

___ Did the lobbyist contractors discuss with Members of Congress their concerns that the Boeing-related prisoner shipments could be ultimately prosecuted by The Hague?

[51 of 91] Suggested media Statement

___ How did DoJ prepare a statement for Verizon, AT&T, and other NSA contractors in re the NARUS STA 6400 information?

___ Did DoJ Legislative Liaison or a DoJ Contractor develop the "suggested media statement" asserting no problem?

___ Why does the DOJ suggested statement not match what the Verizon General counsel told Mr. Cowie in re NSA access to the facility?

___ Why is the NSA-DoJ suggested statement on the Verizon-AT&T assistance to AT&T not match what the Verizon General counsel sent in an e-mail to Mr. Cowie?

___ How does the NSA-DoJ explain the existence of the Terremark and Amdocs personnel on the Verizon Internal E-mail system; and these contractors can be linked to Boeing, SAIC, and the NSA Embassy Fiber optics communication systems connected to the State Department, Milan, and the communications in and out of the NSA into Milan, Italy?

[51 of 91] The suggested statement does not contain information which the family would have known.

___ Where did Alexandar's office get this information?

___ How was this "additional information" gleaned?

___ When did the Alexander office acquire this information?

___ What was the source of this additional information?

___ How did the additional information confirm or contradict Kolbe's assertions at notes 92 and 94?

Similarly, when the Verizon and AT&T issued their public denials, what was done when the presented information was not consistent with the known e-mails between the Verizon General Counsel and Cowie?

___ Which e-mails naming Terremark, Amdocs, and listing AT&T within the Verizon system were delegated?

___ Why is the public e-mail no longer listed, but the e-mails linking NSA, SAID, Terremark, and other NSA contractors appear on the NCTC training rosters?

[51 of 91] Speaker directs Clerk to address issue. This is the same clerk that ran out of ideas.

___ What did the clerk do when notified of the requirement, but they had already stated they had no ideas of what to do?

___ When was the Speaker informed the clerk had already thrown their hands up in their, and had no idea what to do?

[52 of 91] "Trying to protect the privacy of the page" at 187 is not believable. This sounds too good to be true. Alexander had already allegedly mislead the family and was well aware of the real motivation behind the alleged misrepresentations to the family: To dissuade publicity on a matter than was not only criminal, but would reflect poorly on Congress for not having handled.

___ The assertion of "concern" is not believable and should be rejected, and form the basis for increased inquiry by the war crimes prosecutor. Far too convenient and not credible.

[52 of 91] "We know" is judged to be a deliberate effort to create the false impression that the Speaker would do something; while the person who made the statement was allegedly involved in an effort to do the opposite: Kill the inquiry, hide the evidence, and prevent disclosure of the other lines of evidence.

We judge "we know" is designed to mislead the outside parties and imply action that was not intended to be taken.

Having someone call from the Clerks office (the same place that round out of ideas) does not suggest that they were resolving anything, but attempting damage control.

Notice there have been multiple calls to the family, an incorrect press statement, and someone inside the GOP and Speakers officer was part of the discussions on how to manage this situation. Multiple calls, we judge, were designed to insulate the Speaker, and make the unprepared public the object of the attention. This is a classic DC-approach to crisis management: Smokescreens.

[52 of 91] Stokke's assertion is not believable. Saying "no responsibility" is not consistent with his "intention" to do something.

___ Why is Stokke attempting to achieve an outcome that is not something he is responsible for?

___ What was the motivation of Sokke to be this interested in the matter?

___ When did Stokke discuss the issues with the GOP and Speaker's staff on the delay in action?

It is more likely that the intention was not to end inappropriate contact, but to end inconvenient attention. The only catalyst, unlike the staff communications, was the media attention. Same problem with FISA, NSA, Rendition, abuse, and war crimes: Failed US government leadership in both parties to do what they should, unless there is oversight by We the People. Utterly reckless and despicable.

[52 of 91] suddenly Van Der Meid, the alleged ignorant one, now has an idea of what to do. [Note 191]

___ How did Van Der Meid suddenly come up with this idea?

___ How did Van Der Meid, allegedly an ignorant idiot who had nothing to contribute, no has an idea?

___ Where did this wisdom come from?

___ Who spoke to Van Der Meid to infuse upon the brain of the alleged buffoon the clarity that was otherwise formerly filled with nothing but alleged ignorance?

[53 of 91] Stokke shows interest, but says the Speaker wasn't informed. This is irrelevant, the Speaker had already been told. This is a complete mess. there is no credible timeline of communications; when things were happening. The inquiry shows no evidence of having looked at an y central e-mail system within the Speaker's office tracing events, information, status, or how issues are being resolved.

War crimes prosecutors will want to understand what system should be in place to fully comply with Geneva; and how the e-mail systems to Members of Congress (at their home) could only be supported by a commutation system and tracking system that is far more complicated than what we've been led to believe doesn't exist in re Foley.

___ How does the Speaker track legal issues in re FISA, NSA, Geneva, and other legal requirements under 5 USC 3331?

___ What system does the Speakers legal advisors muse to track legal issues to see that they are appropriately monitored, tracked, and resolved?

[53 of 91] "No notes or memoranda were prepared within the Speaker's office"

___ How was the staff organized to work with the Clerks office?

___ Where id Van Der Meid get the information related to the "idea"?

Conclusion: It is not credible that there were "no notes or memoranda." Someone was discussing the legal issues with counsel; and these are related to issues which have been subsequent disclosed. They are not protected and may be introduced as evidence to the war crimes prosecutor: Evidence related to illegal activity may not be classified; and the disclosure of the evidence, even inadvertent, as is the case here, is admissible. It is not credible that there were "no notes"--the notes could only be within the Speaker's legal office, but were connected to post-decision related communications, transmissions, and e-mails directed at the family.

___ Where did the draft press release come from if there were "no notes"?

___ How can anyone claim that there were "no notes" when the family was given information on a piece of paper that was above and beyond what they knew?

___ Which e-mail within the Speakers' office did Alexander used to crate the public statement for the family?

___ Who in the Speakers office reviewed the statement?

___ How was Kolbe and other Members of Congress involved?

___ Did the Washington Post raise questions about a copy of this draft press release which the Speaker and Other members of Congress should have known about?

We judge the representations at note 199 are false, materially misleading, and fail to account for the lobbyist-related information that had already been provided to the GOP. Something is linking the information from Alexander to the family; and the notifications in the Speakers’ office. Van Der Meid must have been given the idea from somewhere. Which e-mail and staff counsel did Van Der Meid review?

[54 of 91] "Regardless of how the matter had been referred to Trandhal" -- this is important and should have been resolved.

For anyone to say that they were going to "resolve" the issue (the things that Kolbe said were resolved but were not, at 92 and 94), without documentation where is there any reason to believe that anyone was serious about doing anything?

This isn't adding up. Someone documented new information in the press release to the family.

___ Where did that new information come from?

___ How was it routed through the Speakers Office?

___ When did Van Der Meid review this e-mail and public release comment?

___ How did Van Der Meid have an "idea" of something, when previously was at a loss?

There had to have been a commutation; but the Committee Concluded there was no documentation nor memoranda. This is not credible.

These timelines, conversations, and information flows are not adding up. If you map the timelines out, you'll see the disconnect. The family was given information after it was disclosed; but we're asked to believe that the Speaker after these events never had a memoranda. Impossible. Can’t have something documented, but then have it disappear.

___ Who inside the Speaker's office, connected to Van Der Meid, reviewed the information to add the subsequent information which the family didn't know about?

___ How could this have been done before (in writing), but the Speaker says that subsequently -- information that his staff would have had to be aware -- was suddenly not aware?

___ How does anyone explain information in a press release/comment for a family that was generated with new information and on paper; but Alexander and nobody else can point to any review showing who did or didn't confirm Kolbe's timelines; nor match those with what was supposedly "never documented" in the Speaker's office?

___ When was it known-asserted that there was nothing in the Speaker's office?

___ How does Alexander explain the release of the new information, that was supposedly on an e-mail, but Kolbe is concerned enough to have an attorney?

___ Was Kolbe concerned bout something that was "not documented"; or was the Washington Post reviewing something that was "not documented"?

___ How can Kolbe be concerned about an issue that there was supposedly no timeline, nothing linking him to the issues, and the issues were resolved; yet Van Der Meid is still spending time on an non-documented issue, get a new idea, and then out of the blue has a suggestion?

[54 of 91] Notice the contrast at 203. Previously, staff contacted the family with the suggested press release, and raised questions and issues, placing in the mind of the family that something might be released. The family was led to believe this was a partisan matter. Now the story is reversed; rather than admitting that the source of the idea (alleged witness tampering) was Alexander; staff is suggesting the opposite: that the idea is from the family.

___ Why is the Representative responding to "family concerns" not with the higher concern with the reputation of the House?

In reality, the concern has nothing to do with the family or with the standards of conduct, but with the public revelations in the media.

[54 of 91] Note 204 -- Trandhals notes on an piece of paper. Trandhals notes had information that would have come from, wait for it, not necessarily a direct observation of the e-mail, but perhaps a conversation about the e-mails with the media or someone else.

___ Did Trandhal not have a copy of the e-mails?

___ Who in the media was Trandhal talking to when he made these notes?

___ Was there a speaker phone?

___ Who else was in the room during the meeting whether Trandhal allegedly discussed the e-mails with the reporter?

___ What kind of relationship did Trandhal have with the reporter to suggest that making notes on the issue was good enough; and that direct observation of the e-mails was not required?

___ How were these notes related to the reporter-Member of Congress commendations ten used by Alexander to draft the suggested release?

___ Is Trandhal saying that his notes were never looked at by anyone in the Speaker's office?

___ Could the notes have been copied and stored at a lobbyist’s office?

___ Who was Trandhal talking to when he made these notes?

___ Which meeting were these notes from?

___ When was the Speaker or the staff involved with this meeting?

___ Who attended this meeting?

___ Why would Trandhal make notes on this issue, but nothing else?

___ Is Trandhal asking us to believe that this was a new issue that warranted notes; but other situations didn't warrant notes?

___ Why would Trandhal make a point of making notes at this point of the chain of events; but the Speaker and other who may have spoken with Trandhal have nothing?

___ Who was at the meeting where Trandhal reviewed this piece of paper, made additional markings, or shared the notes?

[54 of 91] Look closely at Note 204. "Trandhal does not recall. . ." Yet, notice what's on the piece of paper: Words related to the Foley e-mails.

___ How does Trandhal explain the problem and inconsistency: Words on the paper related directly to the words in the e-mail; but Trandhal says he did see the e-mail?

___ Who was looking at the e-mail when Trandhal wrote these notes?

___ Was someone in the speaker's office looking at copies of the email and telling Alexander how to craft the press release?

___ Which of the Speakers General counsels was discussing the contents of the e-mail with Trandhal?

___ Did the Speakers' General counsel know that Trandhal was going to disclose this piece of paper; but then contradict himself by saying that he never saw the e-mails containing these words?

___ Who inside the Speakers’ office reviewed the e-mails and was discussing them with Trandhal and Alexander?

[55 of 91] Based on the above, it's too early to conclude whether any of these statements on this page are reliable. Too many people are claiming ignorance on things that were supposedly written down in Trandahl's notes; or included in the suggested release to the Family. This isn't adding up. Someone appears to be lying.

The fact that there is a convoluted trail, inconsistent statements, and no clear timeline of what happened suggests the Committee Threw up its hands and didn't want to deal with the real issues. This is very poor quality for an investigation report.

[55 of 91] Note 210-- resolved to satisfaction of page parents. Irrelevant. The attention should have been on Foley. It was not. Shimkus' comments at note 212 are irrelevant; parents have no saying whether the House is or is not acting properly. The duty of the Members of Congress is not to find an excuse to explain away alleged negligence; the duty is to focus on Foley, regardless the family being misinformed or allegedly tampered with as a witness.

___ How did Shimkus report this "resolution" to the Speaker who had otherwise directed Van Der Mied and/or The Clerk to take the lead on resolving this issue?

___ Did Shimkus get back with the Speaker to state how it was resolved?

___ How were the notes which Trandhal had explained or reconciled?

___ How could the House argue the matter was handled with discretion given the Media had been asking questions about it?

___ What assurances did the Speaker have that the resolution of this matter would not generate more media questions?

___ What was the plan to handle additional media questions?

___ When did this conversation take place?

___ Which subsequent notes or memos were made and released to the media related to the anticipated questions on this matter?

___ No Congressional correspond log calls related to any questions?

[56 of 91] Kidlee, note 213

___ How did Kidlee enter the conversation?

___ What information was Kidlee not provided by the DNC?

___ Did the GOP staffers believe that Kidlee would only get information from the GOP?

___ Did the GOP not realize that GOP staffers had worked with outside contractors to forward the information to the DNC?

___ Why was there any assumption that Kidlee did not already have the information through DNC sources or DNC-connected lobbyists?

___ Why are Shimkus and Capitol arguing that a minority party member should not be made aware of something that the minority party already knew?

[57 of 91] Note 218. E-mail allegedly sent, not known.

___ Was there no record of this e-mail having been opened, read, or deleted in any file, server, or IT system?

[58 of 91] Note 223.

___ How did the committee reconcile the differences in testimony?

___ No need to have recommendations for better documentation?

___ Other thoughts on what the Congressional leadership should do to better mange the information?

___ No discussion?

[59 of 91] See 226, "in my point of view" doesn't follow. Sounds like Hastert was advised by counsel to add this as a rejoinder. Almost as if an after thought. Reread it again, and you'll see it doesn't flow. Something was going through Hastert’s mind while this was going on.

Something is really not adding up with this entire chain of events.

Saying "in my point of view" appears to have been after a slight pause; and appears to have followed (what Hastert appears to have thought) was a certain statement about what should or should not be appropriate. It appears as though the "in my view" comment was added because Hastert had been coached by counsel to qualify statements where the original statement may have been interpreted as an opinion.

In the case of this phrase on page 59, note carefully the relevant contrasting comments on page 53 (in re the lack of documentation). The two statements do not reconcile.

First, let's take Hastert’s statements on page 59 at face value: That the Speaker had a view that discussing this issue on the House Floor was not appropriate. In light of the information from page 53 (where there were not memoranda), we should follow up with the Speaker's comments on page 59:

___ If discussing this issue on the House floor was not appropriate, why would discussing it somewhere else be more appropriate?

___ What made a short conversation about this subject in the open inappropriate; but a private discussion would be more appropriate?

___ What was going to happen in a "more appropriate" forum that would not happen here?

By asserting that "this forum" (the Floor of the House) was not appropriate, Hastert would have us believe that somewhere else was more appropriate because of something specific:

- More conversation
- More open discussion
- A method to have staff involved
- A place to document things

Yet, based on the testimony before us, despite the opportunity for Hastert to have done things in the "more appropriate" forum:
- there is no documentation [Page 53];
- staff were not making headway
- staff were running out of ideas
- Outside parties in the DNC had no confidence that even the Page Board or Ethics Committee was going to be able to do anything.

Getting back to Hastert’s assertion on page 59 that the House for was implicitly the "wrong" forum to discuss this, there's no evidence to suggest any other forum, if it had been used, would have generated any different result:
- Ignoring the information
- Doing nothing
- Not documenting the information
- Doing something different

Rather, it is because the information was presented on the Floor that we implicitly conclude that this was the required threshold to get Hastert to respond in light of the Media coverage. Before this disclosure on the open House floor, Hastert and his staff do not appear to have taken the issue seriously; there was reported to be no documentation; or any General counsel documentation related to this matter has been suppressed and not revealed.

We argue that raising this issue, in the wake of the media coverage, on the House Floor was exactly what Hastert needed, and for Hastert to suggest that it was not appropriate is not credible. Rather, it was only when the issue was brought into the open that Hastert might have had some pressure to do something.

Again, the comments on 53 and 59 need to be carefully contrasted and presented for Hastert's comments under oath by the war crimes prosecutor in light of the FISA, NSA, Constitutional, and Geneva Conventions:

___ Which forum was a serious legal matter considered appropriate

___ Why does someone have to publicly mention a serious issue before the Speaker will respond

___ What would be a more appropriate form to discuss a serious legal issue

___ What were the reasons that a specific forum would be more or less appropriate than another

___ Why would comments on the floor not be appropriate

___ Was there a concern that one of the pages, clerks, or legislative aids would over hear an issue related to a serious legal matter

___ Might the Speaker or someone else be concerned that the public commentary on a serious legal issue like war crimes, FISA violations, or Geneva violations might be recorded or commented in the Congressional record

___ If all previous staff counsel attempts to raise this issue, but were supposedly not documented, why would it not be appropriate to use this forum?

___ If the Speaker, Staff counsel, and others were supposedly not taking notes at his office, why is the Speaker arguing that another form might be more appropriate

___ Why bother having the conversation in another location, off the floor, were there were not notes?

___ How can anyone argue that another forum, other than the floor, where there were not notes, would be better

___ What form would the Speaker have considered an appropriate form, despite his staff counsel and peers being unable to penetrate the Speakers’ consciousness in these other forms?

___ If there were no notes being taken, what basis is the Speaker arguing that the "other forum" (whatever that might be) would be more appropriate; yet in neither forum there are no notes being taken?

___ Why should we consider, even if the issue were raised in another forum, why Hastert or anyone was going to do anything if there were supposedly not notes being taken?

___ Why should anyone believe that anyone was taking the issue seriously, given the asserted lack of documentation and memoranda?

___ What are the supposed benefits of the alternative forum

___ Why should we believe that these reasons were not retroactively devised, as was done with FISA-NSA violations, because the original course of conduct was not consistent with the legal and fiduciary obligations?

"In my view" is a legal disclaimer after the fact

___ What was the speaker’s reasons for adding this at the end of his comment, not putting the qualification at the beginning?

___ Did Hastert realize that he had made a decision based on what would or would not be appropriate, but had not enforced this standard of conduct through an official policy

___ Where in the House rules or precedents is Hastert pointing to as what would or would not be an appropriate alternative, yet there was no plan to take notes or make memoranda of this side meeting

___ Who did Hastert have in mind would be attending the alternative forum?

___ If Hastert and the Staff have no documentation, why would another location be more appropriate than any other?

___ How would the lack of media coverage have changed Hastert's response: Until the floor confrontation, Hastert did not appear to either respond, or document the issues.

___ Did Hastert have a plan to change the forum

___ How was Hastert going to ensure that the alternate forum was discussed

___ What was Hastert’s plan to follow up with a more appropriate forum

___ Was there every any consideration to using the classified briefing center that the Committees can use to share sensitive information

___ If we are to believe that this issue was sensitive and warranted a "more appropriate" forum, what was the reason that Van Der Mied or others did not tell Hastert that there was a classified briefing going to be presented on this subject, and it relates to a national security matter?

___ What was Hastert's plan to make sure the change in location to present the information was more appropriate

___ At the alternate location, what was Hastert going to do differently: Was he going to ask more questions; was he going to start documenting things

___ How was Hastert proposing to start doing what he had not been doing -- start documenting, recording, and memorializing the information in the more appropriate location?

Concerns With Discrimination

The House leaders and the Committee have been sharing the apparent conclusion that the negligence was explainable by the common concern that there would be some sort of discrimination against Foley.

However, there is a problem with this assertion. For the entire House leadership to arrive at this conclusion -- as the joint agreement as t basis for inaction -- there would have to be a common meeting, agreement, and consensus.

Yet, the House Committee Report says that the witnesses were dissuaded from meeting and sharing their notes or views. Further, the evidence and testimony as presented in summary format in this report paint an entirely different picture: Nobody was on the same line of evidence, nor were the stories consistent.

The Committee would ask that were believe two conclusions that are not consistent. Either:

1. Nobody was coordinated on the issue, and this was the basis for the negligence; or

2. Everyone was in agreement that negligence was appropriate because of the common agreement of a concern with a perception of discrimination against Foley.

The second assertion is absurd; and the first does not bring credit upon the House. Rather, there is no evidence that all the players ever agreed to anything. there is no basis for anyone to credibly assert that they were arguing for inaction because of a shared "concern" with anything. The concern was not with Foley, nor with the page, but with the House leadership and the GOP control on power. Indeed, the GOP well knew the problem: The negligence was not simply about pages, but about many other issues that were similarly not documented as they should have been.

The only way all witnesses could jointly agree to anything, and do nothing, for the same reasons was in spite of any agreement, but the opposite: A failure of leadership to ensure that they were on the same sheet of music. The only way to agree to do nothing for the same reasons (despite the inconsistent memories of the witnesses) is to believe there existed a super-ordinate agreement with a common objective to do nothing.

This may have existed, as evidenced by the failure of congress to not address FISA, Geneva, and other unconstitutional conduct.

- -

Once the GOP refused to talk to the DNC's Kidlee, claming he would "blow it out of proportion", there still existed a duty to other Page Board Members: A duty to communicated; a duty to share information; and a duty to the pages.

There is a reasonable basis to question the House conclusions. There should be meaningful, lawful sanctions by We the People for the House leadership on both sides of the aisle to communicate on issues which they knew, or should have known about. There are specific rules to the Page board; and there are also legal basis to review th4e adequacy of the plans, especially in light of the problems from the 1960s and 1970s.

The page Board Members serve at the pleasure of the Speaker; the Minority Leader also has input, and this input is recognized under Title 2 of the US Code. Once this conduct was known, it remains a question for both Hastert and Pelosi to publicly discuss why they did not change, replace, or more closely monitor the people they were instrumental in assigning to the page board.

___ When would Pelosi have known after the DNC had been notified by e-mail from the DNCC?

___ What are the chains of events inside each of the GOP and DNC Party offices with respect to commendations on this issue?

___ How were the outside e-mails to DNC and GOP Members of Congress and staff relayed through lobbyists and to the media?

The issue is not simply the pages. The question is what were the timelines, patterns of communications, and the legal requirements under the Statute. Broadening the pattern of communication, we would have to consider the similar responses in light of the FISA, NSA, and Geneva violations as they should have been reported, communicated, and shared within the GOP and DNC after the Title 28 and Title 50 requirements were known, discussed, and shared through the open media.

Someone in the GOP and DNC knew, or should have known about the original requirements. On the basis of the information on page 53, combined with Hastert's comments on page 59, we judge that the General Counsel in both the DNC and GOP Parties well knew of the legal implications connected to war crimes, and were instrumental in working with lobbyists to approve the langue in the Military Commissions Bill. Members of Congress, through their private home e-mails are believed to have illegally coordinated this abrogation of the Geneva Conventions; and we judge there are likely lines of evidence which CIA, Abraxas, and Terremark well know prompted Fleishman Hilliard to become alarmed once the issue of NARUS STA 6400, NSA, and AT&T potential war crimes in re rendition was disclosed.

Fleishman Hilliard has multi-state operations. It was when the AT&T linkage with potential rendition issues which sparked concern throughout the contracting community. Based on information which the NSA does not have, we judge it is the contractor concern that they could be implicated in war crimes in re rendition, and linked with the illegal surveillance that prompted the lobbyists working for these DoD-NSA-CIA contractors to work with Members of Congress who they knew shared a common problem: They had not timely responded to the Title 28 and Title 50 reporting as required.

The German War Crimes prosecutor has access to the Abraxas IP numbers, as well as the Fleishman Hilliard contract language which prevents disclosure; and is well aware of the change in location of the prisoners after Hamdan. It is also known that Addington did not want to change because he allegedly feared the change in position would be an admission of the original wrong.

Small problem. Terremark, NARUS, Boeing, and MIT shared their conference notes prior to and after the 2006 Conference in Hawaii. This all links back to the NSA, CIA, and the domestic surveillance activity which DHS was using as a basis to detain American civilians, interrogate them without warrants, and then move personnel to secret locations out of their home jurisdictions into either Virginia or Europe.

The problem Boeing, Fleishman Hilliard, Abraxas, Terremark, AT&T, NARUS, and the NSA have is that they've openly disclosed in e-mails to and from Verizon the names of contractors who attended courses with the NSA; shared common travel budget codes; and they similarly were in a position to well understand the implications of the alleged illegal activity: There were well known violations of the 5100.77 Laws of War Program.

The problem the Members of Congress and contractors allegedly involved with illegal war crimes is that you failed to review something very simple: The Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that would have been generated; were not timely reviewed; and were never properly documented as the Minority Members of Congress had the power to do when sharing their concerns with the Attorney General, Inspector General, or other staff counsel. Either

1. Members of Congress are rewarding negligence in the case of Foley because the issues related to large patterns of negligence in re war crimes, FISA, and Geneva violations on top of FISA; or

2. Private contractors were well aware of the illegal activity, and knew that Members of Congress were not documenting problems as required; or

3. Members of Congress and the contractors allegedly jointly know about the gag orders illegal preventing contractors from discussing the evidence that should have been reported in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; or

4. Members of Congress and contractors jointly agreed to illegally self-delegate to Congress a pardon power We the People never delegated to Congress with the hopes of promising not to impeach the President, and secure an agreement to have no legal consequences for 5100.77 violations.

These are matters of criminal law. These are issues of war crimes. Contractors working in Fleishman Hilliard know full well the potential legal issues related to their alleged support for, silence on, and complicity with the AT&T wire tapping program.

The German and Italian war crimes prosecutors know. Now the American public and world community knows the real reasons why Members of Congress have jointly agreed to celebrate negligence. The conduct does not reflect well on the House, the US financial reporting system, or the American nation. Rather, it sends a signal that US government officials and contractors, when in a bind, will destroy a document, put illegal agreements before their legal obligations, and will agree to remain silent on matters that they know, or should know are very serious matters.

Turning back to the Committee, it is a serious matter when a duly appointed attorney has no followed up on Kolbe points at notes 92 and 94. German war crimes prosecutors are expected to have full access to the entire record. These are allegedly related to war crimes, and cannot lawfully be protected, hidden, or classified.

Notes 92 and 94 are fatal admissions wholly undermining the House Committee Conclusions, and reasonable adverse inferences can be made, warranting The Hague to review these matters, and understand the larger pattern of conduct behind the alleged agreement between the White House, Members of Congress, and contractors to remain silent about the NSA tapping program which illegally violated US citizens privacy, gathered information in violation of FISA, and illegally used that information to support Boeing scheduling, and transport of CIA contractors which Abraxas knew or should have known were well connected with illegally acquired information gleaned through Terremark then transferred for interrogations in Virginia, Poland, Romania, and other NAVAL floating vessels around the globe.

These are serious matters. You are advised to seek counsel. Using methods with the NSA cannot detect, it is well known the GCGHQ intercepts can broaden the support for the German War Crimes prosecutors. This evidence should be presented to Germany by the end of this week, NLT 17 Dec 2006. If the information is not provided, and the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors are not fully supported, all US Contractors allegedly complicity with this illegal activity will be formally on notice that you remain lawful targets for war crimes retaliation using any and all lawful methods which foreign fighter may choose to use.

Either you enforce the Geneva Conventions and work to see that the violations are appropriately prosecuted; or foreign fighters shall continue ramping up combat operations at US Contractors and American military and diplomatic interests. The choice lies with the House leadership. Once you choose to take impeachment off the table, you are implicitly doing exactly what was doing in Yugoslavia: Refusing to assert the rule of law. Foreign fighters, under the laws of war, when not fully supported in their efforts to prosecute war crimes in a judicial forum, may lawfully expand combat operations and commit like violations of Geneva against those who allegedly are instrumental in executing those orders, carrying them out, and failing to prevent them.

For the Sergeant at Arms in the House and Senate: You have a legal problem. You have the power to seize the gavel and ensure the House and Senate fully cooperate with the war crimes prosecutor. Your decision is up for you to make. You are not under duress, nor are you under any specific threat. However, as with Yugoslavia, take careful looks at the Geneva Conventions and ensure your staff are well aware of your legal obligations under Geneva and the SecDef 5100.77 Laws of War Program.

Members of Congress and DoD-NSA-CIA contractors have been implicated in an alleged conspiracy to defy the Supreme Law, not assert their oath, and remain silent and willfully negligent on serious matter related to war crimes, illegal rendition, and NSA abuse of power, FISA violations, and other unconstitutional conduct. If you fail to assert your oath, rest assured you may have some explaining to do one day before The Hague: Did you, as many others refused to do in Congress, fully assert your oath to Protect the Constitution; or did you make an excuse to do nothing.

- -

[59 of 91 ]

- -

[59 of 91] Hastert states that he does take notes, note 230.

___ How does Hastert decide when to take notes or not to take notes?

___ Hastert’s office is reported to have directed action; what notes were taken related to this direction.

___ Why are there no notes on the directions which Hastert’s office admits they were involved in related to organizing the response to the Paige Effort?

___ There is another inconsistency: Why is Hastert saying he takes notes on significant matters; yet the office has reported there are no notes on the Paige issue; yet, Hastert directed his staff at some point to take the lead to review the matter.

___ Note 231 says there are notes on important matters; but the office has no record on the same decisions for Hastert’s office to look into the issue. How can the Speaker credibly argue that the direction to his staff was not significant?

___ Information at note 231 mentions note cards. Where are these note cards stored and filed for review by the German War Crimes prosecutor?

[ 61 of 91 ] Stokke defines the issue as “handled” Note 232

___ What is Stokke’s definition of “handled”?

___ When something is “handled” what happens?

___ What is done to ensure that the “handled” situation remains handled?

___ Is there any review later?

___ Who is assigned to review the issues that were handled to make sure they remain resolved and do not recur?

___ What’s the process that Stokke goes through to review the issues?

___ Does Stokke have a file of cards or some other information system that reminds him to review an issue?

___ What is Stokke’s method to review an issue to ensure it remains resolved?

___ If something was originally “handled” but falls apart or is not handled, how would Stokke learn of the problem?

___ Would Stokke rely on his own observations, listen to others, or formally ask for outside assistance to report recurrence of a problem at a specific time?

___ What is Stokke’s management experience on issues related to program management, complex software scheduling, or multi-program management?

___ Has Stokke ever attended any management training by the US government on issues related to scheduling, program management, or issues and management concepts that the Executive Branch uses to mange complex, multi-year programs?

___ Note 232 shows Stokke relies, in part, on conversations. Who decides if an issue is closed out or not?

___ To what extent does the House leadership rely on the media to do its staff work; and act as the check to communicate whether an issue has or has not been resolved?

[61 of 91] After Note 234, there is a mention that the e-mails were circulating. The war crimes prosecutor will want to understand the lines of communication, who was informed of events, and the personnel involved with the notifications.

___ Who was getting the e-mails?

___ Which contractors were on the distribution lists?

___ What is the system of communications on an issue like this as it relates to media contacts, Members of Congress, Staff counsel, and leadership in the House, and leadership in the GOP and DNC?

[62 of 91] FBI refusal to review CREW emails. Note 238

___ What was the FBI’s explanation for the inconsistencies related to whether the FBI did or did not appropriately act?

___ Why did the FBI claim the CREW information was or was not complete; but CREW provides evidence that the FBI is lying?

___ What follow-up with the FBI director did the Committee make on the unbelievable FBI statements related to what it did or did not do after getting the CREW emails?

___ Why was the declination decision not left to the US Attorney?

___ What review has DOJ OPR made of the FBI actions?

___ What are the Title 28 responses by AG Gonzalez on which activities were or were not enforced?

___ Was there a reason that the FBI, when it decided not to act, would know enough to issue inconsistent statements on why it did not act?

___ How was the DOJ Public Affairs and Legislative Liaison involved in the FBI and DOJ comments on why action was or was not taken by the FBI on this matter?

[62 of 91] Foley staff told nothing “out there,” but Staff decides to wait.

___ Is there a reason that the Staff doesn’t trust Foley?

___ Why is the staff waiting for something despite being told that there is nothing else “out there”?

___ What was the staff suspecting might be out there?

___ Did the Staff have a reason for not believing Foley’s denial?

___ If ‘something else” did happen, what was the Foley Staff going to do?

___ What did the Foley Staff view as their options if there were additional things “out there” which Foley had denied might exist?

___ What was the staff’s view of what “anything else” meant?

___ Were the issues related to “anything else” looked at in terms of only the e-mails; or were there broader patterns of conduct that the Staff was concerned related to the House leadership, GOP, other issues, or larger legal issues above and beyond the immediate e-mails?

[63 of 91] Nicholson’s characterizations, note 43.

___ How do Nicholson’s public comments compare with the prepared, suggested news release provided to the Family?

___ Is there a reason to believe that Nicholson was making comments that substantially match written comments which the Speakers staff had reviewed, coordinated on, and provided to other media outlets, contractors or staff outside the Congress?

___ What was the reason that Nicholson used the term “innocent” in describing what was happening?

___ Does Nicholson have an explanation why this term “innocent” is repeated, but the same personnel would have us believe there was no central communication or knowledge?

___ How can we believe that there was no common knowledge of the problem, but the same words are used consistently by different people to explain away the issue: “Innocent.”

___ How can people who are supposedly not in contact randomly pick the same theme?

___ How did the GOP coordinated within the House leadership the use of the word “innocent”?

___ Which GOP contractors, lobbyists, consultants, or other outside people shard, disseminated, used, and revealed the word “innocent”?

___ How was it determined that using the word “innocent” would be an appropriate means to discuss the issue?

___ Was there no coordination of this term?

___ Why is the same term being used despite supposedly no documentation, no written record, nothing in the Speakers office, no note cards, yet magically everyone is using the same word: “Innocent.”

___ Is there a reason that the word, “Benign” or “Meaningless” or “No big deal” wasn’t used as opposed to the common “innocent word”?

___ How did Fleishman Hilliard pick up on this word?

___ Are you saying that AT&T and the blog monitoring tools that SAIC have were not used in conjunction with Fleishman Hilliard or any other contractor to identify which word should or should not be used to most favorably couch the information?

___ If Fleishman Hilliard was working with the Lincoln Group engaging in domestic monitoring of public reactions to government information, would that be something that would fall inside or outside the contract disclosure agreement?

___ Who inside Fleishman Hilliard reviewed the online message traffic and concluded that the best word to use was “innocent”?

___ How did Fleishman Hilliard brief its conclusions to the White House through the e-mail system that is connected with the White House IP operator, which just happens to be connected to Amdocs?

___ SAIC had no conversations about this word?

___ Nothing in the Terremark, AT&T, Verizon, Amdocs, MIT, NARUS systems related to this word “innocent”?

___ If one of the NSA contractors working with AT&T was aware of something that might dissuade an adverse public reaction, how might Fleishman Hilliard be protected under its contract terms from discussing this issue?

[63 of 91] Alexander says the e-mails came “up again” [note 244]

___ Weren’t we told that this issue was resolved?

___ What happened to the monitoring system which Stokke and Alexander were using?

___ Is someone saying that the staff had to be told by someone outside Congress that the issue, they otherwise though was resolved was now open?

___ Is an issue “open” when it is reported in the media; or when it is actually a problem?

___ Can an issue be “open” even though it is not reported in the Media and nobody is talking about it outside Congress?

___ Where is the place to track “open” issues?

___ Why are we being told that there are not notes in the Speakers office about this; yet the staff is reporting that the media is reporting the issue; yet the staff is now opening the issue again: Is all this happening without any e-mail, no discussion with staff counsel, and no legal memoranda floating around discussing issues of negligence, fiduciary duties, 5 USC 3331, or other documentation issues that members of Congress have?

[ 63 of 91] “that day” Note 245 Stokke says he did not discuss the issue with anyone in the Speakers office that day.

___ How about on “another day”?

___ What about in another “format”?

___ No blackberries?

___ What about the classified Congressional websites and e-mail system?

___ Nothing came through any classified website?

___ Is Stokke saying that he has never looked at any classified websites from his Congressional Office, or any classified websites from his home?

___ Is Stokke saying that he does not have access authority to any classified websites related to the Joint Staff, CIA, or any intelligence activity?

___ Does Stokke recognize any of the URL prefixes located on the Abraxas IP page?

___ Does Stokke realize that these URLS are the target of the war crimes prosecutor?

___ Is Stokke sure that he has never communicated with anyone in the Speakers office using any Intl Link system, any classified e-mail, or any other communication system that is routed through any classified, protected, secure, or nonpublic e-mail system or website managed by the NSA, or Executive Branch?

___ Has Stokke ever heard of the National Command Authority?

___ Has Stokke ever heard of the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ What is Stokke’s comments on his staff inputs to the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ Does Stokke or anyone on the Speakers Staff have any comment on how the inputs to the Continuity in Government plan was organized, drafted, reviewed, commented on, and coordinated with the Speaker’s office, the Vice President’s Office, and the Joint Staff?

___ Why is Stokke saying that he has frequent contact with the Speaker’s Staff, but no one seems to be able to explain how the Speaker would be involved in a Continuity in Government Plan?

___ How was the Continuity in Government Plan Coordinated?

___ Which specific Computers did Stokke and others connected with the Speaker use to update the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ What review of this e-mail system did the Committee Make when evaluating how the Speaker was documenting, recording, and archiving comments related to legal, issues, and other statutory obligations?

___ Does Stokke realize that it is illegal to classify evidence related to illegal activity?

___ Which classified computer system did the Speaker and Staff record their comments about the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ Which Staff updated the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ Who on the Committee Ethics Staff reviewed the notes which staffers make related to comments and other information on the Continuity in Government Plan?

___ What was the reason that these notes, faxes, and classified documents were not reviewed?

___ Which other systems connected to classified websites did the Speaker, Stokke and others use to document notes during the Foley Email system?

___ Was there a plan to discuss the Continuity in Government Plan report?

___ What was the plan to discuss the other classified reviews as they may have been related to the Foley issue?

[63 of 91] Fatal admission that Staff Counsel Contacted. Shreiber’s name is mentioned. This information has been disclosed and is no longer protected. The conversations show how Congressional staff can be manipulated to believe something that is not true. Allegedly Foley knew what he was doing, yet the Staff Counsel were led to believe that the issues were false. However, notice the contrast, Foley Staff Counsel had previously raised concerns: Despite Foley denying that there was “anything else”, Staff decided to wait.

___ What was the reason that no defamation suit was filed?

___ Did the Staff believe that the Congressman may have been lying and the information was true?

___ Are there not reasonable inferences to be made that when Members of Congress are involved in a legal issue they may lie to staff in order to get the staff to target someone when they believe that they might be getting to close to issues that may compromise their political and legal interests?

___ What is to be said of Members of Congress who use manipulative methods to induce others to believe falsehoods to get them to do things that they might otherwise not do?

___ Is this an integrity issue?

___ What is to be said of Members of Congress who say that an option is “off the table,” but they have no legal power to remove that option from the Constitution?

___ What is to be said of Members of Congress when they induce staff to believe something that is materially false, incorrect, or not correct?

___ Is it out of the question for members of congress to mislead staff for political interests, in the hopes of diverting staff attention away from the member of Congress legal issue and focus on the open media that may be correctly reporting the information?

[64 of 91] Note 253 – Victim told to “deal” with the “stuff.” Sounds quite like how Members of Congress reacted when they first heard of NSA violations, Abu Ghraib abuse, and Rendition – an attitude of, “Hay they have to deal with it.” Curiously, its up to the victims to take action.

___ Where is the Congressional leadership?

___ Why are targets of government official abuse told they have to do the work to resolve the issue?

___ How prevalent is this attitude in the GOP and DNC, when they are told of illegal issues related to specific members of Congress, to point to the messenger and say, “It is their job to deal with it”?

___ How many Members of Congress believe that it is not their responsibility to deal with the Geneva Convention violations?

___ How many Members of Congress believe it is “not their job” to deal with the legal issues related to FISA, NSA abuse, and the Rendition effort?

___ How much money is Fleishman Hilliard, AT&T, NARUS, Verizon, Terremark and other contractors like Boeing providing to Members of Congress to keep silent about the alleged illegal activity that the contractor like SAIC, Telcordia, and the Lincoln Group are allegedly implicated?

___ Is it the attitude of Members of Congress that the victims of illegal NSA spying can “bring it forward” if they want to?

___ What was going through the Member of Congress minds on issues of Title 28 and Title 50 reporting: Was there any thought that members of Congress, not the victim, should take the lead in finding out if there had been illegal conduct?

___ Do Members of Congress understand the difference between criminal activity and civil action?

___ If Members of Congress think that “the victims” (not Congress) would be the ones who enforce the law, why are Members of Congress voting to support taking away the right of victims to challenge their detention, or file suit against the US government and US government officials for war crimes, illegal abuse, prisoner abuse, or illegal rendition and kidnapping?

___ Do Members of Congress realize that the “bipartisan” whitewash report the Ethics Committee has issued on Foley paints a very bleak picture – alleged negligence, poor communication, inconsistent statements, bungling staff – and may be of interest to the war crimes prosecutor?

___ How do Members of Congress hope to trump the Geneva Conventions by passing the Military Commissions Act which immunizes everyone in the US government for Geneva violations committed 2001 – 2006?

[ 65 of 91] Fordham no longer Foley’s Chief of Staff

___ What was the reason for the Change?

___ Who was the New Chief of Staff?

[66 of 91] E-mails were “probably” authentic. This shows that the request for defamation suit was without merit; and Foley knew, or should have know, there was something out there, or could be something out there.

___ What are the staff comments on why Foley and allegedly other Members of Congress could not be trusted when they deny that the issue is closed, not over, or is otherwise resolved?

___ What is the basis for the Member of Congress professional staff to believe Members of Congress when they say that the issue is resolved?

___ How common is the Congressional Staff not believing Members of Congress when they say that an issue is over, resolved, not a factor, or there is nothing close to be concerned with?

___ How are Members of Congress documenting their concerns that the Members of Congress are not being candid in their denials about alleged illegal activity, knowledge of Geneva violations, or other alleged activity that should have been documented in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ Do Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Staff Employees understand that war crimes prosecutors are reviewing the Foley Ethics Report, looking for evidence that may materially undermine any legal defense you may have or claim on issues related to your Article 82 Geneva Obligations to report, prevent, and not allow war crimes?

___ Do Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Staff Employees appreciate that your oath of office, as it relates to a treaty obligation, binds you to affirmatively act to enforce the Conventions, investigate, and take positive steps to prevent Geneva violations?

___ What are the Members of Congress reasons for passing legislation that would provide funding to DoD, NSA, and CIA on issues which Members of Congress knew, or should know are not related to lawful activities?

___ Do Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Staff Employees understand that Article I Section prohibits appropriations and expenditures for illegal things?

___ Once it was disclosed that there were illegal NSA activities, unlawful rendition, FISA violations, and war crimes in re Abu Ghraib and prisoner abuse, what can Members of Congress point to show that they took their responsibilities seriously?

___ What can the Members of Congress point to, other than the apparent reckless bungling in re Foley, as what they did document, report, discuss, or otherwise review in re alleged FISA, Geneva, and Constitutional violations?

[66 of 91] NRCC drafts letter of resignation. Foley did not draft the letter, but signed it.

___ Is it common practice for the NRCC to be involved with drafting public statements on legal matters?

___ Once Verizon General Counsel in an e-mail to Mr. Cowie left open the possibility that the NSA was authorized access to the Verizon facility, who on the NRCC was tasked to work with the DoJ, AT&T, Verizon, Amdocs, and others to craft a public statement?

___ Was there a reasons that the AT&T General Counsel was not given a copy of this NRCC-related press release?

___ What was the plan of the Congressional leadership to involve the NRCC in how the AT&T CEO was managed through the DoJ?

___ What role did the NRCC play with the DOJ in targeting the Qwest CEO for statements made confirming the very things that the Attorney General said could not be discussed?

___ How many people, like the Foley resignation letter, discussed what the DOJ, NSA, and CIA would publicly comment on before the NRCC and Members of Congress formally issued their public statements on FISA, NSA, and the domestic surveillance activity?

___ Did the FBI agents who lied to the FISA court ever realize that their materially misleading statements would be brought to the Attention of a German War crimes prosecutor as a basis to adjudicate whether Members of the Department of Justice had illegally supported, assisted, and not stopped grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions in re prisoner abuse, rendition, transfer or prisoners, and use of illegally captured information to detain, punish, brutalize, and allegedly illegal kill innocent civilians?

[ Page 67 of 91 ] Hastert says he’ll invoke Shimkus’ name: Shimkus fatally admits he knew about e-mails a year earlier. Note 267.

___ What happened over the year, Shimkus?

___ Was there a reason that the e-mails were not investigated the year prior, Shimkus?

___ Why is Shimkus admitting that he’s known about something that Members of Congress were led to believe was something that was defamatory?

___ How often do Members of Congress assert that something is defamatory, but other Members of Congress know it is true, are silent, or have other information showing that the allegations are true, not defamatory, and that the target of the accusation has no credible defense?

[67 of 91] Kildee on page board Note 268

___ Why weren’t Kildee, Shimkus, and other Members of the Page Board on the same sheet of music as to what they knew, what was going on?

___ How often are Appointed Congressional Committee, liked with both the Speaker and Majority Leader, unaware of issues that fall within their area of jurisdiction?

___ Was there a reason that Shimkus, in the year prior, did not independently discuss in a non-partisan manner, the e-mails with all Members of the Page Board?

[ 67 of 91] Shimkus and Capito Meet, Capito unaware

___ Why are issues that related to Page Board oversight not brought to the attention of the Members?

___ Is there a reason that a particular issue that is supposedly “resolved” is not “affirmed to have been resolved” with the Committee that oversees the people who may be affected by that decision, resolution, or conclusion?

___ Why were staff, not on the Page Board, making decisions about issues which were for the Page Board to Decide: Whether the issue was or was not resolved, closed?

___ How many times have Members of Congress stated to staff that an issue is “resolved” knowing full well the Committee had not adequately reviewed the issue?

___ What’s the difference between saying, “The Foley issue is resolved” and the “issue of Presidential impeachment” is off the table?

___ Who decides when the Foley issue is not longer “resolved” – the media?

___ Who decides when an issue related to Presidential impeachment is no longer “resolved” – a misinformed Congressional Staffer who throws up their hands saying, “I have no idea what to do?”

___ Who is running the US government?

___ Does the oath of office mean anything?

___ Do the words, “Faithfully discharge” ones duties mean anything to the House Ethics Committee?

___ How can anyone on the House Ethics Committee argue that the bungling in re Foley is anything other than discredit upon the House, and materially undermines public confidence that “faithfully discharge” ones duties means nothing other than keeping ones head in the sand?

___ Where is the mandatory, non-partisan communication?

___ How does Shimkus and other Members of Congress argue that they’re doing their duty, but for a year they’ve sat on an issue, not brought it to the attention of relevant committee members, and there’s no evidence the appropriate US Attorney, FBI, or DOJ Staff Counsel have been involved in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports as required in writing by statute?

___ What does Shimkus expect to happen: A magic ball is going to appear on the Horizon saying, “Now is the time, Shimkus: Your destiny is to speak”

___ What is the color of the orb Members of Congress are waiting for on issue related to Geneva Volitions, Nuremburg, War Crimes, impeachable offenses, the oath of office, Ethics Committee Malfeasance, and alleged complicity between Members of Congress and US Government Contactors to support a pattern of illegal Geneva violations which could be adjudicated with the death penalty?

___ What is the threshold required to awaken the Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional employees to the alleged malfeasance which runs rampant along both sides of the aisle?

___ How many more dead Americans are needed?

___ How many more home invasions are needed?

___ How many Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Staff Attorneys have to be personally affected by illegal Article II powers before Members of Congress scream, “We were complicit, get us out of here, give me my resignation statement to read, I’m going into rehab.”

[67 of 91] Note 271 Shimkus, Capito, Haas visit page dorm.

___ Did the personnel who visited the page dorm properly sign in, as required?

___ Was there a reason for the personnel listed at note 271 for not fully complying with all procedures to sign in, access, and approach the Pages?

___ How can the approach by the personnel listed at note 271 be distinguished from what Foley did or didn’t do when he allegedly visited the Page Dorm?

___ Did the Personnel listed at note 271 not do something that they should have done when entering the page dorm?

___ Did all of them sign in before entering the page Dorm?

___ Who called later to have their name added to the sign-in list?

___ Were any names added later?

___ Which Capitol Police inspector saw the personnel listed at note 271?

___ Why are the Capitol Police able to comment on who was listed on note 271, but the same institution and police force cannot make a comment as to who was on duty the night that Foley allegedly was outside the Page dorm drunk?

___ Why do we know with certainty that the personnel at note 271 did or didn’t do what they should and which Capital Police officer was assigned; but the same conclusion cannot be made about what did or didn’t’ happen the night that Foley allegedly went to the Page Dorm drunk?

___ Did the personnel listed at note 271 shout from the street?

___ Did the personnel listed at note 271 enter the page dorm?

___ How many pages did the personnel listed at note 271 speak to?

___ Which room(s) did they enter?

___ How many of the pages who were in the Page Dorm were not at the meeting where the personnel listed at note 271 said they "reassured" the pages?

___ Was attendance taken?

___ Were any of the Pages missing?

___ How did the personnel listed at note 271 know that the pages had been adequately assured?

___ Were all the pages reassured; or did some have questions, concerns, doubts, and wanted to leave?

[67 of 91] Alexander and Boehner mention the Spring 2006 Meeting With Hastert; but Hastert previously mentions Shimkus [At 266]

___ What were Alexander and Boehner thinking when they learned that Hastert planned to invoke Shimkus name?

___ Do Boehner and Alexander have a plan to go to the House Ethics Board to share their concerns that there are apparent inconsistencies in the testimony Kolbe and Hastert have given?

___ What was Boehner’s understanding of what Hastert meant by the matter had “been taken care of”? [n272]

[67 of 91] Hastert denies knowledge of e-mails Note 273

___ Was Hastert’s assertion that he had “no knowledge” an assertion, or qualified in any way?

___ How does Hastert explain the conversation on the House floor related to when he allegedly was first informed of the matter?

[68 of 91] Madden confronts Boehner, but “uncertain” [Note 274]

___ Was Madden’s approach to Boehner similar to how Alexander approach the family?

___ What was the contexts of Madden’s approach to Boehner?

___ Was other information shared with Boehner suggesting that there may be political implications if there was an error?

___ Was Foley’s alleged defamation suit mentioned to Boehner?

[68 of 91] Boehner got a response from Speaker

___ Was the response in writing?

___ What note was the Speaker responding to?

___ Did Boehner leave a message with the Speaker staff for a call back?

___ How did the Speaker know to call or communicate with Boehner?

___ What form did the response take?

___ Is this form of the response inconsistent with the assertion that the Speaker had no notes?

___ How is the response to Boehner related to the notes on the 8 x 11 ½ piece of paper, which had summaries of the emails

___ Was there anything in the 8 x 11 ½ piece of paper, the alleged summary of the Foley E-mail, that would relate to Boehner’s recollection; or the means that the Speaker communicated to Boehner; or something that would suggest that the Speakers staff had reviewed the 8 x 11 ½ piece of paper, or the e-mails associated with that paper and relayed the information to other parties?

___ Is there no record anywhere of any communication between Hastert and Boehner?

[ 68 of 91 ] Note 277 Alexandar’s assertion on resolution: Speaker notified]

___ Was the Alexander assertion in the resolution made under penalty of perjury, or is it considered a protected action because of its connection with a floor speech?

___ Why was the Majority leader, who has in put to the page board staffing, not involved with something that should be material in deciding where the staff was or wasn’t doing its job?

___ What is the basis to assert that something is resolved, but the Majority Leader, who has inputs to the page Board composition, is not in a position to confirm that the resolution-determination is or is not adequate, complete, correct, or in error?

[ 68 o f 91] Note 279 Meeting of personnel after appointment. Personnel question appropriateness of meeting.

[69 of 91] Evans named disclosed; fatal disclosure of commutations between Evans and Reynolds. All Commutations related to this conversation are not longer protected and are admissible to the German war crimes prosecutor. This conversation has been disclosed. Evan’s concerns are part of the record, and may be introduces into evidence. Evans has fatally disclosed reservations, concerns, and other things that he otherwise did not have to disclose. This inadvertent disclosure opens the door to additional inquiry by the war crimes tribunal.

___ What was the basis for Reynolds to suspect something about Rep. Alexander?

___ Is the war crimes prosecutor comfortable with the reservations that Evans and Reynolds have disclosed?

___ Which reservations or concerns about “prior knowledge” should Members of Congress similarly removed themselves from, communicated with counsel, or otherwise distances themselves from?

___ Based on the actions of Reynolds in re Alexander and Evans, is the German war crimes prosecutor satisfied that Members of Congress similarly, when confronted with issues of Geneva violations, appropriately removed themselves from other discussions?

___ Which other discussions related to concerns, prior knowledge, or other meeting is Evans, Alexander, and Boehner aware?

___ Was Evans making a recommendation on this matter based solely on the information Boehner provided to Reynolds; or was Evans making his advise on the basis of other ongoing investigations related to far more serious legal matters?

[ 69 of 91: Note 281] Reynolds fatally discloses his pre-decision thinking

War crimes prosecutors are normally not entitled to review information that is related to pre-decisional legal issues. However, when discussing war crimes, the alleged defendants lost privilege when they disclose pre-decisional thinking. Normally, counsel can invoke attorney-client privilege. This defense recognizes the important of protecting the information and confidences that counsel and a client may have.

In the Foley situation, Reynolds has fatally disclosed the contents of attorney-client conversations. These inadvertent disclosures open the door for the war crimes prosecutors to ask whether similar concerns, considerations, or factors may have been raised by Evans, Boehner, or Reynolds on similar issues.

Note closely on page 69 in the first paragraph [“I’m not inclined to]; This information shares with us the state of mind of Reynolds, and show us what he is or is not inclined to do. This is important when considering other legal issues as they may or may not related to alleged war crimes, FISA violations, Geneva violations, alleged war crimes, or other alleged illegal activity.

Reynolds states that he is not inclined to collaborate or memorialize something.

___ What is the basis for Reynolds to disclose the attorney-client related information?

___ Why is any Member of Congress claiming that there exists attorney-client privilege on similar legal decisions as to whether they are willing to discuss, collaborate, or memorialize something?

___ When did Congressional Staff counsel, perhaps Evans himself, tell Members of Congress not to memorialize decisions related to action or inaction on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ Was there never a decision by anyone in the GOP or DNC or Congressional Staff counsel or Congressional Committees or Contractors to not memorialize something that had been openly discussed as being related to a potential war crimes issue?

___ Why was there a decision not to memorialize anything when under the House rules some issues, when appropriately documented, can be protected, especially when it comes to issues of counseling or information on prospective action?

___ How does Evans or other Congressional Staff counsel accept that there may or may not be a time to appropriately memorialize something?

___ Should a decision not to memorializing something be protected?

___ What if a Title 28 and Title 50 exception report is not filed as required in writing – is the decision not to review or ask about that something that Evans or other Congressional Staff counsel would know not to memorialize?

___ What if Member of Congress had voted to support the Military Commissions Bill, granting immunity on issues that Members of Congress could be seen as getting a personal reward, benefit, or favorable contract. Is this something that Evans or other Congressional Staff counsel would advise Members of Congress not to memorialize?

___ Suppose there was an agreement to issue a contact that Members of Congress knew contained a gag order; or in the Contract there was a clause that permitted the Executive or President in this case to classify information related to illegal activity. However, what if the Congressional Staff counsel like Evans knew that such a gag order was no enforceable under ORCON, and they knew that the information could not be classified. Is it Evans position that he would not memorialize any conversations related to the upcoming benefits Members of Congress might accrue because in the SAIC, Boeing, Terremark, Abraxas, Narus, AT&T, Quest, or MIT contracts there existed a future benefit that may immunize the Member of Congress.

___ What if the arrangement worked this way: In exchange for Members of Congress granting immunity through the Military Commissions Bill to contractors for abuse; Contractors would provide funds to members of Congress; and in exchange, Members of Congress would agree not to impeach; and if charged, Contractors were guaranteed pardons. Would this be something that Evans would or would not encourage a member of Congress to memorialize?

[Page 29 of 91: Note 281]

Reynolds reports that he spoke not with Evans on the legal issues, but with Evans’ counsel who is not named.

___ Who did Reynolds talk to?

___ What is the name of Randy Evan’s counsel?

___ What does Reynolds mean when he says, “ I do know that discussions of recollecting anything is not preferred?”

___ Is Reynolds asking us to believe that he thought there had been a meeting for the principals to meet to arrange, and agree what did or did not happen?

___ How often does this type of “discussions of recollecting anything” occur?

___ Does Reynolds or Randy Evans’ counsel have a specific example in mind that would prompt them to know to ask about this, understand this is a concern, or that something is a potential legal issue?

___ What specific meeting is Randy Evans’ counsel referring to when he relies on his attorney experience to discuss meetings to ‘recollect” things?

___ How often do Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Employees meet with Contractors to ‘recollect” things?

___ Where are the meeting minutes related to the meetings between Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, Congressional Staffers, NSA-DOD-CIA contractors on issues related to “recollecting” things as they related to FISA, NSA, rendition, Geneva violations, prisoner abuses; interception of Verizon customer e-mail information using Terremark fiber optic systems in Florida; conferences in Hawaii or at MIT or at Sandia Labs in NM related to the NSA modernization efforts which Abraxas personnel were coordinating with DHS?

___ Is it not preferred that the public review the discussions between Members of Congress, Fleishman Hilliard, and the Abraxas Corporation on issues of rendition, alleged war crimes, and movement of CIA personnel through the Boeing scheduling system from the US, through Scotland, then into Poland and Romania?

___ Is it not preferred that the public review the concerns Terremark might have raised with NARUS and SAIC regarding the open discussions on issues of rendition, alleged use of Terremark systems to supply the NSA-DoJ-JTTF with information gleaned from fiber optic systems?

___ Is it not preferred that the Abraxas placed personnel working inside the CIA should remain silent and not discuss their cover stories while they are working in Germany, and supporting the logistics offices in Poland and Romania?

___ Do Members of Congress prefer than nobody memorialize the alleged connection between the Fleishman Hilliard concerns with allegations about rendition with subsequent Member of Congress votes to immunize Members of Congress, contractors, and others allegedly complicity with illegal war crimes, rendition, illegal war tapping, or prisoner abuse in violation of Geneva?

___ Is it preferred that Members of Congress not memorialize their concerns that NSA data, illegally captured, has been used to help schedule Abraxas-placed personnel using the Boeing flight scheduling system, and relying on Terremark-captured data from the fiber optic system to allegedly kidnap, transport, and illegal abuse prisoners in violation of the laws of war?

___ Is it preferred that Members of Congress not memorialize the discussions with contractors like Abraxas, Fleishman Hilliard, SAIC, Lincoln Group, Terremark, Boeing, and others allegedly involved with the illegal capture of data used to illegally transfer, abuse, and mistreat prisoners of war?

___ Is it preferred by Members of Congress that nobody discuss the connection between the alleged illegal NSA data capture systems, and the curious interest Members of Congress had to allegedly assert unconstitutionally Article III judicial powers, and grant immunity to contractors and US government officials who allegedly engaged in, supported, and did not stop war crimes?

___ Is it preferred by Members of Congress that these issues not be brought to the attention of the German War crimes prosecutor, US Attorney, or Grand Juries investigating alleged war crimes, Geneva violations, and other alleged misconduct and illegal activity that cannot lawfully be hidden?

___ Is it preferred by members of Congress, staff counsel, and other that nobody know about the alleged agreements not to memorialize Congressional Staff Counsel knowledge that deviations of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports were not timely reported to the US Attorney, war crimes prosecutor, and other State Disciplinary board members?

___ Is it preferred by Congressional Staff Counsel, like Randy Evans’ counsel, that nobody learn about the DC Attorney Disciplinary Board that may have material information related to alleged DOJ OPR investigations into DOJ Staff Counsel communications, alleged plans, and other alleged illegal activity which Congressional Staff counsel would know cannot lawfully be classified under ORCON?

___ Is it preferred by Members of Congress that nobody outside Congress learn of the classified e-mail systems which Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and others can review related to the classified e-mail, websites and Intel Link systems used in the Article II branch?

[ 69 of 91] Note 281. Note closely what Reynolds says, “Not being a lawyers, there are not many things I know about the legal side of this” This implies that Reynolds, and other Members of Congress know they have legal obligations, and should rely on counsel for assistance. Yet, it is curious that Members of Congress appear to be somewhat out to lunch on issues of Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

___ When a Member of Congress does not “know” about a legal issue, do they have a duty to find out?

___ If a Member of Congress knows that they’re not a legal expert, can they credibly argue they are asserting their oath if they fail to consult an attorney on a legal matter?

___ What would get in the way of a Member of Congress who was an attorney, from not comprehending the importance of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ Should Members of Congress who are attorneys be held to a higher or lower standard on whether they do or do not raise Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

[69 of 91] Note 282 Meeting continues to arrange media response, Reynolds not there.

___ How often are “recollection” meetings disguised as “media relations”

___ How does an attorney distinguish between “media relations meeting on a legal issue” and a “recollection meeting on a legal issue”?

[69 of 91] Boehner says the meeting was “not intended” to influence recollections

___ How often do Members of Congress hear this?

___ What would communicate to Boehner that this type of disclaimer was warranted?

___ If recollections had, “inadvertently” been influenced, would this have been undesirable?

___ If someone does not “intend” to hit someone, but they do so, are they not liable for the damages that result?

___ What is the difference between homicide, negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, and “oops, one of the bad apples just snuffed out a prisoner at GTMO.”

___ What prompted the Majority Leader of the House, who works directly for the Speaker and We the People, to make this statement?

___ Was any information shared about the suggested media statement for Foley or the family in Florida?

___ How were differences in the media statements reconciled by Boehner or others at this “it’s not a recollection meeting”

___ How many meetings that do attempt to influence recollections is Boehner aware?

___ Is there any time when Boehner would conclude that it would be appropriate to have a meeting to influence recollections?

___ Is it appropriate for a Member of the Alexander staff to call a family member of a page to influence their recollection as to whether they did or did not want to pursue a matter?

___ Is “influencing recollections” something that members of congress would do to dissuade questions related to impeachment, questions about the use of a website, or what types of advertising were or were not linked with staff communications outside Congress?

___ Would a Member of Congress, after disclosing efforts to raise money on a website, be engaged in “influencing recollections” when they publicly deny doing what they have openly done on the website: Solicited funds, requested support, and focused attention on issues which were diversions from material issues related to malfeasance, issues of attorney misconduct, or alleged abuse to dissuade investigations by war crimes prosecutors in matters of Presidential accountability?

[69 of 91] Note 283 Alexander asserts he made a statement which left the impression he had talked to the Speaker; but that the statement was incorrect, and the opposite impression was true.

___ Alexander’s assertions are not an effort to influence recollections?

___ How can anyone assert that a change in impression (that someone else may have) is or is not correct?

___ What if a reasonable inference is that the previous statement was correct, and the correct impression was that the speaker had been disclosed the information.

___ Why should we believe the retraction that was not timely?

If Alexander was making a retraction, then this would ask that we believe that there was something that he was aware – that there was an impression out there, but he did not timely make public this correction. Only the personnel at this meeting were given the clarification. This does not amount to a credible public correction.

___ What is the reason that Alexander did not timely correct the alleged misimpression

___ Which statements was Alexander clarifying?

___ With whom did Alexander speak to understand that there were two versions floating around: The version that said that he had talked to the Speaker; and what Alexander wanted to leave, as an impression, in the mind of the group at this meeting?

___ How did Alexander learn that someone may be concerned about a misperception?

___ Was Alexander or anyone every convinced that someone specific was confused; or was this Alexander’s attempt to change impressions on matters that Alexander allegedly deliberately lied about?

___ Was Alexander recasting his conduct?

___ What made Alexander change his assertion over whether the did or did not speak to the Speaker?

___ With whom did Alexander specifically speak to justify his change in message?

___ How did Alexander realize that there was a misperception floating around?

___ Can Alexander point to anyone that specifically said they thought Alexander had said something, and Alexander realized that he did not say this?

___ Why would Alexander issue a written statement that specifically said one thing, but Alexander is now contradicting himself?

[69 and 91] Boehner differentiates between e-mails and IMs. Note 285

___ What Congressional e-mails did Members of Congress send to pages?

___ Were Members of Congress using their home e-mail systems to contact pages inappropriately?

___ What information does the Congressional IT management system or private contractors have about the e-mail that Members of Congress may have sent to pages?

___ How was e-mail sent to Member of Congress homes used to discuss illegal activity that could not legally be classified?

___ Were there other e-mail system, not part of the IM or e-mail definition, that Members of Congress hoped the German War Crimes prosecutor not know about?

___ How do Members of Congress explain the Abraxas IP numbers on the Cox Communication Systems that is allegedly linked to the CIA; and Members of Congress have the alleged ability to access to classified websites related to Continuity of Government Operations as supported by the National Command Authority?

___ What kind of confusion did Boehner believe might occur if the Members of Congress, Staff, and others did not differentiate between IMs and e-mail?

___ Why was the distinction important: Speaker Hastert’s office says they had no notes: Why would it matter if the notes were in IMs, staff counsel worksheets, or in e-mail sent between the Joint Staff and Members of Congress at their home?

___ Was Boehner worried that the German War Crimes prosecutor might learn about an IM system that complemented the Intel Link capability, permitting Members of Congress t communicate, but leave no trace on their home computers?

[70 of 91] Elliot Berke (Speaker Hastert Attorney) makes non-privileged communications, subjecting his comments to cross examination by the war crimes tribunal. There is a problem. Hastert’s staff has reported that there were no notes or memoranda on the issue, yet Berke is tasked to “conduct an internal review”.

___ What did Berke “review”

___ Did Berke review only recollections?

___ What did Berke specifically consider to mean, “Conduct an internal review”?

___ How could Berke competently do any review when he could only rely on people who supposedly had not made any memoranda, notes, nor had memorialized anything?

___ What notes did Berke rely on when ensuring that his “review” was complete?

___ Did Berke review the Member of Congress, staff counsel, contractor, or Congressional employee home email systems?

___ Did Berke review the classified websites related to the Joint Staff?

___ What review did Berke make of the secret Intel Link system?

___ Did Berke review any of the notes passed between the Speaker and the Joint Staff on the Continuity of Operations Plan?

___ Did Berke ever review a comment related to any inappropriate conduct?

___ How do we explain inaction by Congress on issues of FISA, NSA, and Geneva violations, prisoner abuses?

___ Was Berke not aware of any of these conversations, messages, or other message traffic form the FBI, CID, NSA, OSI, NCIS, or anyone else connected to Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Poland, Germany, Spain, Italy, or Romania?

___ What kind of review did Berke make of the “internal” issues on matters related to Fleishman Hilliard, SAIC, Terremark, Boeing, Telcordia, AT&T, NARUS, Verizon, Amdocs, or MIT as they related to NSA, FISA, alleged war crimes, prisoner abuse, Geneva Convention violation, transfer of data through the fiber optic systems, or the use of methods to intercept attorney-client communications in Oregon?

___ Did Berke have no knowledge of the DoJ and NSA commendations with Qwest CEO, Verizon, AT&T, or Amdocs on issues related to the retention of NARUS STA 6400 captured data?

___ What role did Berke play in crafting the memo for the Verizon CEO to share after a deputy Verizon CEO admitted in an email to Mr. Cowie of Maine that the NSA may have been given access to the Verizon facility; and that this was consistent with the contract terms which substantially matched what was in the Fleishman Hilliard non disclosure agreement?

___ Was Berke ever at a meeting where rendition was discussed?

___ What is Berke's recollection of discussions related to war crimes, Geneva violations, and other alleged activity that should be immunized with the Military Commissions Bill?

___ Does Berke have a reason for commenting on who people should or should not talk to on matters, but is allegedly unwilling to assert in writing that he and other have no knowledge or connection with any illegal activity; were never knowledgeable of any NSA violations; and had no idea what was going on with the FISA violations which supported Boeing scheduling of Abraxas-connected personnel for delivery to Scotland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Poland, or Romania?

[70 of 91: 288] Evans and Berke fatally reveal the “timeline”

___ How was this timeline documented

___ Who got a copy of the timeline?

___ Where is a copy of the timeline?

___ When will the public be given a chance to see Evans’ and Berke’s hand written notes related to this timeline?

___ What type of paper was the timeline written on?

___ Is the timeline similar to the words used in the 8 x 11 ½ piece of paper related to key words from Foley’s e-mails?

___ What information did Congressional staffers rely to provide responses?

___ How can anyone claim in any testimony that there was no record in the Speakers’ office; but out of thin air, there are notes, other memoranda, or things that will definitely say to Berke and Evans what did or didn’t’ happen?

___ What standards of evidence did Berke and Evans rely on when making this timeline?

___ Were notes used to make the timeline?

___ How were the Congressional staff members memories aided, guided, or influenced by the timeline?

___ To what extent was this timeline disseminated prior to meeting with the Ethics Committee?

___ Did the Ethics Committee discuss this timeline, how it was constructed, and whether there was any information on the timeline that was not consistent?

___ Why was Evans attempting to do the Committees work?

___ Did Evans and Berke come across any information, evidence, data, or other idea notion that was not consistent with the timeline?

___ How does the timeline that Evans and Berke established compare with the timeline that the committee finally agreed to?

___ Why is this “joint timeline” that “everyone” can agree to not consistent with the apparent inconsistent stories about whether someone did or did not mean to say something about whether they had or had not spoken to someone?

[70 of 91] Haas informs Trandhal of the timeline; Berke and Speakers’ Office informed

___ Was this the first written memoranda anyone saw on the matter?

___ How do we explain Berke’s ability to orchestrate a timeline?

___ Did Berke have access to a database, scheduling system, or other set of data that other personnel assigned to the speakers office were not aware, did not access, or were not inclined in the definition of “memoranda from the speakers office”?

___ How much data did Berke have on the Foley issue that was documented, in writing, or archived at his home computer?

___ Is there a reason that Berke has this much data?

[70 of 91] Palmer Telecom: Reading the timeline

___ Was the telecom a MeetMe?

___ How were invitees notified of the telecom?

___ Where is a copy of the e-mail or IM notifying the staff of the time of the Telecom?

___ Who was invited?

___ Who did not listen?

___ Were any contractors listening?

___ How many DoD contractors were on the line?

___ Anyone from the DOJ Staff, White House Staff, RNC on the telecom?

___ Is there a way that someone from Fleishman Hilliard, SAIC, Terremark, Boeing, Abraxas, Telcordia, Verizon, AT&T, NARUS, MIT, or someone in Hawaii could listen to the call, but Members of Congress would not know they were listening?

___ Anyone from GCHQ on the invitee list?

___ Could someone connected to the US Embassy in Rome or Milan be listening to the call?

___ Was anyone from DoD, DoJ, CIA, NSA, or any executive agency listening?

___ Is there a way that someone working for one of the billing intermediaries could be listening to the telecom, but other Members of Congress would not know about it?

___ Who did Palmer coordinate the Telecom with?

___ How did Palmer know who was listening to the conference call?

___ How did Palmer know whether the right people were included?

___ What does Palmer define as being the leadership who were listening to the call?

___ Who took notes during the conference call?

___ HO were these notes transcribed, posted, and disseminated?

___ Was this posted to Lotus Notes?

___ Does the contractor pay for these messaging systems?

___ When did the Congressional IT or the private contractors connected to the Member of Congress home e-mail systems get word about the notes form the telecom?

___ Are you sure there was no direction given to remove copies of these e-mails from any computer?

[70 of 91] Preliminary report: 289

__ What is the definition of a “preliminary report”

___ What “other issues” did the Speaker, Berke, or Evans envision would be added later?

___ What would the “report after the preliminary report” be called?

___ Was the “preliminary report” accepted by the Congressional Ethics Committee?

___ What efforts, inconsistencies, or problems with the “preliminary report” did the Ethics Committee staff find?

___ Which issues related to FISA, NSA, Geneva, and other alleged negligence were or were not include in the pattern of failed committee oversight?

___ Did the Preliminary report include any recommendations how to improve operations?

___ Discuss the preliminary report in the context of the ISG Baker report: Were there recommendations, findings, and other things with could be rejected, ignored, or overridden the leadership?

___ Was the preliminary report entered into evidence under penalty of perjury?

___ Did all people who had inputs to the preliminary report have the chance to provide minority views, comment on the report?

___ Who was asked under oath about the preliminary report findings?

___ How were the inconsistencies reconciled?

___ Did subsequent information surface that contradicted the preliminary report?

___ How were these subsequent inconsistencies reconciled?

___ Did all people who had inputs to the preliminary report have a chance to review the final depositions to reconcile their responses to coincide with the preliminary report?

___ Why should we believe that this planning meeting did nothing but set the lines of evidence which would be agreed; and encourage people to ignore lines of evidence which did not convinced with the preliminary report?

___ Who was responsible for conducting a dry run of the preliminary report?

___ What changes were made to the preliminary report prior to depositions before the Ethics Committee?

[ 70 of 91; line 5] “little was known about the facts”

___ What is the basis for this statement?

___ How do we reconcile the assertion “little was known” with the preliminary report of Evans and Burke?

___ If “little was known” what did Berke and Evans rely on to construct the timeline?

___ How do we explain the many assertions of “it was resolved” or “its settled” with assertions that not much was known?

___ What is the basis to assert that little was known, yet many were definitely asserting that “what was little known” was resolved?

This assertion of “resolution” is similar to the approach taken on FISA-NSA violations, Geneva, GTMO abuse, alleged war crimes, and other prisoner mistreatment in Europe.

[71 of 91] “facts that were known raised important issues regarding safety” – This is the purpose of the Page Board.

___ What is the reason that these issues, when combined with the concern that Foley was someone to watch out for, did not translate into a formal oversight and solution for the Page Board to Implement?

___ How would people know enough about Foley to warn others; but we’re asked to believe the Page Board didn’t know of these concerns?

___ What issues from the 1960s and 1970s, prompting the creation of the Page Board in the 1930s, were not on a checklist of issues the Members of Congress and Staff were informed should be brought to the Attention of the Page Board?

___ What was the basis for selecting personnel on the Page Board?

___ How were the lessons of the 1960s and 1970s factored into who was best qualified to be on the Page Board?

___ What did the Page Board do, by way of audit reviews, and periodic training, provide to Members of Congress to notify them of interest areas they would like to know about?

___ What was the basis for the Page Board communications to Members of Congress or pages?

___ What information at Note 271 did the listed individuals rely on to assure the pages that their safety was being addressed and of concern?

[71 of 91: “concern about the oversight and management”]

___ How were these “concerns” broadened to include poor oversight and management in other areas: Judiciary, HASC, and the Appropriations Committee?

___ Members of Congress implicated in the Page scandal also were involved with various committees: How did the Ethics Board factor the findings on the Foley matter in terms of whether there were patterns of conduct warranting review on Member of Congress, Staff Counsel, and Congressional Employee conduct on other committees?

___ A committee on the Page Board suffered from poor management and oversight. What was done to review the patterns of conduct as they related to all House Committees?

[71 of 91: “doe not establish a basis to recommend additional proceedings”]

___ Explain in detail in light of the oversight and management problems connected to entities which the Speaker, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader both have inputs.

___ Why should we believe that no further review is required: There’s no documentation (apparently) related to the issues, as there should be. Where else are legal issues not being documented?

[72 of 91] “failed to exercise appropriate diligence or oversight, or should have exercised greater diligence and oversight”

___ Where else does this conclusion apply in re Geneva, war crimes, FISA, NSA, and alleged prisoner abuse, or failures to comply with the FISA requirements?

[72 of 91] “does not mean that” It is incorrect to assert than an “error in judgment” is something other than what contributes to maladministration. The framers changed the basis for an impeachable offense to broadly capture maladministration.

Failures to exercise appropriate oversight is more than maladministration, it is arguably an actionable failure to faithfully assert ones oath of office.

Read this very closely: As with the non-sense definition over what is or is not torture, the Ethics Committee is doing the same. The issue with Geneva abuse is not whether there was or was not torture, but whether there was or was not abuse. Similarly, the issue is not whether Members of The House did or did not have judgment failures, but whether they did or did not fully assert their oath of office. The House Committee, as with the distraction with torture, has changed the definition of malfeasance from a criminal matter, that should be referred to the US Attorney, to a nebulous standard of “error in judgment.”

Errors are one thing, but willful neglect of ones duties is quite another. However, the fundamental, minimal standard is whether Members of Congress on the Ethics Committee did or did not faithfully execute their duties as they swore in their oath of office.

Based on the above discussion, and alleged non-sense bordering on criminal negligence contributing to permissiveness with respect to war crimes, we judge the Ethics Committee has engaged in the same alleged violations of the oath of office which contributed to the alleged malfeasance in re Foley.

The Ethics Committee Staff has allegedly parsed words on irrelevant definitions, and pretended that mischaracterized conduct, that fails to bring credit upon the House, somehow exceeds the requirements. This is absurd and perverse thinking, warranting review by the German war crimes prosecutor.

It is irrelevant what the Committee asserts it is or is not mindful of. The outcome is an alleged reckless disregard for the oath, and a willful explaining away of conduct bordering on 5 USC 3331 violations. Stunningly, this conclusion is by a bipartisan committee indicating that the Congress, regardless which Committee or party controls it, has inverted the standards of performance, and would have We the People believe that irresponsible conduct does not warrant farther investigation. This is absurd. At a minimum, the patterns of conduct should be generalized, and explored in terms of what other alleged criminal behavior is lurking that has not otherwise been captured under the FISA, NSA, Geneva, rendition, and war crimes umbrella.

It is also irrelevant what the Committee argues is or is not the benefit of hindsight. Going forward, we know Congress, despite this plea for consideration on “we didn’t realize until hindsight”-argument, that the Congress knew enough to grant immunity for war crimes between 2001 to 2006.

The law is always a retrospective view of conduct; it is impossible to look speculatively to future conduct. Rather, the law and standards of conduct are there to raise standards, induce conduct; the oath is there to inspire people to do what they are inclined not to do: Exceed the expectations above more mere mortals and act like leaders who confront difficult issues, especially when they are most difficult, confusing, and unclear.

Stunningly, the Committee would ask us only to consider what we know now with the benefit of hindsight. Yet, this is the reason Members of Congress and Staff Counsel well know about peer reviews, internal controls, and documentation. It is stunning for the Ethics Committee Counsel to have argued that “hindsight” is one thing; while an ABA peer review does the same, but prospective oversees the weaknesses, then make recommendations.

The Page Board was established the 1980s after the abuses of the 1960 and 1970s. Yet, in 2006, we are asked to believe that we should have consideration for hindsight and not be so rough. Non-sense. The reason for having the page Board is to apply the lessons, engage in aggressive oversight, and tackle new issues, not explain them away as resolved.

“Danger of hindsight” is an excuse. It is irrelevant what messages did or did not surface in 2006. The issue is the conduct of Foley; and the conduct of the Page Board; and the Conduct of the Members of Congress; and the conduct of the Congressional leadership on both sides of the aisle.

Eth Ethics Board, as was done with Abu Ghraib, is changing the issue from whether conduct is or is not the attention, to whether the issue was or was not documented; and when it was surfaced.

Going forward from 1981, it was a Title 2 ministerial requirement under the US Code to solve problems. The Statute has been updated. As with FISA, the laws and requirements were clear; yet as with FISA and the Geneva Conventions the clearly promulgated status have been explained away as “hindsight.” Non-sense.

This report’s conclusions only apologize for having been caught, not for having failed to broaden the review to apply the lessons to all committees and ensure that the defective management systems that failed in the page Board and in the Speakers Office are clearly promulgated as lessons learned. This is not an issue going forward from 2006; it is an issue going forward from 1981 when the Page board was established; and going forward from 1978 When the FISA courts were established.

The Etches Committee has pretended that, because of the failure to document and mange – as required by the 5 USC 3331 oath of office – that somehow this is going to get explained away. Wrong answer. Members of Congress admit that they do not know the law, and have on their staff counsel who are supposedly experts on Title 28 and Title 50 and Title 2. The results would ask, as with Geneva, that we ignore the alleged complicity of Staff counsel to not document the issues and ensure the alleged misconduct was managed, not asserted to have been resolved. Bad applies in Abu Ghraib was not the resolution: The resolution lies with pointing the power of the House directly at the Man that is behind the alleged malfeasance in Congress: The President. His assent to absurd notions of reality has inspired in the Ethics Committee a perverse sense of what is or is not sanctionable conduct.

Members of Congress, when they refuse to assert the rule of law, are just as culpable in maladministration and may be lawfully prosecuted under 5 USC 3331. Yugoslavia, when it refused to enforce the laws, was targeted by NATO. The Ethics Committee apparently fails to comprehend the legal problem facing the US government: Your collective leadership has been targeted for prosecution – all 535 of you, with you staff counsel, and the employees working in the contractors. Three is no statute of limitations on war crimes. However, if Members of Congress, as the Yugoslavian government incorrectly believes, wants to pretend it can ignore the law and assert that things are “just fine,” you have a very rude walkup call. Under the laws of war, foreign fighters, when they engage a combatant like the US that wages illegal war, may lawfully reciprocate. Once Members of Congress grant themselves and their friends’ immunity for abuses or alleged war crimes, foreign fighters may lawfully target the leadership who refuses to enforce the laws of war: Everyone from the President, Members of Congress, and the Staff Counsel assigned to Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive Branch. This is not a threat, but a reminder of the power of the Geneva Conventions. If you refuse to enforce them, other foreign fighters may lawfully violate the standards of conduct which this Ethics Committee appears to not realize have been violated: The duty of leaders to enforce the laws of war, engage in oversight to prevent abuse, and ensure that governance is accountable to the rule of law.

This Ethics Committee has thrown those standards out the window.

[72 of 91] “Unwillingness to take responsibility” is the same problem at Nuremburg. If this is a pervasive problem with Foley, then the US government and Ethics Committee has a legal duty to ask for help: From outside auditors, from legal experts in international law, and from people who can provide expertise on transitioning the US government from something that is not working, to something that twill work. Part of the problem the US government has in effectively managing Iraq is the demonstrated inability of the US government to put in to practice at home what it advocates abroad: Accountable, responsive, effective government.

Members of Congress know full well about the Kennedy School of Government; and the lessons that Members of Congress could learn on effective leadership. But when the Ethics Committee, that is supposedly bipartisan, reaches these types of conclusions, it is a serious matter. It sends a clear signal that the conduct was known, the culture is not working, and the leadership has failed in both parties.

[72 of 91: “Rather than addressing the issue fully” is a concern that equally applies to the Ethics Committee: You have not fully comprehended the significance of the misconduct in terms of the larger issues: FISA, NSA, Geneva, war crimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal abuse, and prisoner mistreatment. The Ethics Committee has failed to see that it is part of the problem.

[72 of 91: “some witness did far to little” – the same can be said of this ethics report.

[72 of 91: “attempting to pass the responsibility for acting to others” – just as the US government is passing responsibility to the Iraqis to solve the US failure to comply with Geneva, and the obligation to provide for Iraq’s security.

[72 of 91: “relied on unreasonably fine distinctions regarding their defined responsibilities” – this is absurd.

___ Where did the Ethics committee look at any job descriptions of the Page Board and say, “You didn’t do your job”?

___ Where did the ethics Committee look at the “job descriptions” (wherever they are) and reconcile that the description does or does not meet the intent of the 5 USC 3331 oath of office?

____ What else has been going on that does not “neatly” fit within the apparently very narrowly defined job descriptions?

___ Where is the leadership in Congress to ensure that the oath is taking precedence over party loyalty?

The issue is broadly the problem the DNC leadership has under Pelosi: They, as this Ethics Committee report have stated, have deiced to narrowly define the solution before reviewing the facts. This is absurd.

Leadership in Congress, in a republican system, depends on the leadership doing things. It makes no sense for the leadership to “wait around” until the Population wakes up. Every two years the leadership knows there is an election. There has either “just been” an election; or there is going to be an election – referring to the election as an excuse to not act is just an excuse: Elections are there to ask for accountability.

Yet, the buffoons in Congress are asserting the opposite, arguing implicitly (paraphrasing), “We don’t want to upset anyone, we just want to assert our agenda.” Hay! Your agenda is nothing higher than your article I 5 USC 3331 oath of office: Protect the Constitution, enforce the law, and ensure that treaty obligations are upheld; and do so faithfully. Maladministration is not faithfully doing anything; rather, it rewarding something that belongs out of government, not in leadership, and should be somewhere else.

[72 of 91: “Almost no one followed up adequately on the limited actions they did take” – stunning,

__ We supposedly read this “big lesson” from the 9-11 report. What happened to the “apply the lessons of 9-11 to Congress”?

___ Or is the problem: Congress knew about the illegal activity prior to Sept 2001, but didn’t ask questions and didn’t follow up on the Constitution to see whether or not Congress was doing anything illegal?

Congratulations. Because Congress decided to jump into a mess, create a disaster, you have squandered American power, put the US military at risk, and you have war crimes.

___ Where was the debate?

___ Where was the “follow up” by Congress on the reasons for going to war?

___ Where was the leadership to see the “responsibilities” attached with the oath of office?

___ Where was the “full” and “address” in the oversight by the bipartisan Ethics Committee?

The answer is: The reason you’re not admonishing your peers is because you on the Ethics Committee regularly ignore this pattern of conduct at all level of government. You’re despicable. How dare you ask the Iraqis to be inspired by America. They’re inspired by one thing – the desire to get rid of people who are abusing power, have invaded their lands.

Congress has the joint responsibility with the President to provide for an Army and NAVY. Article 1 Section 8 puts the joint responsibly on the President and Congress to pass bills to appropriate funds to ensure the nation’s military is adequately provisioned.

___ What has Congress done?

___ What has Congress appropriated money for?

___ Where did the money go:?

It went to illegal things. Under the laws of war, and the precedent of Tokyo War Crimes, when civilians are in a position to prevent war crimes – as Members of Congress and their Staff Counsel are – but they refuse to act, those civilians are allegedly complicit with war crimes.

The way forward is to look to The Hague and say to the world community, “The American system of governance failed, we have a plan to resolve these issues, and this is what we’re going to do.”

But this Ethics Committee didn’t do that. It’s narrowly defined the problem in terms of what Foley did or didn’t’ do, and failed to see the larger picture: This list of problems on page 72 of 91 in the Ethics Committee Report on Foley is how the entire US government works, or doesn’t work as the case is in 2006. This is nothing to be inspired by.

We the People have options. We can create a New Constitution. We can compel assertions of the oath of office. We can compel people do what they should. And we can compel people to ask for assistance. Despite all those options, Members of Congress, Staff Counsel, and the Congressional employees didn’t do that.

___ What is the basis for your asking anyone to pay you?

___ What education are you brining to the table that should you know enough to ask a question?

Apparently, this is lost on the American government, and both parties on this Ethics Committee have let down not only We the People, but the US Constitution, and the international community. Shame on you. We expected more, and you’ve failed to do your job. You are allegedly in violation of your 5 USC 3331 oat; and this information has been forwarded to the German war crimes prosecutor for review, and consultation with people who can access the NSA-GCHQ data to find out what other evidence exists.

72 of 91: with respect to e-mails . . .

[72 of 91] Scope of the Staff Negligence. There are key words in the paragraph “With respect to the e-mails” on page 72 which would be of interest for the war crimes prosecutors in Germany and Italy to review.

Note close that the Congressional employees implicated for not doing all they should include “Members” which indicates that Members of Congress, not lower level employees have not dong what they should have done. Also identified are “officers” indicating that Senior leaders within Congress did not do what they should. The distinctions are noteworthy and warrant discussion.

When a report, without identifying specific members by name, but waves a broad brush and broadly implicates multiple Members of Congress including the leadership in Congress in both political parties, this is something to consider carefully.

There are some key words which warrant repletion and discussion.

“Had opportunities”

“To inquire further”

“To elevate issues”

“To more senior Members or staff”

“To take steps consistent with knowledge of”

“Some did fulfill the responsibilities”

“Too many exhibited insufficient diligence or willingness to take steps necessary to ensure the matter was being appropriately handled”

These are stunning statements about a course of conduct that had spanned two centuries, starting in the 1960s, starting with reforms in the 1970s, then resulting in the misconduct in the 1990s, which the subsequent Congressional inaction spanning into the 21st Century.

Pages have been in Congress for more than two centuries. It is absurd that the original abuses of the 1960s and 1970s took at least 20 years for substantive reforms to take place.

Broadly applied, when something which generated Congressional attention in the 1960s fails to have a robust oversight system, there is something worth examining in detail. One would think that when legislation and programs were enacted, and Congress was charged with the responsibility to do something, there would be in a place a system of governance that would regularly monitor the activities, conduct in internal reviews, and ensure problems were mitigated. This concept of management appears lost on the US government, whether it applies to war crimes or the care of American youth in the page program.

The way forward is to generalize the common course of conduct as it applies to the oversight and governance of the statutes related to the pages, and examine how similar patterns of conduct manifested themselves as causal factors in failures to timely oversee, investigate, and prevent war crimes, FISA violations, and Constitutional violations. The case cannot credibly be made that the pattern of negligence and alleged recklessness was isolated to a small segment of Congress; this was business as usual. Going forward, the question is to what extent, despite the legal requirements of Geneva, staff counsel and members of Congress were equally reckless in honoring their 5 USC 3331 oath of office obligation to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions.

[72 of 91] Note closely the phrase “were asked to take action regarding them” implies that someone gave an order or direction. Yet with FISA and Geneva violations, we’re asked to believe nobody knew. Going forward, it remains to be understood who did have a legal duty to do something, and how action items, if assigned, were subsequently tracked, and verified to have closed, then subsequently revisited by senior management.

[73 of 91] “not of those people saw – or insist on seeing – the e-mails prior to taking such action.”

[[73 of 91] “were not given copies of e-mails because of the family’s request for privacy” – this is not believable. Congressional staff were actively suppressing the e-mails regardless what the family was or was not doing. Further, regardless what the family did or did not wish, no family member has the power to trump the House in self-regulation. It is for the Congressional leadership in both parties to credibly demonstrate that they are not using similar GOP non-sense from the White House on issues of prisoner abuses.

___ Did the DOJ Staff and White House counsel argue that prisoners could not be reivew4ed because of “privacy” issue?

___ Why should we believe these were real concerns given Addington refused to accept changes in the CIA prisoner positions, fearing that their changed status would be an admission of the original wrong?

[73 of 91] “all of those witnesses knew at the time that a newspaper already had the e-mails” – this is strange, in that Staff Counsel had, previously, requested the newspaper not to disclose the e-mails. This suggests that there were multiple layers of knowledge, or shells in who knew what and when. It cannot be argued that the witnesses all knew something at the same time; some staff counsel knew far more prior to publication.

[73 of 91] “almost no one followed up to make sure that the action they had taken had been successful” – This is stunning. It implies that people, at best, were relying on the assertion that something was solved, without gathering any evidence.

___ What does this say about the competence of staff counsel assigned?

___ How do staff counsel, who well know about the ABA peer review process, reconcile this approach taken on the Foley issue, with how peer reviews are done?

___ What was sending a message to Congressional Staff counsel that they could rely on someone’s word, and not gather any evidence?

___ Where as the oversight and audit plan to ensure the Title 2 requirements were successfully being implemented; and the compensation packages were warranted?

___ How did the Congress randomly audit compensation package and Member of Congress statements on staff duties to ensure the work performed was consistent with (a) duties as assigned; (b) compensate given; and (c) representation by Members of Congress?

These are not issues of partisanship, but governance. The Ethics Committee report does not distinguish between leadership, officer, and employees; nor between GOP and DNC. A reasonable presumption is there was no effective internal control to review assertions of compliance; nor gather any data on legal issues related to war crimes, FISA violations, Constitutional misconduct, or violations of the 5 USC 3331. This abysmal performance assessment says nothing of the Congressional review or non-review of a separate branch.

[73 of 91] Motivation: “cannot determine conclusively the motivation for those who failed to fulfill their responsibilities.” This is irrelevant. The Article III Judicial Court is empowered to make adverse inferences. It is not the job of Members of Congress or staff counsel to worry themselves with reasons and motivations, when the larger pattern of conduce is not reviewed, as it should be.

We judge the reasons cited as “factors” are not compelling to warrant serious consideration. For example saying that inaction was justified on the basis to risk “exposing” Foley’s conduct is not consistent with the subsequent agreement to disclose details on condition that the IMs not be released. “Family wishes” are not a credible basis to argue for inaction, but an excuse largely created by creating a false sense of crisis for the family, when the real crisis remains in Congress.

As with FISA-excuses, the committee report identifies convenient excuses for inaction, but there are not compelling, nor are they credible. Rather, something else more fundamental is at play: Incompetence. The Ethics Committee report by its design, writing, and how it analyzed the issue is a symptom of the fundamental failures in the US Government, not isolated to Congress.

The requirements per 5 USC 3331 and the House Ethics Standard are clearly above what Members of Congress are doing. GAO should be brought into the nexus to outline a transformation package that will modernize the Congressional Staff operations. This Ethics Report should be the starting point for the GAO analysis.

[73 of 91] “Need for those involved to learn all the relevant facts and communicate those facts candidly and freely to those with authority to address the issues raised” – This applies to the GTMO abuses which Senate Staff should have known about in 2002 after visiting GTMO, the aggressively followed up when the video and e-mail evince surfaced.

One cannot credibly claim to be a Committee Chairman, but the Members of Congress and staff on both sides of the aisle reward negligence. Learning “all the relevant facts” means keeping an open mind to what may need to be done; not with hoping to keep the facts within a subset that will ensure larger sanctions are not discussed. When Members of Congress refuse to keep all options on the table, they are telling We the People that they would rather the public provide the leadership.

GAO, when it is brought into the nexus, should examine the decisions of Members of Congress to jointly agree not to take action; and examine how investigations were or were not initiated on the basis of what happened. Curiously, Attorney General Gonzalez, when challenged by the Senate Judiciary Committee, similarly justified his inaction on the basis of what might occur: A Constitutional confrontation. The way forward is not to hide the issues out of fear of what may happen; but consider what may happen if the issues are not confronted – The collapse of the American government.

[73 of 91] As a test of the alternate hypothesis, future investigations, which the Ethics Committee refuses to support, should do what the Committee explicitly admits it did not do: “address whether the various matter . . . would necessarily have been resolved different had greater diligence or oversight been exercised”. This is an interest area for the GAO to work closely with We the People, and bypass the Congress, so that We the People may examine on a no-notice basis whether Members of Congress, officers, staff counsel, and employees are or are not embracing the lessons learned.

The Ethics Committee report fails to comprehend the concept of simulations. The idea of statutes, standards, ethics, performance requirements, and checklists is to confront scenarios, then assess to what extent the planned internal controls would or would not effectively handle situations. It is inappropriate for the Ethics Committee to assert that something will or will not be speculation – the basis for the law is to speculate on what is good, and create sanctions and guides to do what is good. We reject the Ethics Committee assertion that scenarios, dry runs, practice, training, and Congressional training should not be subject to monitoring, oversight, or speculation: This is what leadership does when it trains, oversees, and tests personnel to see if they are or are not competent. To argue that this is “inappropriate speculation” would belie the basis for compensation packages: they are prospective agreements about similarly unknowable events, but establish duties and responsibilities going forward.

If the Ethics Committee is not willing to engage I speculation as to what is or is not a solution, nor willing to invite auditors from the GAO to assist the Members of Congress an leadership to modernize their allegedly reckless approach to governance, there is no need to have an Ethics Committee. No one should be left with the illusion that this scale of negligence can be permissible; nor that the Ethics Committee notion of bipartisanship is anything but a sham whitewash.

It might be appropriate to examine what Members of Congress and Staff counsel would have done different had they been given more effective operating guidelines; and had better institutionalized approaches to solving problems, overseeing mitigation plans, and working with auditors to test the effectiveness of their approaches.

This Ethics Committee Report makes excuses for inaction – the same approach the Members of Congress took. This is not acceptable.

[74 of 91 ] “Cannot conclude that the outcome of that meeting . . .would have been different” is irrelevant. Issues are not resolved with a single meeting; they require multiple interactions. Whether a specific meeting did or did not resolve the issue is meaningless to debate. The core question is whether the approach of the employees, staff, and Members of Congress was what would bring credit upon the House; and were they demonstrating competence in asserting their 5 USC 3331 consistent with their experience, pay scales, and access to trained expertise.

It is irrelevant what the “predicted” outcomes might have been. The question is whether there will be an effort to examine the reasons for the flawed response, and transform the House from what does not work, into something that does. This bipartisan ethics report sends the opposite signal: Both Parties are willing to not find solutions, nor examine what could have been a different outcome had more robust oversight been in place. Refusing to examine these questions repeats the problem the Ethics Report identified: A failure to examine.

[74 of 91 ] The Ethics Committee report fails to review the conduct of the 1960s and 1970s which prompted the Statutes and Page Board. We are left to speculate why the Ethics Committee did not examine the oversight system that should have been in place for the last 40 years. This oversight system should include the following, which GAO can assist:

- A clear statement of the legal and statutory requirements
- A clear statement of the problems and risks the standards are hoping to address
- General polices and reviews needed to mitigate these problems
- A series of action items, self-inspections, and other checklists Congressional Staff can review
- A plan to organize information over time to evaluate whether problems are getting resolved, worsening, or not changing
- A method to track whether issues along these statutory requirements are or are not getting addressed
- Feedback to the key personnel on whether the conduct is or is not meeting the objectives
- An internal review process to randomly sample the compensation packages, actual work performed, the Members of Congress certifications, and the results of these programs; then an explanation for the differences and a get well plan

[ 74 of 91 ] The Ethics Committee says it “did not seek to investigate fully all instances” because of the change in status. This is not acceptable. The proper approach is to examine the issues of interest to Congress: What did or did not happen in Congress, that should have, regardless the status of the person who was at the center of the issue.

Whether Foley might have violated a standard of conduct is interesting, but less important as understanding how the House enabled, did not detect, and did not adequately prevent these violations. The conduct is related to issues raised in the 1960s. By refusing to examine the full issues, the Ethics Committee cannot credible argue that there is no basis for violate by other Members of Congress, Staff, or Congressional Employees.

It remains to be explained to We the People why any set of facts was agreed to not be reviewed; then have We the People believe that the conclusions related to those non-reviewed matters can be taken seriously. Leadership means looking at reality, not making excuses to ignore situations. This Ethics Committee has demonstrated recklessness, and the German War Crimes prosecutor should immediately be made aware of its conclusions, approach, and its approach to inquiry.

[74 of 91 ] “on more than one occasion” means that the conduct was ongoing, but the Congressional oversight system failed to detect, mitigate, or monitor foreseeable situations. This is no acceptable, especially when Congressional Staff were warning pages of potential problems. Similarly, it can be reasonably assumed that other mitigation and oversight issues on other issues related to FISA, Geneva, and constitutional violations were similarly ignored, explained away, or not examined.

[74 o f91] “may have been using the page program to . . . identify possible future recipients” means that the course of conduct, despite Staff counsel warning, was not effectively managed from the outset, and this analysis was not done prospectively as should have been done as a foreseeable risk.

Staff counsel warned pages of the conduct, yet we find no evidence suggesting that the page Board effectively emphasized the appropriate standards of conduct; nor did it in a preventive manner discuss with Members of Congress and Staff indicators of problems, or what should be done if possible things occur. This is leadership. These are foreseeable risks. The 1960s page program mentioned problems with Pages engaging in criminal activity because they were bored. Members of Congress are not superhuman beings, but mere mortals subject to the same laws. The Page Board is responsible for the welfare of the Pages. This means ensuring that the Capitol Hill Police are working with the members of congress to jointly ensure problems are identifies, resolved, mitigated, and prosecuted. This preventive approach to legal issues appears to have been lost on the US government, not only with the Pages but with Geneva, FISA, war crimes, rendition, combat operations, prisoner care, and communications security. This is unacceptable.

[75 of 91] “such conduct is an abuse of power” – indeed, but this Congress, despite abuse of Pages, turns around and asks We the People to put up with its nonsense about the President’s abuse of power.

Shocked over page abuse, but this Congress refuses to keep the impeachment on the table to handle a serious matter.

[75 of 91 ] “abuse of the trust of” We the People.

[75 of 91] “Behavior of this kind cannot be excused or tolerated, as it undermines the integrity of the House.” Too late – your leadership has jointly agreed to excuse and tolerate an assent to war crimes, FISA violations, rendition, Geneva violations, Constitutional volitions, and ask We the People to put up with it.

Does this House comprehend that the US government is teetering on collapse? These are issues of legitimacy. How does the US government propose to inspire confidence in the minds of Iraqis for a system of governance which Americans have no prospect of enjoying: Something called credible oversight with checklists. The US government will only be able to survive if it is willing to lead, not delegate responsibility to the misinformed to guide the House on what it should not do. We the People, if we are going to have the responsibility to make decisions, shall be fully informed of the problem; and We the People shall be given a system of governance that works, not makes excuses as this Ethics Committee and Congress does.

We the People are not required to “put up with” hat fails. We the People can create a new system that is response, does not permit excuses, compels oversight, and solves problems.

It is absurd for the House Ethics Committee to assert that a standard should “at all times” be met, when the report itself is well below this standard. This report does not reflect creditably on the House, nor the US government. This report is trash.

[75 of 91] Note 290 It is disingenuous for the Ethics Committee report to repeat the concept of “special responsibility” when actions, oversight, and leadership believe this assertion. Results matter, not simple assertions of ignored requirements.

[75 of 91] Indeed at note 291 we have the right to “expect the Highest standards from the House as an institution and from its individual members”, but we have been given something woefully short. The problem is that the report cited is from the 1980s, giving Congress 20 years to get it right. This Ethics Committee report fails to examine what fell apart between the 1980s and 2006.

The Ethics Committee misses the point when it narrows the focus only to isolated conduct of a singe person, but fails to examine the larger oversight issues which touch many problems.

[76 of 91]

[ 76 of 91] The Ethics Committee fails to make a compelling case that it credibly spent time on a relevant issue. Whether messages were e-mail or instant messages hardly seems to be something the Ethics Committee can justify as saying it well focused its resources. This is splitting hairs, and ignoring the course of conduct between 1960 and 2006 where the Congress had a known duty, but fell down.

[ 76 of 91 ] The Committee distinction on e-mail and IMs is irrelevant, and fails to look at the Congressional oversight issues. Recall, Foley was using his access to Congress to identify potential targets; whether Foley used IM or E-mail to support this inappropriate objective is not important. The Committee shows it is attempting to narrow the range of focus, then with the final brush say that the smallest pile of evidence need not be reviewed. This is an abysmal failure of governance; the US government should not be surprised why Hamas and Hezbollah have support in the Middle East – they’re not making excuses, they’re addressing issues. How they are doing this is another matter and we make no comment on the lawfulness or appropriateness of their methods. America offers excuses; Hezbollah defeats the Israelis. That’s what this Ethics Committee misses when discussing the House Governance issues. The Ethics Committee focused on trivialities, and the failure to confront the larger issues is at the hart of the Iraqi disgust with America’s approaches in Baghdad – worthlessness. This Ethics Committee report reaffirms to Iraqi insurgents why they should break off negotiations with America – America’s approach to problems is absurd, meaningless, and contemptible.

[77 of 91 ] Whether the e-mail did or did not warrant conduct is meaningless unless those actions were forwarded to the Page Board; and if those actions were monitored, documented, and reviewed. Demanding someone do something is different than keeping all options on the table to punish them if they refuse. How this Congress hopes to effectively oversee the President remains to be seen – it has shown no competence in overseeing a single Member of congress on a fairly benign issue. Expanding the absurdity more broadly to war crimes and FISA violations, there is no hope this Congress or a New Congress is going to fair any better.

[77 of 91] “should have done more” --- like keeping the impeachment option on the table.

Notice what the Ethics Committee is doing: Focusing on the content of the e-mail and not looking at the Members of Congress. This is a classic DC-smokescreen as was done with the WMD used to justify prisoner abuse, war crimes, and not prevent illegal FISA violations. “It’s all justified because of the enemy – war crimes, Geneva violations, impeachable offenses – but were’ not going to do anything about it because we don’t’ want to make anyone upset.”

It doesn’t matter when someone knew of the issues; what matters is that the Congressional staff knew there was a problem, and there was no plan in place to manage the problem. This Ethics Committee is making an excuse for inaction, despite Members of Congress and staff knowing about other issues, reports, and concerns well before 2006.

Putting aside the e-mails, Members of Congress have failed, as they did with FISA, to prospectively look forward from the 1960s to ensure there was a robust system in place to protect the Pages. Whether Members of Congress were aware of the symptoms of that failed oversight is irrelevant: The issue was for the Congress to have created a system, not make excuses that nobody knew about a symptom. Other symptoms were well known, and the issue of whether an e-mail or an IM was or was not known misses the larger issue: there were many other indicators and duties that were ignored, not performed, or recklessly not implemented as should be reasonably expected.

Wh4ether Members of Congress knew or didn’t know about e0mails or IMs is meaningless. The Page Board never prospectively communicated appropriate or inappropriate conduct; and failed to proactively identify and mitigate the range of conduct the Page Board was designed to mitigate. Even if Foley wasn’t at the dorm, nobody can explain how someone from Congress did or didn’t’ approach the dorm but nobody from the Capitol Police was aware or can be identified.

The Ethics Committee focus on the content of the e-mails, but distracts attention from the known effort by the GOP to have the IMs suppressed.

[78 of 91 ] The e-mails were known as of 2005. This is a problem. Once the leadership was aware of a concern, they fail to show in 2005 that they expanded their commutations, discussed the issues with the Page Board, or solved the problem.

[78 of 91] The Ethics Committee fails to conclude with the full dates and years of the conduct, and inappropriately pretends that the distinction between e-mails and IMs is important. They are from the same person, and part of the same problem. The Ethics Committee distinction is a red herring and undermines confidence the Ethics Committee is serious about exploring the full timetable.

Broadly, the Page Board as the right place to raise these issues and concern, but the Members of Congress and Staff Counsel failed to ensure the concerns were centrally managed through the Page Board. The lessons apply to Geneva, war crimes, FISA, NSA, rendition, and prisoner abuse:

___ How many other legal issues are not appropriately forwarded to the appropriate staff?

___ How many other legal issues are “handled” without solving them?

[78 of 01] Note the multiple times that personnel in the Speaker's office were aware of concerns, but there are not dates, and no mention no why the Page Board was not immediately involved in an issue related to page. This is not acceptable. A new timeline needs to include all staff commutations in and out of the Speakers office, regardless when it is a rumor, concern, e-mail, IM, or a bonafide report. This Ethics Committee Report does not identify timelines, who spoke to whom, or provide the necessary summary chart to justify confidence in any conclusion.

[78 of 91] We reject the Ethics Committee conclusion that Pages were not warned about Foley.

___ Who issued a warning?

___ Who said they were going to discuss Foley?

___ Who presented concerns about Foley?

___ If there was “no warning” what was the basis for the Family to be concerned about the “publicity”?

This makes no sense. There was enough concern within the GOP with this issue, and sufficient retention of e-mails and concerns raised by Pages prompting:

- contacts with the media
- retention of e-mails
- retention of IMs
- Discussion with friends
- Mentioning the issue
- Declining to permit Foley the opportunity to speak at the page Graduation

The Ethics Committee Conclusions, as absurd as they are, and despite the cursory review of evidence, fails to consider the evidence within its won report which believe the assertion that there was no communication or concern about Foley.

[ 79 of 91] Kolbe allegedly under investigation for inappropriate interaction with Pages. If this is true, then Kolbe’s assertion under oath that he had not thought about the issues appears to have been misleading {see notes 92 and 94}

Once Kolbe’s conduct is under review, the rules permit deferral; this hardly means that the issue is closed, or does not warrant subsequent review, follow-up or monitoring. Suppose Kolbe is cleared of any charges of wrongdoing:

___ Does the Ethics committee plan to not apply the lessons of Foley, and create an oversight system to monitor Kolbe?

___ How ill the lessons of Foley, and the failures of Congressional oversight in general, be applied to the Page Board in re Kolbe?

___ What is the plan to glean the lessons of the issues with Foley, and create compelling checklists, page Board warnings, and other indicators for the Entire Congress to review in re Kolbe?

[ 80 of 91] The 1975 Report is not cited as it should be. There is no notation on page 80 indicating the source of the note.

[80 of 91] “Kolbe did not provide full and complete testimony regarding the allegations, citing the pending federal inquiry.” How convenient.

___ How does the Congress plan to review the issues in re FISA, NSA, Geneva, war crimes, Constitutional violations when the defendant-witnesses similarly claim, “It’s under investigation”?

[80 of 91] “makes no finding and draws no conclusion regarding the allegations” – this is absurd: Kolbe at notes 92 and 94 has allegedly made inconsistent remarks.

___ How can the Committee not make an adverse inference?

___ What is the reason that the Committee is not considering other mitigation efforts that may be required, given the multiple alleged problems in re Foley and Kolbe?

___ Does it penetrate the minds of anyone on the Ethics Committee that the issue isn’t Foley or Kolbe, but the failure of the Congressional leadership to effectively implement the lessons of the 1960 and 1970s into an effective oversight system?

___ Given the abysmal failure of the Congress to implement a credible oversight system on Pages, why should anyone believe that a similar system exists for something more complicated like war crimes, Geneva, laws of war, NSA, FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, or illegal violations of the US Constitution?

[80 of 91] It is irrelevant that Kolbe is retiring. He is a symptom of a failure of Congress to manage an issue.

___ What is the plan of Congress to glean the lessons of Foley and Kolbe to ensure this does not happen again?

___ How will the lessons from this issue be applied to all Committees on their jurisdiction?

___ Where there is an entrenched business practices of negligence, what do Members of Congress and the Ethics Committee plan to do to remedy this problem?

___ Who is going to review the apparent disconnect between the (a) compensation packages; (b) Member of Congress assertions on staff work; (c) staff performance; and (d) the results?

[80 of 91] Notice what the ethics Committee is doing – it is relying on inquires, practice of deferral (do nothing) and personnel action to justify inaction. This is absurd. Equally ridiculous is the prospect that the federal inquiry could conclude, because Kolbe is retiring and “the House has not taken any action” to conclude to do nothing.

This is the problem which the Iraqis face: US government entities point to each other saying, “We not going to act, because something else is doing something.” The problem is that the other agency isn’t doing anything. What a mess.

[80 of 91] B. Review of Relevant Standards of Conduct

[81 of 91] Expose corruption wherever discovered – Clause 9

[ 82 of 91] Concerns first raised in 1995, 11 years ago. Note: Discussions were related to prospective concerns of appearances.

___ What was done to ensure these appearances were not actual?

[92 of 91] Trandhal raised concerns with Ted Van Der Meid, without conclusion what to do. This is absurd. Where’s the leadership?

[83 of 91] OK for inaction. Inaction is OK.

___ Why no monitoring, documentation, or follow-up?

___ Any effort to inform the Page Board?

[83 of 91 ] Kolbe denial was not compared to notes 92 and 94. Not impressive. Implausible that the IM attached, but not read. Kolbe was concerned about talks to the WaPo on the issues, but didn't read the attachment? Get real. He was probably spinning, confused what to do about something he was allegedly doing himself. This could have been determined.

___ If Kolbe was doing nothing wrong, why the inconsistency at 92 and 94?

[93 of 91] “he should have asked for it” – indeed

___ What else should Members of Congress have done when they heard about Geneva violations, War crimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, FISA violations.

___ What were Kolbe’s most likely reasons for not pursuing the matter?

___ Did Kolbe not want to look into an issue he was engaged?

___ Did Kolbe feel uncomfortable pointing the finger on an issue that Kolbe may have been later implicated?

___ How does this lesson apply to Members of Congress and their refusal to keep impeachment ton the table?

___ What could Members of Congress possibly fear happening if they point the finger at the President – will someone dare ask the ranking members of the Committees why they did not document their concerns in re the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and not ask for a timely review by the US Attorney and Inspector General as they could do as ranking members of the Committee?

[83 of 91] “to make sure his response was the correct one” – indeed this would apply to the Ethics Committee in re notes 92 and 94

___ What evidence did the Committee review that it ‘should have” (applying the Ethics Committee report standard to the Ethics Committee) that it has not?

[84 of 91] Kolbe’s handing Is not a violation

[84 of 91 ] “did take steps to address the former’s page’s complaint”

___ Why wasn’t the Page Board included in the Notifications?

___ Why wasn’t the Speaker, and Majority Leader and Minority leader involved?

___ Why are people, who have an input to who oversees the page program, not involved with the communication on issues that they should know about to monitor whether the page Board is or is not effective?

[ 84 of 91 ] Foley fatally apologizes: This admits he knows there was a problem, or a perception; and that this concern was on top of the original 1995 concerns.

___ How many incidents are required before the page Board is brought into the nexus?

[84 of 91 ] Foley resigns, despite his prior apology, for having done what he was warned about in 1995.

[84 of 91 ] “few of the individuals who ultimately came to participate in those events handled their roles in the manner that should be expected given the important and sensitive nature of the issues involved”

___ How has this finding been forwarded to the War crimes prosecutor in Germany?

___ How has this lesson been factored into the Title 28 and Title 50 reviews by Members of Congress?

___ What is the plan of the Congress to immediately review the Geneva, Constitutional, FISA violations in the context of these findings?

___ How will ORCON be factored into the assessments – when witnesses claim the information is classified, will they be briefed by the Committees that illegal activity cannot be lawfully classified?

[85 of 91] Notice what’s happened with Alexandar’s office – because a single staff member is no longer there, the inquiry focuses on the actions well after 1995, and focuses only on 2006. this is absurd. Oversight means looking at the reasons that Members of Congress, regardless their staff competence, were or were not notified of issues; and what solutions are needed to effectively communicate issues.

___ What reforms in staff oversight are needed across the board?

___ What types of training issues need to be examined?

___ Is the Ethics Committing going to review the patterns of misconduct, and direct a more credible training, oversight, and day to day management approach of issues?

___ how will future concerns be addressed?

___ Is the Committee process broken?

___ What is to be done to ensure when, as is the case here, people decide not to follow-up on legal issues: What is to be done to ensure that similar situations do not recur?

___ Who by name is arguing that there is no solution?

___ Which alternative structures to Legislation have they not considered that might be a remedy to this informant-investigation-oversight problem?

___ Which powers and duties need to be independently reviewed by personnel outside Congress?

___ How will the results of these audits be swiftly publicized in a meaningful way to We the People?

[85 of 91] It is incorrect to say that the “only reason the family was faced with a question about how that matter should be handled was because of the press inquiry.” This is false. One Member of Congress staff contacted the family, and the family’s concern was not only linked with the Press inquiry, but with the information that the Member of Congress gave that appears to have been to induce tem to request no further action.

Even if the Family had requested anything, they were never in a position to impose any condition; and even if they had, no Member of Congress was in a position to not do what they should have done: Investigate the matter.

___ How has this similar excuse of “what the family wanted” been used on issues of prisoner abuses, Geneva, war rimes, FISA violations?

___ How has “concerns with the victims” been used to not do reviews of the FISA, NSA, Geneva, Constitutional violations?

[ 86 of 91] Concur: Refusal to do something out of concern for family “defies logic”

[86 of 91] Note: Nov 2005 Speaker in position to know, “They contacted the Speaker’s officer and were directed to the Clerk.”

___ Why wasn’t this delegation reviewed?

___ How many times do House leaders refer a matter to someone else, but not follow up to see that it is resolved?

___ If the issue were to occur again, how did the Speaker plan to continue from the previous delegation to the Clerk?

___ What oversight of the Clerk did the Speaker specifically intend to apply on this issue that was specifically delegated to the clerk?

___ Did Shimkus and Trandhal plan to document, report, or inform the Clerk or Speaker in November 2005 after they did what they did?

___ Once the clerk and others took action in November 2005, how was the resolution forwarded back to the Speaker to certify, “this has been given attention; we recommend revisiting this on ___ X-date__?

___ How are these absurd delegation-non-documentation being considered on issues related to Article 82 and Geneva in re FISA, rendition, prisoner abuse, use of illegally intercept information to transport personnel using a Boeing scheduling system, and the treatment of prisoners in Europe and GTMO?

[86 of 91 ] Speaker had “not defined procedures for addressing matters”

___ Were there any defined procedures in the Speakers Office to handle legal issues related to Geneva, FISA, war crimes, prisoner abuse, unconstitutional activity, rendition, or abuse of power by the President?

___ How does Berke explain his Article 82 Geneva duty to ensure the Conventions are fully implemented?

___ Once DoD’s General Counsel Haynes was aware of issues, what did Berke, Haynes, and Addington discuss with Yoo, Gonzalez, Bybee, and Berenson on the Syrian involvement with Prisoner abuse?

___ Is Berke saying he never spoke with Berenson on the Syrian involvement with the prisoner abuses?

___ Where are Berke’s notes on this matter?

___ What review did Berke make of the Haynes-Addington plans after it was revealed there had been abuses in Europe?

___ Did Berke agree with Addington that to change would be to admit the original conduct was wrong?

___ What did Berke propose to do once the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors looked at the lessons of Foley Ethics Investigation, and started knocking on his door?

[86 of 91 ] Speaker’s Counsel Ted Van Der Meid is reported to have taken less than an “active response” to the e-mails.

___ How have these findings been forwarded to the DC bar for purposes of a disbarment review?

___ Have the results of these staff counsel actions in re the Speaker been forwarded to the appropriate state bar for review?

___ What is the plan of Ted Van Der Meid to cooperate fully with the German and Italian War Crimes prosecutor on questions related to rendition, prisoner abuse, war crimes, illegal warfare, WMD, Geneva violations, and other alleged misconduct which closely matches the patterns of abuses in re Foley: Failed oversight, negligence, less than stellar approaches by an ABA certified attorney?

___ When did Van Der Meid last have a peer review in re his fitness for duty?

___ What are Van Der Meid’s staff compensation package comments?

___ Is Van Der Meid still qualified to be an attorney?

___ Do the Comments from the Members of Congress about Berke, and Van Der Meid warrant their continued pay at these levels; or should their pay be adjusted to more appropriately compensate them fro what they have shown they are capable of doing unsupervised?

[86 of 91] Van Der Meid is reported to have not done many things. Failing to demand to “see their contents” and “following up as appropriate”

___ Did Van Der Mei’s “failure to do anything” be of interest to the war rimes prosecutor?

___ What other issues is Van Der Meid and Berke failing to “do anything” in re Geneva, rendition, FISA, NSA, Constitutional violations, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, fabricated evidence, contractor kickbacks, fabricated evidence in re WMD?

[86 of 91] Speaker’s legal advisor “showed an inexplicable lack of interest in . . . the resolution of the matter . . . in light of his prior knowledge regarding concerns . . .”

____ Where does someone get to be an attorney and show an “inexplicable lack of interest” in something they are getting paid to do?

___ How does someone get to be the legal counsel to the most powerful person in the US House, and “inexplicably” show no interest in an issue, but still present themselves as a qualified attorney licensed to practice before any state bar or the DC Bar?

___ What others issues has Van Der Meid shown an “inexplicable lack of interest” on issues of war crimes, Geneva, FISA, Constitutional violations, prisoner abuse, NSA misconduct, illegal warfare, WMD evidence fabrication?

[86 of 91 ] “Given Van Der Meid’s knowledge . . . regarding . . .past conduct. . . and role within the Speaker's office. . . .he should have done more . . .”

___ Isn’t this the definition of “malfeasance”?

___ How is 5 USC 3331 getting factored into this?

___ Where is the ABA?

___ Which ABA committees is Van Der Meid on?

___ Does Van Der Meid have any plants to treat a client or someone else from We the People in a similar manner?

___ How does Van Der Meid propose to get paid if he continues to not “learn” about issues that come to his attention?

___ How many discipline problems is Van Der Meid aware, but has not appropriately documented?

[87 of 91] Van Der Mied “knew that the matter involved . . . which should have raise a sufficient concern to trigger further inquiry on his part”

___ Why is Van Der Mied afraid of asking questions?

___ Does Van Der Mied have a reason fro not asking questions?

___ How many questions does Van Der Meid have related to War Crimes, Geneva, FISA, NSA, rendition, prisoner abuse, NSA illegal activity, warrantless wiretapping or constitutional violations

___ Where is Van Der Meid licensed to practice law?

___ Which version of 5 USC 3331 did Van Der Meid sign?

___ Is there something on his oath of office that says “faithfully”?

___ How can Van Der Meid argue that “faithfully” includes doing the very things that he allegedly recklessly failed to, that he should have done?

[ 87 of 91] “new incident . . . should have been sufficient to cause Van Der Meid to share what the knew with more senior staff in the Speaker’s office, or with the Speaker directly.”

___ What go in the way of Van Der Meid bringing issues of war crimes, FISA, illegal WMD evidence, illegal classification of data, prisoner abuse, FISA court violations, or constitutional violations to the attention of the Speaker?

[87 of 91] Despite Van Der Meid’s alleged reckless defiance of his oath, and abysmal performance as an alleged ABA goon-attorney, the Ethics Committee concludes he didn’t violate a standard of conduct.

___ What is going to be done to ensure that alleged buffoons like Van Der Meid, in the future, have an interest, reminder, and catalyst to do what even the most highly trained attorney allegedly blew off because he was allegedly too lazy?

___ What would possibly awaken with the soul the likes of the alleged idiots like Van Der Meid who apparently have no documentation system to forward meaningful issues to the attention of the leadership in the US Government?

___ Does Van Der Meid require a second oath of office on top of 5 USC 3331?

___ Does Van Der Meid have straight answer for the German war crimes prosecutor: “Where were you, what did you do, what should you have done, and do you have a defense?

___ How does Van Der Meid Propose arguing for immunity on alleged Geneva Article 82 violations, and his alleged knowledge of Haynes-Addington-Yoo-Gonzalez-Bybee decision not violate the laws of war; but he didn’t remove himself, report it, or otherwise bring this issue to the attention of the US Attorney, IG, or Congressional leadership?

___ Does Van Der Mied and Berke propose to rely on the Congressional grant of immunity for wrongdoing, and ignore the fact that Congress has no judicial power to decide the outcome of whether someone like Van Der Mied did or did not fully assert their 5 USC 3331 obligation to prevent, report, stop, and not allow war crimes to continue?

___ Do Van Der Meid and Berke comprehend that the German War Crimes prosecutor has their name, knows that they allegedly did or did not do, and that Addington is currently under investigation for alleged war crimes?

___ What do the Speakers Counsel including Van Der Meid and Berke propose to do, as was done in Yugoslavia, if foreign fighters, like NATO, choose to target those who were instrumental in not enforcing the Geneva Conventions?

___ Where does Van Der Meid and Berke plan to run and hide?

___ Are they going to run to Canada, Mexico, Virgin Islands, jump into the Atlantic, chase some cherry blossoms around Jefferson’s Memorial?

[87 of 91] Reynolds “Like many others, . . . neither . . . showed any curiosity regarding . . . .”

___ No interest about safety of life issues?

___ No interest about prisoner abuse?

___ No interest about rendition?

___ No interest about war crimes?

___ No interest about illegal warfare?

___ No interest about Constitutional violations?

___ No interest about conduct that defies 5 USC 3331?

___ No interest about Title 28 exception reports?

___ No interest about Title 50 exception reports?

___ No interest in calling the IG or US Attorney on legal issues related to war crimes, constitutional violations. FISA violations, illegal warfare, prisoner abuse, or other Geneva Violations?

___ How long does Van Der Meid propose to assert that he’s an attorney?

[87 of 91] “Neither . . . asked the Speaker to take action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.” Irrelevant. The Speaker should have known to lead, not wait for reality to run over him. He's still a Member of Congress and can be lawfully prosecuted for 5 USC 3331 violations.

This allegedly satisfies the definition of malfeasance, negligence, and not “faithfully” asserting ones 5 USC 33331 oath of office.

[87 of 91] There is a large gap between when the 1995 concerns were first raised, and the 2005 e0mails. Then another gap in 2006. many people didn’t do things. The Speaker directed the clerk to do something. But everyone is clueless. This is absurd. This isn’t government, this is worse than a poorly run neighborhood lemonade stand. “Good grief, Dennis Hastert.”

[ 88 of 91 ] Trandhal and Shimkus, Nov 2005. Trandahl tried to “define and enforce limits on the interaction between pages and Members, office and staff.”

___ Where was the Page Board in all this: What were they doing; where was the staff; what specifically were they occupied with; how did these events fit in with their schedules, travel, and other duties?

___ What was the page Board’s plan to oversee this effort?

___ Did the Page Board have a plan to formalize their concerns with policy which the Speaker, Majority, and Minority leaders adopted?

___ Why didn’t Shimkus, as a Member of the Page Board, formally document the resolution, and document this finding to the House leadership?

[88 of 91] Chairman of Page board notifies Speaker’s Counsel Van Der Meid

___ Where is the letter, memoranda, or other things which counsel would have documented after a formal notification by the Chairman of the Page Board?

___ How often are counsel to the Congressional leadership told of legal issue which they document?

___ How does the course of conduct related to the Chairman-Attorney commutations match the communication on issues related to war crimes, Geneva, FISA, NSA, rendition, prisoner abuse, false WMD evidence?

[88 of 91] Trandhal did not seek support from Speaker’s office of Members of Page Board to obtain a copy of the e-mails

___ How often does Van Der Meid, and legal counsel, act as a stovepipe, block, or gateway for legal matters related to FISA, Geneva, Rendition, prisoner abuse, illegal warfare, Constitutional violations, Title 28 and Title 50 reports?

[88 of 91] Chain of Command

___ What stopped anyone from writing a note directly to the Speaker?

___ After personnel departed, was there anything that prevented them from disclosing the information to the Speaker?

___ Is the media the only thing that is going to resolve these issues in a timely manner?

___ What is the plan of Members of Congress to reward those who assert their oath, and go around those who are not responsive to concerns on legal issues?

___ Even if an issue were brought to the attention of the Speaker, is there ay evidence the data filing/management systems could have adequately tracked, reviewed, and monitored the issue?

___ Putting aside whether someone did or did not talk, what is the plan of the Congressional leadership to ensure there is in place an issue-tracking system which appropriately reviews, revisits, and ensures issues are appropriately documented?

___ Discuss this system in the context of the e-mails that are deleted to the House leadership, and not appropriately documented in the Congressional Correspondence log.

[88 of 91] Shimkus only had excerpts, not the full e-mails

___ What should have been done to bring what information he had to the leaders’ attention?

___ What was the basis for someone calling ABC and asking them not to disclose the e-mails?

___ Once it was known that ABC had e-mails, why wasn’t the Speaker informed of the existence, and the full information Foley and the Speaker Staff had been involved since 1995?

___ Even if Shimkus did not have the e-mails, why wasn’t the Speaker or Page Board brought into the nexus to jointly confront Foley?

[89 of 91] Shimkus allegedly fails to fully assert oath, did not inform Page Board on a matter they had the statutory duty to oversee. Shimkus had an obligation to learn more without deciding on his own to resolve the issue; and without informing the other Page Board Members; or not seeking their input.

Failing to do one’s duty is allegedly a 5 USC 3331 oath. Shimkus is characterized as not having done something he should have done, or had an obligation to do.

___ What is the plan of the US Attorney to review this evidence and decide whether 5 USC 3331 has been violated?

___ How many others issues do Congressional Chairman resolve on their own without coordinating them with the other members on a committee as they relate to issues of war crimes, Geneva violations, rendition, prisoner abuse, FISA violations, unconstitutional conduct, false WMD evidence, illegal Presidential activity?

[90 of 91] Evans as Speaker counsel coordinates media statement “could have had the additional effect of” inhibiting the Committee in securing “evidence without interference”

___ Why isn’t the Committee being specific: Did the meeting interfere or not?

[ 90 of 91] Evans identified as counsel for the Speaker, Stokke, and Kennedy in appearances before the Committee

Translation: The man who organized the timeline, then acted as counsel for those who were appearing. This is absurd and warrants an ABA review.

___ How does anyone argue that Evans should not have secured counsel and been the subject of an ABA peer review for purposes of an ethics inquiry?

___ How can an attorney, in alleged contravention of ABA rules, be a witness to an event; provide testimony; then act as counsel for those subject to that review?

___ How often are Members of Congress represented by counsel who were instrumental in organizing recollections on issues of rendition, war crimes, FISA violations, impeachment, Geneva, prisoner abuse, NSA, warrantless surveillance, kidnapping, abuse in Eastern Europe, or other illegal conduct?

___ Is Evans in a position as a witness or counsel to provide comments on the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports related to FISA, NSA, rendition, war crimes, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, kidnapping, illegal warrantless surveillance, or other illegal activity that would have been documented?

___ Why should We the People believe that counsel has done what it should have done, per the ABA standards of conduct or 5 USC 3331 when Van Der Meid, Evans and Berke have jointly demonstrated alleged reckless defiance of their legal obligations as attorneys in the American legal system?

[90 of 91] page management review: The scope of the inquiry fails to consider the first rounds of abuses in the 1960s and 1970s. If this recommendation is implemented, it means that the page program is undergoing the 3rd if not 4th Management Review. Something new is needed. Obviously the program is not meeting its obligations, and the Members of Congress are not comprehending what they need to do.

[91 of 91] Regular meetings needed

[91 of 91] Equal representation of both parties on Page Board. Better make room for a third party, the GOP and DNC are toast after this one. The Ethics Committee is similarly balanced with equal members from the DNC and GOP, but We the People have been given this abysmal produce.

___ What training is needed for ABA staff counsel on duties?

[91 of 91] Clerk Access to the Speaker. This recommendation is absurd: They already do have access.

___ Why is the Ethics Committee Recommending “as a solution” something that already exists, and didn’t work?

[91 of 91] Education. Brilliant. Training was already there, but ignored. Need something new like audits, checklists, or some formalized system to revisit issues that are, or should be, brought to the Attention of the Speaker.

___ Title 2 wasn’t enough?

___ Staff counsel wasn’t enough?

___ Congressional Staff counsel oversight wasn’t enough?

___ What new training is going to occur that wasn’t available?

[91 of 91] Congressional Staff, Members of Congress must pursue specific and nonspecific allegations

___ Does this apply to FISA, NSA, war crimes, rendition, Geneva?

___ What if the legal duty, as with Article 82, already exists: What is the suggestion of the Ethics Panel – take this to The Hague?

___ When will the Ethics Committee forward a copy of all depositions related to this matter to The German and Italian war crimes prosecutors investigating war rimes, prisoner abuse, rendition, and other alleged criminal conduct by US persons, contractors?

* * *


We proceed to the analysis using this success criteria.


___ Discussion of failure/success of checklists and notification systems to fully implement legal requirements.

No discussion on checklists

___ Description of legal counsel problems and requirement to oversee, discipline, and disbar counsel for alleged violations of law, or attorney oath.

Marginal discussion on legal counsel problems. No effective plan to forward information to appropriate State Disciplinary Board or DC Bar for possible disbarment investigation.

___ Discussion of House leadership appointments, oversight, and failure to remove personnel despite legal options to act.

House leadership has a problem explaining its oversight, and failure to remove personnel who had legal obligations. Ethics Committee does not satisfactorily discuss these oversight and personnel matters.

___ Discussion of software system DoJ uses to track bills-statutes to enforce Title 2 Section 88 requirements.

No discussion of any software or data tracking system by any Member of Congress. We judge there is no satisfactory system to ensure Article 82 requirements are satisfied; and that Addington and Haynes well know the 5100. 77 Geneva obligations. Members of Congress appear to have indicated they know the legal problems (as demonstrated by the Military Commissions Act immunity) but there remains no adequate management system to have ensured compliance as required by the Conventions. this is a material war crimes related finding warranting review by the United Nations, The Hague, and War crimes prosecutors in Milan and Germany. This is not satisfactory and of interest to the German war crimes prosecutors: The available information systems to store data is of high quality, however these have not been adequately managed or used on important legal issues. The US government has inadequate management control and data systems to detect and prevent illegal activity. This is a material defect which has been a recurring problem, and instrumental in indictments at Nuremburg. The lack of attention was adjudicated to have been no credible defense. We judge, lacking credible defenses, there is pervasive evidence that US government officials know they have not given sufficient attention to these war crimes related issues. This resulted in illegal activity, and allegedly puts Members of Congress in legal jeopardy for not doing in writing or manually what they may wish should have been done electronically: Manage legal obligations, duties, data, information, and issues.

___ Explanation of legal consequences imposed on DoJ counsel and personnel who released false, inconsistent, and deliberately misleading information related to the status and quality of evidence provided.

DoJ Never mentioned.

Personnel, Organizations

___ Discussion of oversight system within DHS and Treasury funds tracking system.

Speaker does not have a tracking system. Ethics Committee did not appropriately look to models of excellence in GAO, nor point to similar programs in the Executive Branch.

___ Discussion of legal memoranda which White House counsel drafted related to effort to enforce or not enforce Title 2 Section 88.

Not discussed.

___ Identifies how the acquisition organizations did or did not fail to ensure the legal bill status and enforcement mechanism within Congress and DoJ.

Failure to explain how a bill can be tracked, but a legal obligation is ignored.

___ Discussion of DoJ AG Title 28 reporting requirements and failure/compliance.

None, as there should have been.

___ Discussion of Page Oversight Board inputs from Senate, and Supreme Court.

None, as there should have been.

___ Discussion of DoJ OPR review of DoJ personnel who provided misleading information; and whether DoJ OPR were or were not prevented from fully complying with their statutory obligations.



___ Clearly identify the systemic governance failures contributing to failed page oversight, and linked with patterns of abuse contributing to FISA-NSA violations, war crimes, and illegal rendition-detention in Eastern Europe.


___ Discussion on why there were or were not failures to apply lessons of 1980s to page oversight system.

Fails to mentions common problems, and does not address 1960s issues.

___ Discussion on non-use or poor use of checklists.

No discussion.

___ Discussion of failure of House leadership to oversee Page board and legal counsel assigned.

Marginal, failed to adequately target counsel for their alleged defiance of ABA standards of conduct. This warrant a revisit.

___ Discussion of the methods to more effectively ensure legal counsel are doing their jobs [Increase peer reviews; outside audits of attorneys; no-notice visits]

Not adequately discussed as should have been.

___ Discussion of the alleged illegal agreement to no enforce the law, mitigate risks related to non-enforcement, or assent to an Article III court to oversee the legal issues.

Failed to mention similar pattern of conduct in re Presidential oversight.

___ Plan to forward information and findings to a war crimes prosecutor for purposes of investigating failed governance issues in re Geneva violations, war crimes, prisoner abuse, and illegal war fare.

No stated plan.

___ Plan of Congress to freely assent to war crimes prosecutions for failing to prevent war crimes, and not mitigate defective oversight contributing to FISA-NSA violations and illegally captured data used to implement plans related to prisoner abuse and unlawful war.

No stated plan.

___ Discussion of how information will be used to effectively prosecute individual commercial contractors who failed to remove themselves from the illegal agreements, and otherwise assented to illegal laws, orders, or other policies to violate the laws of war, US Constitution, code, and treaty obligations.

No discussion of contractors.

___ Discussion whether the information will or will not be used during an impeachment proceeding against DoJ, White House, or Cabinet officials.

No discussion of impeachment, as should have done.


___ Workable plan, checklist, and schedule to implement the needed reforms within Congress.

No guide, just a few comments which do not solve the recurring problems. Recommendations fail to capture larger fiduciary duties and reviews needed of Congressional staff counsel; and fail to explore how issues identified exist in other Committees on other issues related to Geneva, war crimes, FISA, NSA warrantless surveillance, prisoner abuses, and other unconstitutional conduct.

___ Sample checklists which might have been helpful to monitor the program.

No samples, as mentioned in detail here Ref

___ Ensure attorney standards of conduct are enforced by the Members of Congress; and failures of Congressional attorneys to do their job subject to House and DC Bar disciplinary boards

Not done.

___ Referral to Attorney Disciplinary boards for failure to do what should have done [Documentation, reporting, removal from illegal activity, prevent illegal/inappropriate activity]

Not mentioned, as should have done.

___ Legislation that would ban any American from denying the American Government, Members of Congress, and the Executive Branch had been complicit in war crimes, unlawful abuse, Geneva violations, and genocide in Iraq.

Not discussed.

___ Options for the States to implement if Congress fails to assert 5 USC 3331 oath of obligations. Examples:

Not discussed.

___ Prosecution of President at state level Authority;

Possible, but not discussed.

___ Using state-level national guard units to (a) lawfully seize Members of Congress who defy their oath, and lawfully prosecute them for war crimes; or (b) deliver them to The Hague aboard National Guard Aircraft, with lawful orders to interdict, shoot down, and destroy any and all US or allied active duty combat and support aircraft which may interfere with their delivery to The Hague for war crimes prosecution;

Not discussed, although remains an option.

____ Using state level prosecutions to prohibit state level contractors from doing business with US Government engaged in war crimes Sample.

Remains an option, not discussed.

Tables, Exhibits

___ Timeline of notifications

Not clear, not provided, never presented well, large gaps. Despite inexplicable failures, no credible wiring diagram of relationships, nor a time-phased timeline of events by office. The conclusions are not supported by any detailed analysis or presented timeline. This will have to be reworked by German and Italian war crimes investigators.

___ Comparison between attorney standards of conduct vs. what they failed to do

Not done.

___ Sample checklists used to monitor the status of a bill, statute, or other legal requirement.

Not done.

___ Sample decision tree, logic diagram, or other device to track the status of software development, and assurance that it fully supports Congressional, DoJ, and White House Staff counsel requirements to monitor, implement, and enforce a statutory requirement.

Not done

Sample Evidence

___ Copy of DoJ Acquisition contracts identifying key decisions, personnel, and approval documents of final software used to track, monitor, and enforce statutes.

Not provided

___ Sample memoranda, checklists, and approval documents of Speaker to approve appointment of personnel to Page Board; and annual certification of ongoing approval-understanding of their recommendations, policies, and guidelines.

None existed

___ DoJ Staff counsel memoranda on whether 2 USC 88 bill-statute updates are or are not meeting objectives [Source: OLC, OLL, OLP]

Not reviewed

___ Attorney General Title 28 certification letter to Members of Congress on decision to not enforce a specific statute.

Not reviewed

* * *


The Report is a rough draft, and incomplete.

Here's what a more useful report could have looked like: Ref Note closely: The report was written before the Ethics Committee started its work, but the recommendations are substantially more robust and useful.

___ Why are we wasting times on worthless reviews, when We the People can make informed, adverse judgments, and provide more useful guidance?

To prove that the current system of US governance is not working; and there is a credible basis to support a New Constution which addresses the above problems. Those who support the above system, which has failed, have the burden of explaining why they are supposedly loyal to a system that does not work; yet their conduct shows they are not serious about their alleged loyality. A New Constitution would expedite the disclosure of this abuse, and swiftly review these issues, not give excuses for widespread negligence and assent to illegal activity: War crimes, FISA violations, Geneva violations, Constitutioal violations, illegal prisoner abuse.