9-11: How to Find Who Made the Thermite

Thermite has a distinct aluminum powder, unique in that each type of aluminum powder used around the United States can be traced to a specific manufacturer.

The answer lies in finding the type of aluminum powder used, then finding who purchased this aluminum powder, and the connection this buyer had to construction companies and companies that install equipment.

* * *



It appears thermite was used because when the fire department puts water on it, the thermite fire spreads. The NYFD, in using water to douse the flames, didn't realize it was adding fuel to the thermite fire in the 9-11 towers.

Thermite is used in the construction business to connect steel beams on railway lines.

It is possible to place thermite in small boxes used as junction points for the DLS lines inside the WTC buling.

One possible scenario for the 9-11 demolition: Termite was embedded in the DSL junction boxes, and the connection boxes used for the WTC might have contained thermite. This doesn't mean that this happened; only that the people who installed the thermite may not have known the equipment they were installing for a legitimate purpose may have contained explosives.

If you're looking for something that tells you more about thermite, talk to people in the railway construction business. Also, talk to people who know something about the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden in WWII. The firebombing raged, in part, because when the thermite bombs exploded, if water was added, this fueled the fire.

Thermite is hot enough to melt steel; adding water to a thermite fire will keep the molten steel glowing for days. This is what we saw when the molten steel was unearthed at Ground Zero.

* * *

If you're interested in finding out who might have placed the thermite in the WTC towers, there are a couple of things to consider:

___ Who has residue of the WTC building material which includes this aluminum powder?

___ Where is the molecular analysis of the aluminum powder?

___ Which company produces this specific aluminum powder with this distinct molecular pattern-signature?

___ Who purchased this aluminum power from the company whose thermite contained this unique aluminum powder signature?

___ Who in the construction business bought this particular aluminum powder and sold it to someone who was involved with DSL, wifi, or computer junction boxes sold to the WTC installation crew?

The tracing isn't ncessarily through the thermite, but through the aluminum powder. Good luck.

Read more . . .

Administrative Hearing Trumps 5th Amendment Claim

Privilege against self-incrimination does not block administrative proceeding - Hoover v. Knight, 678 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. 1982)

Ref Check out the TERESA G. HOOVER case in re Monica G. Goodling.

Ref GOodling can't invoke the 5th during an administrative hearing.

* * *

DoJ and Goodling can't have it both ways. They've argued that the Congress must assent to rules and limited disclosure. In effect, House Judiciary has assented to engaging in an administrative review, not a legislative hearing. DoJ, because it controls whether ther eare or are not revelations of the hearing, has accepted that Congress is engaging in an administrative review.

Hoover v. Knight, 678 F.2d 578 (5th Cir. 1982) is fatal to Goodling's 5th Amendment claim. Once Goodling asserts that she will not testify in any and all hearings, including administrative, it is permissible under the law to use her silence against her.

DoJ fatally got Congress to agree that the terms of the review were administrative. Goodling, under Hoover, may not claim the 5th without adverse inferences being made. Had DoJ wanted a different conclusion, they should not have agreed to conditions, terms, and non-disclosure terms which would, in effect, seal Goodling's appearance before and administrative hearing.

Once DOJ got Congress to agree that the hearing for Goodling and others would comply with administrative procedures, Goodling may not lawfully invoke her 5th Amendment claim, yet still explain Hoover. Goodling wants it both ways; she can't, and DoJ has undermined her defense in re Hoover. She shall testify; or there shall be adverse inferences made about her silence during all administrative hearings this House or Senate Judiciary conduct under terms which DoJ controls.

DoJ and Congress have agreed this is an administrative hearing; all 5th Amendment claims in re Hoover compel Goodling to testify; or adverse inferences may be made: Her silence in an administrative hearing is evidence she is not fully cooperating, and she may be lawfully impeached. Once impeached she cannot be pardoned.

* * *

People are missing the big picture: This isn't about US Attorney firings (a symptom), it's about part of the puzzle of this Administration to illegally amend the Constitution, and remove the Senate from their Constitutional role.

Once DoJ sets conditions on Congress how this review will take place, and Congress agrees, we're not in a legislative hearing, but an administrative review of who has illegally violated the Constitution.

How they did it; and whether the US Attorneys were or were not fired is secondary. There were planning documents to put this into effect. Goodling may or may not want to point the way to where these planning documents are.

However, given the e-mails we have, it's clear in step 4 of the firing plan that the President, Attorney General, and White House counsel would have coordinated on the work flows to process the necessary paperwork to implement this illegal plan: AN effort to avoid direct Senate confirmations as required under the Constitution. Indeed, the US Attorney firing is a symptom; but the larger issue: Until there was a removal, the President could not directly appoint or circumvent the Constitution.

Goodling's silence is not related, in my view, to only the illegal retaliation against US Attorneys, but the larger documentation that would have supported the efforts to violate the Constution in many ways: Prisoner abuse, ignore Geneva, ignore the warrants, and fire US Attorneys. These are symptoms of the GOP Senate assenting to having their rubber stamp removed; and the President illegally usurping power to put himself above the constitution.

* * *

Ref I appreciate the optimism that some in the Congress hope to do the right thing by having a negotiation and interview with DOJ Staff. However, there needs to be a backup plan in the event, as appears to be the case, Congerss messes this up.

Rightly or wrongly, impeachment is off the table. Indeed, the DNC may have thrown the RNC a bone. I hope the DNC doesn't make it a habit of throwing bones instead of throwing the book. Once impeachmen tis "off the table," few in Congress can justify what they're really going after: If they find the President has violated the law (again), what are they going to do about it? They've answered the question: Not impeach.

Time to develop a backup plan: What will be done to fully assert the law against Members of Congress who refuse to see this President and Membes of Congerss have collectively agreed not to enforce the COnstution; and assented to illegal amendments to the Constitution.

We don't need more tesetimony; we need to seem some consequences for what has happened: Mmeber of Congerss and Executive Branch joing agreement to ignore the Constution. Who needs hearings when the prosecutions need to start. The State Attorney Generals have the power to prosecute staff counsel assigned to their state attorney disciplinary boardes; or who are regulated by their states. If the US Government will not timely assert the law to compel legal counsel to comply with their oath of office and defend the Constution, then the issue isn't US Attorneys, but Member of COngress refusal to assert their oath to prosecute their peers in the legal profession.

* * *

Ref TItle 5

Ref Congress is illegally assenting to DOJ/Executive Orders that information be kept secret. Executive has no power to hide, or expect discretion, in re information from Congress or the public once it leaves the Executive and goes to another branch of government.

Why is Congress, a separate branch of government, assenting to the Executive Orders in re Administrative hearing; but not preventing Goodling from invoking 5th Amendment:

every portion of every meeting of an agency shall be open to public observation.

Goodling can't have it both ways: Assenting to rules which bar public disclosure -- in effect creating an administrative review -- but saying, despite the secrecy, she cannot be compelled to testify.

No way. Either:

A. Goodling is under examination in an administrative review; and she cannot invoke her 5th Amendment privilege; or

B. Goodling is under examination in a legislative review; and Congress has no power to invoke secrecy, or assent to any Executive Order -- it violates the Separation of Powers.

Goodling has no legal foundation to argue she can invoke her 5th Amendment privilege during an administrative hearing.

Once DoJ agrees with Congress to conduct a joint administrative hearing -- as it has done by imposing terms on the Congress -- the witnesses have assented to an administrative hearing.

If DoJ does not want the rules related to an administrative hearing to apply, then DoJ will have to avoid all investigation which is prohibited. Once illegal activity has been alleged, and there remain grounds for an investigation into criminal activity, the President has no power to tell the US Attorney, DOJ OPR, or DOJ IG to not review the issues.

Even when Goodling goes on "administrative leave," she remains subject to rules related to administrative hearings. She may not invoke her 5th Amendment right during an administrative hearing.

* * *

___ What is the plan of DOJ IG and DOJ OPR to conduct an administrative review of Goodling for purposes of evaluating whether evidence should be forwarded to teh DC and State Disciplinary Board for her disbarment?

___ When will DOJ OPR and DOJ IG report their findings to the US Attorney?

___ When will members of Congress ask DoJ IG and DOJ IG to conduct an administrative review of Goodling?

___ Is there a reason, in the absence of the required AG filing of a decision not to enforce the law against DOJ Staff in re unconstitutional/illegal conduct to circumvent the Constitution, that he has not provided the required Title 28 exception report?

___ When do Members of Congress, in the wake of "no exception report" from the AG in re his refusal to enforce the law against DOJ Staff, plan to inquire into the missing Title 28 exception reports which the AG has not filed?

Read more . . .

Judiciary: Repetitive 'I don't recall' Without Follow-up Plan

Sampson gave many, "I don't recall"-answers without promising to provide an answer; nor outline how he might go about finding the answer.

We need to see a formalized system to follow-up with the witness assertions that they don't recall something.

What You Can Do: Please encourage your friends to raise this solution with the House-Senate Judiciary Chairmen and staff.

* * *

When a witness says they don't recall, the Committee rules should include a provision: The witness shall state they wll provide a response, answer, or information; and include in their response an estimate of the time and documents they would have to review to provide an answer.

All "I don't recall"-responses shall be indexed; and when the witness provides their follow-up answers to the Committee, they shall include an index to the original testimony; and a certification in writing that they have fully responded to all questions which they originally stated they could not recall.

The witness shall include in their response the documents they might have reviewed, referenced, or referred to had they had the time to review all the relevant documents to provide a truthful, complete answer.

The witness shall include a list of all people they have consulted with to review their documents, and provide a full response to complete their response. If any witness uses documents, notes, new material, or other people to refresh their memories, the witness shall include at the end of their response who they coordinated their response with, or what method they used to reconstruct the information which they previously could not recall.

Read more . . .

Action Alert: Subpoena President's Work Flows For US Attorney Direct Appointments

This is an action alert. It relates to the US Attorney Firings.

While you are reading this, keep this in mind: You are reading information that shows you were to look for evidence of war crimes, illegal activity, and other unconstitutional conduct by the President of the United States.

Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref

What I Need You To Do: Raise with your friends and Members of Congress who are looking at the US Attorney firings this key word: "Work flow."

Search for this through all files: [ frAggics ]

Ref Failure to produce papers related to work flows actionable by grand jury.

Ref: Recall the DHS internal news system; DoJ and White House have the same types of things, and use this to communicate, plan, and share info.

* * *

Illegal, Unconstitutional Activity Not Linked WIth Lawful Delegations of Power

Ref The President has no lawful authority to delegate to anyone the duty, right, obligation, or authority to implement illegal procedures which circumvent the Senate's role in confirming nominations with the appointment process. All records related to any Exeuctive decision, order, plan, or procedure to impelment this Unconstitutional activity are illegal; and cannot be lawfully proteced by any claim of privildge. Privildge is waived once the activity is related to illegal decisions; and the activity is after an illegal decision.

A. President has no power to hide any record related to this illegal activity;

B. All plans created to implement this unconstituional actiivty which circumvents the Senate cannot be hidden.

C. Ref Constitution does not delegate any confirmation power to the President, only the Senate. The Presidents plans, delegations, and procedures to usurp this power cannot be protected: It is illegal to hide evidence of unlawful activity unsing priviledge.

Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref

* * *

___ When will the DOJ General Counsel memorandum related to the Work Flows be made available, as required under Title 5? Ref

Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref

* * *

Discussion

The information below has been confirmed to exist. These issues are related to post-decisions [meaning, "after the President made a decision"] so they are not protected by privilege.

We're not dealing with Executive Privilege. Rather, once there is a work flow created we're talking about something very different: A ministerial act which must comply with the Constitution. All administrative actions which are part of any workflow must be legal, and cannot circumvent the US Constitution, as the AG-direct-appointments do. Again, to restate: The issue you are reading about is evidence that the President has approved illegal workflows which were designed to circumvent the Constitution, and ignore the GOP Senate in the confirmation process.

If you have a legal duty under the Geneva Conventions, are an attorney covered by Article 82 of the Conventions; or are in DoD subject to 5100.77 who have a legal obligation to immediately stop what you are doing; and report this evidence now to proper authorities: This is evidence related to the President’s involvement, direction, and oversight of illegal war crimes.

* * *

Definitions

Workflow: This is a series of steps assigned to an administrative assistant to process paperwork, do an important legal review, or process an important document. The administrative people know where the files are, which documents are assigned to which work flows, and have insight into how the approved plans are filed, and where things are. Workflows are used to organize work. They are like a master schedule. People can look at a list of workflows to look at who is doing what; and how a particular coordination package is moving between DoJ and the White House. All tasks that the President and White House counsel are formally reviewing are part of work flows. Where there are gaps in the workflows Congress may make adverse inferences that illegal activity has been removed; or tasks that are not consistent with the Constitution have been deleted.

Checklist: This is a series of steps taken to move paperwork between DOJ and the White House. Goodling most likely is aware of these checklists.

Administrative review sheet: This is a checklist that shows who, on a given administrative task, has approved, coordinated, or commented on a particular document.

Work flow documentation: Once a procedure for reviewing a document or conduct an administrative task has been decided, this final version of the plan and coordination is reviewed, signed, and approved by the President and his staff. The final documentation will show when the President approved the work flow, who reviewed and approved the coordination, and provide sample checklists to implement the work flow and the policy.

Executive Order related to implementing a program: This is an order from the President providing guidance how a program, activity, or other activity will be implemented. All Executive Orders shall be consistent with the Constitution. Executive Orders that violate the Constitution, or implement unconstitutional activities are illegal, unenforceable, and contrary to public policy.

ORCON: "Original classification": It is illegal to hide evidence of illegal activity, or unlawful work flows by classifying them.

* * *

Backup Important Discussion: Please click and read this

The documentation showing which workflows to ask for are associated with codes inside the DOJ. Goodling would know about these Workflow codes as she was liaison between DoJ and the White House counsel.

The e-mails show that the President, Attorney general, and White House counsel approved the workflows designed to implement the unconstitutional direct-appointment process.

Key point: Before the workflows were approved, someone had to review the plan to implement step 4, and outline a procedure. This procedure is in a checklist; has been loaded to a computer, and there is documentation show who, by name and office, signed off on this coordination plan.

The coordination plan is created first as a draft working document of generic procedures to follow. Then, when the work flow plan is applied to an actual US Attorney direct appointment, the checklists and templates for this task are applied for that specific situation.

Someone inside DOJ and the White House developed templates to support these workflows; and has confirmed that the templates and checklists needed to implement step 4 of the US Attorney firing plan were ready, and available for use.

* * *

Requested Action

As you go through the e-mail, continue to take a broader view: The issue isn't the e-mail, but the procedures and work flows which have been documented. The real evidence of the illegal activity isn't in the e-mails, but in the staff coordination packages, templates, checklists, and workflows which have been created.

These documents are post-decision meaning: They are not protected by privilege. These are ministerial duties and tasks which must comply with the Constitution. All Presidential orders, directives, and guidance to "classify" this evidence are illegal and unenforceable. All White House and DOJ Staff know, or should know, that any effort to hide a coordination sheet related to an unconstitutional act of the President is illegal.

Please as your friends to talk to their Member of Congress and Congressional staffers in the House and Senate Judiciary, to ask for a review of the following:

___ Where are copies of the workflows used to support the coordination process for the direct US Attorney appointments?

___ Who created, signed off, and coordinated on the workflow documentation supporting the discussion, decision, and explaining what tasks were to be completed as part of this workflow?

___ Where are the review sheets, coordination comments, and other things related to this post-decision administrative support?

___ Where are the copies of the work flow schedules, tasks, and other events that would support the President's approval of the AG-direct appointments?

___ When did the President sign off, approve, review, and make comments on the work flow process?

___ Who had comments, after the President made his illegal decision to circumvent the Constitution, related to the means by which this illegal workflow process would be implemented?

___ How were the above illegal workflow procedures applied to other areas including rendition, prisoner abuse, Geneva violations, NSLs, FISA violations, and other war crimes this President has approved, not stopped, and blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing?

___ Who knows about the workflows?

___ When did Goodling plan to discuss publicly here knowledge of this coordination between the White House and DOJ Staff on issues of workflows, checklists, and other administrative support required to implement the unconstitutional direct-appointment process?

___ When does the Senate plan to audit the President’s work flows he uses to coordinate illegal programs between the White House, DOJ, and DoD?

___ Where are the DOJ IG, DoD IG, and OMB on reviewing these work flows supporting the direct-appointment process?

___ Which contractors working for DOJ, DoD, and the White House in the IT and administrative support areas are directly or indirectly part of these workflows, procedures, plans to organize, store, retain, and manage administrative tasks related to these illegal workflows?

___ What are the names of the SEC-registered auditors who conducted an audit of these internal controls in the United stats government and US corporations who have implemented the procedures, plans, checklists, and work flows need to support this illegal, unconstitutional activity?

___ Where are the working papers of these auditors?

___ What were the comments of the boards of directors to the internal auditor report when the corporate offers were told of the internal control problems related to not fully complying with the constitution?

___ What is the plan of DOJ IG to publicly discuss the issues of Presidential approval of workflows used to approve, implement, coordinated, and oversee the use of illegal NSLs which did not comply with FISA or the Patriot Act?

___ Which DOJ staff counsel assigned to the Attorney General were not following the law, and have been identified by name has having coordinated on these workflows during the DOJ IG and DOJ OPR reviews?

___ Which auditors assigned to DOJ IG and the White House audit teams have been recently linked with lobbying, transition of funds, or other legal services provided to the Department of Justice, White House, and other US government agencies?

___ Who has known about these illegal procedures, not reported them, had a duty to report them under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Attorney Standards of Conduct and 5100.77 laws of war program, but have been silent and did not provide a timely report of workflows used to support illegal activity and war crimes?

___ What evidence does Goodling or any other DOJ Staff counsel have that they timely reported to DOJ OPR their information that the workflows did not comply with the Constitutional requirement, and illegally circumvented the Senate?

___ What is the Status of the DC Bar and State Disciplinary Board review of staff counsel who have known about the illegal workflows used to support war crimes and unconstitutional activity?

___ When does the President plan to provide all copies of these administrative coordination sheets to Congress so they can independently review who developed these illegal procedures to implement activity which did not fully comply with the Constitutional requirement that the Senate be involved with the appointment-nomination process?

___ Why as this information not bee provided by White House counsel Fielding to either the House or Senate Judiciary Committee?

___ What is the reason the auditors did not increase audit scope in re Statement on Accounting Standard 99 which requires audit scope to increase in the wake of revelations of fraud, illegal activity, and other personnel transitions?

___ Does DOJ IG and DOD IG not have a good reason why they should not be impeached for their alleged reckless failure to increase audit scope of these workflows once it was known that the President and others were coordinating on Geneva violations, NSL violations, FISA illegal activity, and prisoner abuse under rendition?

___ How does the Congress and President and Attorney General account for the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports which should show who was not enforcing the law; but had approved procedures which did not comply with the Constitution or Geneva Conventions?

___ Once Members of Congress 2001-2007 were aware of the gaps in the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, what evidence do they have to show that they fully asserted their oath to find out who approved these illegal workflows designed to circumvent the Constitution, violate the laws of war, and implement illegal activity?

___ Who in the legal community dares to assert they should remain an attorney after laughingly asserted that administrative-ministerial acts after a decision to abuse prisoners cannot be reviewed, especially in light of the known White House counsel knowledge of the illegal prisoner abuse issues in Syria?

___ Which White House counsel were part of the information flows who approved, coordinated, and did not stop illegal activity as documented on these workflows?

___ When did the NSC Staff counsel plan to discuss with Members of Congress their knowledge that these workflows between DOJ and the White House supported war crimes, prisoner abuse, and other illegal Geneva violations against prisoners of war?

___ Which leadership in the NSC have known about these workflows, but did not change the orders, procedures, and guidance to fully comply with the Geneva Conventions and US Constitution?

___ Which clauses in which OMB A-76 contracts include specific gag orders on contractors not to discuss their support, involvement, and coordination with this illegal activity as it relates to rendition prisoner scheduling, aircraft maintenance, NSL processing, intermediary coordination of warrants, or other breaches of FISA and/or Geneva?

* * *

You are on notice that you are reading evidence that the President has documented his decision to violate the Constitution. It is likely this same illegal procedure was used to implement, plan, and avoid detection of war crimes.

The issue is not simply what is in the e-mail, but what administrative documents, checklists, schedules, and work flows were created to implement the illegal, unconstitutional plans to ignore the US Constitution, violate the law, and implement programs which ignored the Geneva Conventions.

The above relates to more than the US Attorney firings or unconstitutional conduct, but the means by which Geneva violations and war crimes were coordinated between DOJ Staff counsel, DoD and the President of the United States.

Please urge your member of Congress and friends to mention to the media, their friends, and everywhere on the internet: The evidence of illegal activity is in the workflow coordination packages which the President approved.

* * *

Fatal Disclosures

Part of the President's plan to directly appoint US Attorneys, and circumvent the Constution, required an important step: COnfirmation that the US Attorneys had resigned, and that there was a resignation letter. Once this resigntaion letter was received, under the Patriot Act, the President would then grant permission to the AG to unconstituitonally directly appoint someone only the SEnate could appoint.

HEre is a sample work flow which shows the President, Attorney GEneral, and others were working along a specific checklist and plan to meet these requirements to violat ethe Constution:

From: Harden, Cyndi A
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:13 PM
To: Beeman, Judy (USAEO); West, Nicole (USAEO)
Cc: Smith, Mauri E

Subject: WF 1117121 - resignation letter from USA Kevin Ryan ExSec assigned this workflow to SOUSA yesterday with a two week due date. Even though the USA is not leaving until 4/27/07, the AG would like a retirement letter for his signature prepared within the 2-week time frame. Please pass this email/information on to those who will be preparing the retirement letter.

Thanks, Cindy

___ Why should we believe Sampson's assertion that the AG had a "problem" with teh direct appointment in Dec 2006, yet AG in Jan 2007, was requesting a resignation letter for the direct appointement process?

AG Gonzalez should not be requesting a resignation letter if he had a "problem" with the direct-appointment. Gonzalez should have not cmoplied with the procedures in the plan which he, WHite House ocunsel, and the Persident approved; and were coordinated with Legal, political, and communications. Contniued reuest for a resignation letter in Jan 2007 shows the AG intended to continue circumventing the Senate and violate the Constitution. All workflows related to this resignation-letter process are evidence of alleged conspiracy by DOJ Staff and White House counsel to violate the COnstution.

The President and Attorney GEneral failed to ensure the work flows fully compplied with the constitutinal requirements.

* * *

Problem for AG in 2007

This evidence shows the AG was fully supporting the direct-nomination process, because he was part of the signature-approval checklist in this workflow. This was to the Attorney General, and contradicts Sampson's assertion that the AG opposed this procedure. This evidence shows, fully two months after AG Gonzalez supposedly left the imrpession with Sampson that he had a "problem" with the direct appointments, the AG was part of a workflow to implement this process.

The instructions to implement the illegal direct-AG appointments included the following langauge:

"The United States Attorney should prepare letters of resignation to the President and the Attorney General stating the date and time of the proposed resignation."

WORKFLOW ID: 1117121
DUE DATE: 01/23/2007

TO: AG [Attorney General]

DATE ASSIGNED ACTION COMPONE & ACTION REOUESTED
01/08/2007 Executive Office of United States Attorneys
Prepare response for A signa e.

. . .

Paula Stephens: 202-616-0074

* * *

Sample Control Sheet For the Coodination of Alleged Illegal Activity

Department of Justice
EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT
CONTROL SHEET

DATE OF DOCUMENT: 03/08/2006 WORKFLOW ID: 970765
DATE RECEIVED: 03/15/2006 DUE DATE: 03/30/2006

FROM: The Honorable Paul K. Charlton
U.S. Attorney, District of Arizona
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, AZ 85004

TO: Acting DAG (cc indicated for ODAG Mercer & Elston)

MAIL TYPE: Priority VIP Correspondence-Policy/Issue

SUBJECT: Requesting that the Acting DAG allow the District of Arizona to go forward with a pilot program that would, where reasonable, require agents to record confessions. Attaches a letter to all Special Agents in Charge in the District of Arizona that sets out the general rule for the recording of confessions, either overtly or covertly at the discretion of the interviewing agency. Encloses several FBI cases where because of the FBI's failure to tape confessions, jurors acquit or prosecutors must plead down cases, that would otherwise be won, or result in more severe sentences had the FBI recorded the confessions.

DATE ASSIGNED
03/16/2006

ACTION COMPONENT & ACTION REQUESTED
Executive Office of United States Attorneys
Prepare response for DAG signature.

INFO COMPONENT: ODAG, FBI

COMMENTS:

FILE CODE:

EXECSEC POC: Barbara Wells: 202-616-0025

* * *

Problem For Congress

All DOJ workflows related to illegal activity for direct AG appointments, have the following code in the workflows of the DOJ.

FILE CODE: CONG

___ What is the plan of the House Ethics COmmittee to review which Members of Congress have known about this illegal direct appointment procedure which circumvents the COnstution, and have received documents form the White House or DOJ rellated to this illegal acdtivity, but did not review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

* * *

All of the Above Supported This Approved, Coordinated Plan

Note, the plan called for the President to approve the recommendation; and this plan had been coordinated with political, legal, and communications in the White House.

Selection, Nomination, and Appointment of New U.S. Attorneys . Beginning as soon as possible in November 2006, Office of the Counsel to the President and Department of Justice carry out (albeit on an expedited basis) the regular U.S. Attorney appointment process: obtain recommendations from Senators, other state political leadership, and other sources; evaluate candidates; make recommendations to the President; conduct background investigations; have President make nominations and work to secure confirmations of U.S. Attorney nominees.

Nothing in the plan, as documented, deviated from the President's involvement with this illegal, unconstitutional planning to circumvent the GOP controlled Senate.

___ Why, if the GOP was planning for permanent GOP control of the US govenremnt, was the President not letting the GOP Senators participate in governance?

GOP control only means Presidential control of the GOP, not GOP Senator involvemenet with this control. The "republican control" of the Government was a sham; it was Prseidential control of the Senate, in their effort to make GOP Senators a rubber stamp.

* * *

GOP Caselaw Tip

"has always been the rule," = GOP lawyer excuse not to correctly cite the case or admit the case is inapposite; or as applied is unconstitutional and a war crime.

* * *

Objecitve of GOP

The goal wasn't to have better US Attorneys, but to remove the GOP Senators from having any input to their Constitutional roles.

This was an excuse to ignore the statute which says that a US Attorney, until there is a replacment appointed by the Senate, remains the Attorney GEneral, Gonzalez and the President wanted to do two things:

1. Have no time between the resignation and the appointment;

2. Direcy appoint, to block the GOP Senators from having any input, in contravention to the COnstitution.

Until the Senate confirms the new nomineee and appoints ment, the resigned-US Attorney remains in place, acting as the US Attorney.

The average number of days between the nomination of a new U.S. Attorney candidate and Senate confirmation has been 58 days for President George W. Bush's USA nominees (note - the majority were submitted to a Senate that was controlled by the same party as the President) and 81 days for President Bill Clinton's USA nominees (note - 70% of nominees were submitted in the first two years to a Senate controlled by the same party as the President, others were submitted in the later six years to a party that was not).

___ Why couldn't the Preisident wait for 60 days to let the GOP SEnate do its job?

___ What was the "Rush", as with Iraq WMD, for the President to ram a decision down the throat of the GOP SEntors, and not let them exercise their judgement as Senators representing their states?

___ Was there something in the President's mind, despite his open inabilty to plan combat oeprations in Iraq, that puts the President in a superior position than the GOP Senators to independently think, analyze a problem, and decide what to do?

___ What was in the mind of the President to beleive that he could make decisions, without GOP Senate input, to what the Constitution requires?

___ Is there any evidence this President or his legal counsel, despite the Geneva conventions, are able to undertand their legal duties unless the GOP Senators rise to the occaision, remind the President of the legal requriements, and confront the President?

___ How long did the GOP Senators plan to rubber stamp illegal warfare, war crrimes, rendition, prisoner abuse, and not take any action to prevent Geneva violations?

___ What entered the minds of the GOP Senators to make them believe they would enjoy being circumvented from doing their job: Not just being a rubber stamp, but not allowed to use their rubber stamp?

___ HOw much power did the GOP Senators plan to give up, not assert, and let the President unconstitutionally usurp before the GOP Senators said, "Wow, maybe we should start doing our job like we took an aoth to do"?

Your GOP Senators working for the President, not We the People or the US Constitution. Heck'uva job, GOP Senators!

* * *

These Are Excuses Used to Thwart Individuals, But Do Not Apply to Congress

Key phrase: "This section is not authority to withhold information from Congress." Ref

The President's plans, work flows, and procedures described are not lawful and unconstitutional; therefore, they are not exceptions and must be disclosed per Section 522 (b). None of the exceptions listed apply. The information has not been lawfully classified; nor is it related to national security, but illegal activity. It's illegal for the President to classify this information under any Executive Order. Activity that is illegal is not "solely" related to personnel affairs or rules; but something else which cannot be protected.

Title 5:

a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public—
(A) descriptions of its central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make submittals or requests, or obtain decisions;
(B) statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available;
(C) rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; Ref

- -

(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying—
(A) final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations which have been adopted by the agency and are not published in the Federal Register;

(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to staff that affect a member of the public; [Changing the Constitution without an amendment affects the public]

(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format, which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and which, because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; and

(E) a general index of the records referred to under subparagraph (D);

- -

All agreements this Congerss made with DoJ to keep records related to law enforcement secret are not enforceable.

(7) records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information
(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,

Here's the key exception, which applies in re the CIA litigation in re Lam:

(1) Whenever a request is made which involves access to records described in subsection (b)(7)(A) and—
(A) the investigation or proceeding involves a possible violation of criminal law; and
(B) there is reason to believe that
(i) the subject of the investigation or proceeding is not aware of its pendency, and
(ii) disclosure of the existence of the records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,
the agency may, during only such time as that circumstance continues, treat the records as not subject to the requirements of this section.

By disclosing -- illegally -- the fact that the US Attorney was investigating the CIA, the DOJ in effect, said, "Because the target of the investigation knows, we cannot release the records." That's circular.

We're asking for the records because the government is acting llegally; and the DOJ Staff counsel are recklessly ignoring thier oath of office requiring them to follow the COnstution, not ignore it as they are doing here.

Read more . . .

Members of Congress Complicit With Illegal Change to US Constitution Outside Required Amendment Process

The issue is not the US Attorney firings, which is a symptom, but Members of Congress rubber stamped an unconstitutional change to the Constitution outside the Amendment process; yet, the American legal community planned to fully implement this unconstitutional provision.

The e-mails show the President, Gonzalez, and White House counsel agreed to circumvent the Constitution; and that this plan was coordinated at all levels. There is no reason for the House Judiciary to feel constrained to only accept interview comments in private: The available open record proves the President, AG, and White House counsel are complicit with this illegal activity. No other testimony is needed. It's all in the e-mails. [ House Judiciary Chairman has proposed, and accepted an illegal agreement to keep evidence of illegal activity and war crimes suppressed. ]

This conduct violates the Attorney Standards of conduct and brings discredit upon the Congress. Liability attaches to Members of Congress, GOP leadership, and the American legal community. These are more than ethics issues for attorneys and Members of Congress; they are issues of criminal law. Someone illegally put into effect, and did not stop, illegal plans. The GOP and American legal community in Congress have no solution.

We the People have the option to immediately implement a New Constitution, outside the Amendment process, which shall impose a solution on this US Government.

Solution: There needs to be a method where there is a guarantee the Members of Congress have read the bill; and there is a certification that there are no unconstitutional provisions in the bill before it is debated.

Without a certification in writing, there should be no basis to debate, much less vote on any legislation. This would be accomplished not with a rule, but with a New Constitution which would create a new body that separately must approve the bill is Constitutional before either the House or Senate reviewed the technical details.

- -

Sampson On Circumventing the Senate

Ref Specter raised the issue of circumventing the Senate, and Sampson suggested Gonzalez didn't like the idea.

However, this defies reason. The staff continued to push for the circumvention, going so far as to assert that the option must be kept for the Attorney General to have direct appointments.

Serious doubts about the Member of Congress ability to assert their oath and promise to protect the Constitution. The era of Member of Congress and attorney self-governance is over. [ Pass this link to your friends ]

* * *

Bluntly, if the Attorney General didn't like the idea of circumventing the Senate, as unconstitutionally permitted under the Patriot Act, why would DOJ Legislative Liaison push to [a] inset the Option in the Patriot act; and [b] hope to keep the option open for the Attorney General?

The e0mails and staffing related to the Patriot Act do not support the view that the AG didn't like the option. All evidence says the oppoise: The Attorney General was instrumental in pushing for Senate circumvention, did not want to be associated with the decision, but was involved with the details related to the language.

Recall the plan which DoJ Staff said they had coordinated with legal, political, and public affairs. Step for emphatically included the AG-involvement in the direct appointment.

STEP 4: Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates: During December 2006- January 2007, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President, evaluates and selects candidates for Attorney General-appointment (or candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law) to serve upon the resignation of above-listed U.S. Attorneys.

This plan, including Step 4, was coordinated with the White House counsel, legal, political, and public affairs. The plan, as approved, included Step 4 which included Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President.

___ Who in the White House approved a plan to circumvent the Constitution; yet they would ask that this Presidential-involvement "did not involve" the President? This defies reason.

___ Who can credibly ask that we believe [a] people inside the White House counsel's office approved this plan; yet [b] somehow the President wasn't aware that he was going to implement an unconstitutional provision?

Read this again:

STEP 4: Evaluation and Selection of "Interim" Candidates: During December 2006- January 2007, the Department of Justice, in consultation with the Office of the Counsel to the President, evaluates and selects candidates for Attorney General-appointment (or candidates who may become Acting U.S. Attorney by operation of law) to serve upon the resignation of above-listed U.S. Attorneys.

Then consider this:

Ref Here it is on page 29: After proposing the unconstitutional plan to circumvent the Senate, DoJ Staff reports that all agencies in the White House had approved of the plan, which involved the President, White House counsel, and Attorney General:

We're go for the US Atty plan. WH leg, political, and communications have signed off and acknowledged that we have to be committed to following through once the pressure comes."Details

This plan, when approved, required work flow checklists to be developed. These checklists ensure that the President's staff and DOJ fully coordinate on all steps.

___ Where are these work flow plans; and when were the work flow plans required to support Step 4 crafted, filled, and part of he staff review and work flow process?

___ Who, by name, is arguing that the approved plan involving the President, which the White House counsel would have developed a work flow checklist item for, yet the President did not have any involvement? This defies reason.

___ Who is suggesting that the White House and DOJ are "committed" to implementing this plan -- including Step 4 -- yet the AG did "not" share this commitment after he coordinated on the plan? This is absurd. He knew the direct appointment was unconstitutional; or he's reckless in not comprehending the illegality.

___ Where is the work flow plan this White House counsel planned to use to implement this Senate circumvention?

___ Who specifically, when they approved this plan, was tasked with developing the checklists for the President and Staff to follow, that would ensure the AG, White House counsel, and President did coordinate on the provisions in Step 4?

___ How can a plan that AG supposedly had reservations with -- as reported by Sampson -- get approved; yet the plan, at its core, was unconstitutional?

___ What happened to the AG's oath of office requiring him to follow the Constitution, and not do anything that would illegally circumvent the Constitution, as this Patriot Act provision did?

___ What were Member of Congress responses when they were aware of this 4-point plan; and how did they justify their "shocked, shocked" given the plan explicitly included in Step 4 language that directly mentioned the AG appointment role?

* * *

Recall, one of the options of the plan to fire the US Attorneys was to handle the political fallout. How could anyone say that AG Gonzalez didn't like this circumvention, yet there was approval from the AG, Miers, and others in the White House; and this plan was coordinated and approved through legal, public affairs, and the political office?


If AG Gonzalez, as Sampson suggests, "didn't like" the idea, there is no e-mail evidence to suggest the AG held this view.

___ Which e-mail accounts did the Attorney General review the dissenting comments?

___ Why did the AG not publicly state from the outside, "I reject this idea and circumvention," as opposed to saying he was not involved, despite his involvement?

___ Why would the AG deny involvement with something that he was involved; yet the "apparent involvement" was a denial, according to Sampson?

___ Wouldn't it seem reasonable, if Sampson's characterization was correct -- that the AG rejected the unconstitutional circumvention -- for the AG to publicly point to something that would emphatically say that he was not involved and/or rejected the idea; as opposed to saying he was not involved, yet he did not timely reject the idea?

___ Where are the e-mails from anyone showing that they were supposed to this unconstitutional change to the Constitution?

___ How does AG Gonzalez justify confidence that he was putting the Constitution first and preserving it; yet there are no e-mails showing he opposed what was not Constitutional?

___ Where is there any documentation, notes, memorandum, where anyone in the US DoJ, White House counsel, or anyone in the Congress raised a concern that this circumvention of the Senate was unconstitutional; and that the change in the bill was an illegal, unconstitutional change to the Constitution outside the required Amendment process?

___ In light of Weirs, is the US Government -- all three branches -- saying that nobody, but TPM, dared to question this process?

___ Who inside the US government took an oath to protect the Constitution; yet there is no record that anyone raised a concern about the unconstitutionality of this change?

There is a serious problem when this many peole take an oath to preserve the Constitution, they are lawyers, yet there is no evidence they removed themselves from an illegal change to the Constitution. These are serious issues. US Attorneys could be disbarred for not having fully asserted their oath.

This assent to illegal activity is no different than the FISA-NSA violations, NSLs, or Geneva-rendition-prisoner abuse issues. Clear standards were violated.

___ Why do attorneys have to be reminded of their solemn duty to preserve the Constitution; yet when given discretion to act in secret, they abuse the trust of We the People?

I would prefer some leadership from the ABA and Members of Congress in the GOP: What is their plan to ensure illegal changes to the Constitution do not occur ever?

* * *

Email

The plan to replace:

"STEP 3: Prepare to Withstand Political Upheaval: U.S. Attorneys desiring to save their jobs (aided by their allies in the political arena as well as the Justice Department= community), likely will make efforts to preserve themselves in office. We should expect these efforts to be strenuous. Direct and indirect appeals of the Administration's determination to seek these resignations likely will be directed at: various White House offices,"

Why Wasn't Gonzalez Concerned with the Unconstitutionality?

In re H.R. 580

See Wiener, "Inter-Branch Appointments After the Independent Counsel: Court Appointment of United States Attorneys," 86 Minn. L. Rev. 363, 428 (2001) (concluding that court appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys is unconstitutional).

___ How can an AG-direct appointment be Constitution in light of Wiener?

___ Despite issues of unconstitutionality, someone in DOJ coordinated on the updates to the Patriot Act. How did the updates, permitting Senate circumvention, get into the Patriot Act without AG Gonzalez knowing about them; and him not raising any issues of unconstitutionality?

___ When there was opposition to the circumvention provision in the Patriot Act, how did the DOJ Staff justify the AG direct appointment?

___ Where are copies of e-mails to Members of Congress to respond to concerns that the AG would have unconstitutional powers?

___ How could the direct appointment circumvent the Senate, but nobody in the Senate would cath this provision; nobody would raise a comment; and yet the AG says he was opposed to the idea?

___ How does a clause get into a bill that nobody notices -- someone put it there -- but the chief architect of that language -- the AG -- would has us believe that he was opposed to the idea; yet nobody else was opposed to the idea?

This makes no sense. If the AG was opposed to anything, then he must have had some discussion with someone related to this opposition.

___ Where is the Senate/Member of Congerss e-mail to DoJ Staff related to these concerns of Unconstitutional circumvention; and how did the DOJ Staff justify the provision?

___ How can AG Gonzalez say that he was opposed to something that was giving him power to avoid the Senate and directly appoint to avoid delays in appointing new Attorney Generals?

IT does not seem reasonable that the DOJ AG opposed the idea. At best, it solved a problem with the GOP Senate; at worst it allowed the AG to directly appoint people the DNC would oppose with a DNC control of the Senate.

AG Gonzalez denial, and Sampson's convoluted explanation are not supported by the e-mails, or the method by which DOJ Staff interacts with Members of Congress on issues of the Constitution.

Either AG Gonzalez had reservations, yet did nothing to address this concern by going to the Senate and getting a change; or the real problem: Members of Congress, despite the Unconstitutional clause, rubber stamped an illegal amendment to the US Constitution.

___ What is the role Members of Congress played in this Unconstitutional change to the US Constitution; and how did they rubber stamp legislation that was an illegal amendment outside the required Amendment process?

Read more . . .

Brad Berenson, Kyle Sampson, GOP Allegedly Conspire To Disrupt Congressional Hearing

It is serious business when counsel allegedly conspires to disrupt a Congressional hearing.

* * *

Authority

Ref Allegation: Effort to disrupt proceeding to ensure Senate Judiciary did not have a quorum of six [6] [Rule III. 1.] to discuss business unrelated to the ongoing inquiry, requiring only one Senator. [III. 2.] [ Ref ]

Ref: 42/156 Inherent contempt: Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 204 (1821). ( h/t )

Ref 3.3 Prohibiting misstatements or misconduct before a tribunal by an attorney.

1. Berenson is reported to have asked, after Kyle went missing, "Where's Kyle?"

2. Berenson is Kyle's private counsel with Sidley Austin.

3. As former White House counsel and as an experienced attorney involved with White House alleged illegal activity related to unlawful prisoner abuse in the Geneva Conventions, Berenson knew or should have known that Rule 3.9 imposes a duty on counsel to fully comply with 3.3 before the Senate Judiciary Hearing. [ Ref ]

4. Berenson is alleged to have violated this provision prohibiting fraud:

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

5. Berenson is alleged to have not disclosed the required remedies, but did the opposite: Feigned confusion over an issue he well understood was being orchestrated to disrupt the proceedings. Berenson is alleged to have not complied with his attorney standards of conduct; and did not, as required, disclose correct information to disclose what he knew to the Senate Judiciary Chairman. Berenson is alleged to have done the oppose, feigned confusion, and made fatal assertions which raise doubts about his competence as counsel to effectively interact with his client before an official proceeding before the Senate.

6. Berenson is alleged to not have the intention, as required, to fully comply with this requirement under the Attorney Standards of conduct: "(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse." [ Ref ]

Discussion

7. Based on information and belief, Berenson and Kyle knew what was happening and where each other was.

8. Based on information and belief, Berenson and Kyle knew the imminent disclosure of disruptive information which they knew would interfere with a proceeding.

9. If Berenson were competent, he would have privately raised the question, "Where's Kyle?" not openly disclose information raising doubts about his competence to coordinate with his client.

10. If Berenson wanted to maintain attorney-client confidences, he would have not disclosed something unless he wanted that disclosure to be known; or that disclosure was in the interests of his client to leave false impressions with the Committee.

Conclusions

11. Berenson, Sampson, and others in the Republican party had no meaningful information in their suitcases. This was a ruse designed to create the impression that they were well prepared. However, information from the weekend shows counsel was preparing to cover issues wholly unrelated to the hearing.

12. Berenson intended for the public to hear his comment, "Where's Kyle" not because he wanted to know where Kyle was, but because he was willing to create the impression that he was confused. However, Berenson, if he were competent, would never disclose something that would raise questions about the communication between Sampson and Berenson. Berenson appears to have deliberately raised the question, "Where's Kyle" not to ask for information, but to feign confusion and doubt about an issue they well understood: Kyle was using the interruption for a break to consult privately with persons known to Berenson and the GOP.

13. The above conduct, if proven true, raise serious questions about Brad Berenson, his motivations as counsel to allegedly disrupt a Congressional hearing; and the basis for Berenson to communicate information that was contrary to his attorney-client relationship: The alleged incorrect perception that he was confused. Most likely, he was not confused, and would have privately discussed the issue with co-counsel to determine the information.

14. Berenson, Sampson, and other to-be-named conspirators in the Republican Party are alleged to be involved with efforts to disrupt Congressional hearings, feign ignorance of issues they well understood, and leave impressions with the Committee and Members of Congress that were not timely corrected as they had a duty to correct under the rules of the Congress and as counsel under the American Bar Association and Attorney Standards of Conduct.

15. Berenson, Sampson, and other to-be-named conspirators in the Republican Party are alleged to have deliberately provided false, misleading, inaccurate information directly or indirectly to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee with the intent that it be relied upon, disrupt the hearing, and remove the Chairman from the hearing.

16. The collective efforts to Berenson, Sampson, and other to-be-named conspirators in the republican party are alleged to have orchestrated, planned, implemented, and concealed an effort to disrupt a Congressional hearing with the intent to do something they could not lawfully do or was outside what they were permitted to do.

17. The purpose of Berenson's communications was allegedly to leave the false impression that he was confused, hide his knowledge of what was happening, leave a false impression with the Committee Chairman, and hide his knowledge of where Kyle Sampson was.

18. Sampson is alleged to have left the meeting without being properly released; and to have departed under the false pretenses that there was a break. Little did Sampson realize was that by departing without consulting with counsel, this did not have the intended effect. Contrary to the desired impression that he and counsel were not communicating, Sampson and Berenson have coordinated with their colleagues in the White House. This information can be confirmed by reviewing the White House e-mails showing Sampson and Berenson were the subject of a joint conversation, e-mail and discussion.

* * *

19. The model rules of professional conduct do permit attorneys to disrupt Congressional hearings, engage in conduct that raises doubts about their seriousness as counsel.

20. The model rules also require colleagues of Sampson, Berenson, and White House counsel to timely report information related to this alleged conspiracy to disrupt a Congressional hearing.

21. The Honorable Senator Feinstein is on the Senate Rules Committee and was at the Senate Judiciary Committee examining Sampson. It appears the intent of Berenson's comments was to mislead an expert on the Senate rules which do not permit disruption of Committee Hearings. The combined efforts to Sampson, Berenson, and other to-be-named conspirators is alleged to have attempted to target, mislead, and disrupt Senator Feinstein in her interpretation of the rules and her knowledge that the disruption was not reasonable and contrary to the Senate Committee rules.

22. Sampson, Berenson, and the GOP owe an apology to the Senate Judiciary Chairman for their alleged plan to leave false impressions, create confusion, disrupt the hearing, and attempt to paint a false impression that they did not know what was happening.

23. Sampson, Berenson, and others legal counsel connected with the White House have been in communication and have been the subject of joint communications when counsel would have us believe they were not concerned with the issue. Ref

24. Berenson and Sampson are alleged to have well orchestrated the many responses including, "I do not recall" not with the intent to cooperate, but create false impressions that they were cooperating. Sampson's assertion that he did "not recall" is not supported by reasonable inquiry. Sampson appears to well understand that he was making inconsistent statements; and is alleged to have misled the committee about whether he did or did not leave memorandum with the Attorney General.

25. Sampson fatally made inconsistent statements about memorandum. The only way that Sampson could have provided the memorandum to the Attorney General, which he denied doing but was required to coordinate the meeting with the AG, was if there were e-mails sent outside official communication channels to the Attorney General. [ Detailed allegations in re Sampson

* * *

26. The Senate Sergeant at Arms needs to be brought into the nexus. Berenson knew, or should have known the Committee rules which were published in the Congressional Record which do not permit disruptions.

27. The Senate Judiciary Chairman under the Senate rules is permitted to go into private session to discuss these allegations against Berenson, Sampson, and others. However, it appears Berenson's fatal (and allegedly misleading) assertion that he was not in contact with his client was designed to dissuade understanding that the intent of the disruption was to avoid a private Senate discussion where counsel was not present.

When the Chair finds it necessary to maintain order, he shall have the power to clear the room, and the committee may act in closed session for so long as there is doubt of the assurance of order.

29. The Senate Majority leader, outside control of counsel or the GOP, may call an immediate meeting to discuss these issues:

The majority leader or his designee shall announce to the Senate whenever consent has been given under this subparagraph and shall state the time and place of such meeting. The right to make such announcement of consent shall have the same priority as the filing of a cloture motion.

30. Office of Legislative Counsel is formally advised that they may have information related to a potential rule violation which should be brought to the attention to the DC Bar in re an investigation into Sampson, Berenson, and other legal counsel affiliated with the GOP. If there is evidence of misconduct by any counsel, this information should be provided to the DC Attorney Disciplinary Board for review.

31. Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy is encouraged, and supported wholeheartedly, in a decision to subpoena Berenson, Sampson, and other alleged co-conspirators.

32. Senate Counsel and Senators are encouraged to review the above allegations and consider appropriate rule changes to the Senate to ensure counsel with Sidely Austin, the GOP, or any other counsel get a clear message: Do not attempt to disrupt the proceedings of Congress.

with full recognition of the constitutional right of the Senate to change such rules (so far as relating to the procedure in the Senate) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the Senate.

33. The Senate reserves the right to make any rule that specifically targets, monitors, and reviews evidence of attorney-client plans to disrupt, interfere, and leave false impressions with the Senate.

34. The Senate Sergeant at Arms is encouraged to consult with the Senate leadership and Committee Chairman to decide whether there is a basis to issue a warrant against Berenson, Sampson, and other allege co-conspirators for contempt of the Senate.

36. It is the discretion of the Senate, not the GOP or outside counsel, what conduct may satisfy a contempt citation. Counsel is Denied the right to expect that it may be give any special privilege before the Senate.

the Senate to hold any individual or entity in contempt of the Senate. Ref

37. Senate Counsel is encouraged to review the basis for action in the DC Court against Sampson, Berenson, and alleged co-conspirators. The US Attorney is not required to be involved with this proposed legal action against Sampson, Berenson, or other defendants.

Summation

38. Berenson, Sampson, and others in the GOP are alleged to have engaged in a conspiracy to disrupt the Senate Committee. This allegedly violates the Senate Rules. The Senate Sergeant at arms is authorized to arrest, detain, and gather evidence related to the alleged violation of Senate rules.

* * *

___ What communication method, system, or information technology system was used to plan, organize, and conceal the efforts to disrupt the Congressional hearing?

___ When did Sidley Austin personnel coordinated with the White House, GOP, and Sampson to orchestrate this planned ruse?

___ Why would Berenson fatally assert confusion about his client's whereabouts, yet this disclosure is not convincing; nor is it credible that counsel would have openly asked a question given counsel's close proximity to his client; and his attorney-client relationship and ongoing coordination with the White House counsels office?

___ How does Berenson plan to defend himself before the DC Bar in re an alleged effort to disrupt the Senate?

___ Does Berenson, Sampson, or anyone in the GOP have a plan to defend themselves against a Senate contempt citation which may or may not be fully enforced by the Senate Sergeant at Arms?

___ When did it enter Berenson's mind that Rule 3.3 prohibits counsel from asserting confusion on issues he allegedly well understood, had planned, but was attempting to conceal from the Senate Judiciary Chairman?

___ What is Berenson's explanation for coordinating with White House counsel and EOP on issues that were supposedly "not a big deal," Yet significant enough to generate many hours of work on the weekend prior to the appearance before Congress?

* * *

If you want anyone to believe that Sidley Austin, despite entering the hearing with piles of notes to assist Sampson; and having worked on the weekend to prepare supporting for Sampson; and having sat through testimony, eyeing Sampson's every move to ensure he stayed out of trouble ....that suddenly, Sidley Austin counsel "lost" their client?

That defies reason.

More absurd, is despite Sampson hiring counsel; working with them; coordinating with them on what happened; we are asked to believe that Sampson out of the blue did something without coordinating with counsel.

Again, that defies reason.

There were too many eyes on Sampson; and Sampson is smart enough, despite his bungling, to just walk out without coordination.

Most likely: The "missing Sampson problem" was coordinated, orchestrated; and the "apparent confusion" was planned, understood; and Berenson well knew what was going on.

It makes no sense for counsel, backup, and the other Sidley Austin assistants to "lose" their client, especially when they had documents ready to hand to Sampson to assist him. Counsel was watching his every move, hoping to find an excuse to slip him a piece of paper form their files to help their client. Yet, suddenly, we asked to believe that this close coordination fell apart, and long hours of preparation and coordination fell by the wayside.

Improbable.

Read more . . .

Sampson Inconsistent Statements On Documentation to AG

Sampson, if he is not lying, appears to not understand his contradictions.

How does someone like this [a] graduate from law school, [b] pass the bar, [c] survive disbarment investigations, [d] avoid DoJ OPR reviews; and [e] get into the Department of Justice with this kind of access to key decision makers?

Someone tell me we aren't in the Sampson Zone.

* * *

Clip one shows Sampson did provide written recommendations, which he says Gonzalez reviewed. These must have been in writing. [ Ref ]

Yet, yet clip two shows Sampson saying that he didn't provide any memos to the Attorney General. Ref

The two statements to not reconcile. Either Sampson did or did not document something; he's contradicted himself.

Things that should have been documented were supposedly not; yet, things that show Gonzalez was briefed or not briefed cannot be nailed down to a specific document.

___ What is Sampson's view of what a "written" document is?

___ Is a list of recommendations not the same as a memo?

___ How do we reconcile these two inconsistent statements?

___ What is Sampson's view of what a memo to Gonzalez is?

___ Is a list of recommendations not a memo?

* * *

Time to stop messing around with the witness statements. We need an audit of the workflows so Sampson and Gonzalez can be held to account for the apparent reckless disregad for basis internal controls, workflows, and other things which an attorney of this statute should be able to logically think through.

Then, we need to look at how they, despite this bungling in staff notes, were able to convince anyone that they should be in the Department of Justice.

Then the burden shifts to how they were able, despite this bungling, able to survive DOJ IG audits, or credibly convince anyone that they should be seriously considered.

This does not add up. These people are idiots. How were they able to move from their stupidity to the results: No accountability, and illegal conduct which defies the Constitutional requirement to include the Senate in the Attorney confirmation process.

We have a group of attorneys in Congress and the Department of Justice who are stupid. They are running the country. They refuse to enforce the Constitution. Americans should not be surprised why people living in caves are able to run circles around the Americans engaged in rabbit hunting in Afghanistan and Iraq: Their leaders are incompetent; and the Congress is incapable of understanding this problem, or their role in assenting to recklessness by the American legal community.

Stupid lawyers overseeing stupid lawyers has given us war crimes. We need real leaders in the US government not stupid people who have somehow slipped through the bar screen process. Bars are barriers, not rubber stamps. Lawyers with an ideology are incapable of adjusting to reality, much less comprehending when their idology is illegal, reckless and unconstitutional.

America's leaders in the District of Colubia are buffoons.

Read more . . .

DoJ Issues Another Meaningless Smokescreen On Gonzalez Unconstitutional Conduct

Gonzaelz has vioalted the Constution and been complicit with war crimes and grave breaches of Geneva.

DoJ today issues another frivolous attempt to engage in a media relations effort to explain away his Geneva violations. Mark your calendars when you think Gonzalez will be adjudiated for war crimes.

* * *



I've read too many lawyers non-denial-denials to smell a rat. Let's consider some of the unreliable words in the above statement which TPM has been nice enough to share.

"clarified his statements" -- Untimely, rejected.

"explained in a recent interview" -- out of court inconsistent statements are fatal to the Attorney General. Other perjury before Senate Judiciary in re FISA violations at odds with DOJ IG findings.

" something that would confirm" -- Vague.

"process was ongoing." -- DoJ doesn't work under "processes" -- they have workflows which are documented.

"the interview" -- No, it is evidence; it was recorded and can be introduced as evidence to impeach Gonzalez as a witness.

"the Attorney General stated" -- meaningless

"was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." -- Not supported by evidence showing Miers asked about a specific name.

"as the Attorney General has already explained," -- not credibly

"his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on" -- not credible

"ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process." -- Then why did Gonzalez deny his involvement if this was "appropriate"? NO answer.

"the Attorney General explained"

"consistent with Mr. Sampson’s testimony" -- not consistent with other testimony, we reject AG Gonzalez assertions.

"he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process" -- no evidence has been given to assert that this was correctly described. Burden on DOJ.

"kept aware of some conversations during the process" -- Should’ve known all of them, or kept rack of all of them. Failed in fiduciary duty in oversight role of an attorney-subordinate Attorney Standard of Conduct issue.

"he approved the recommendations" -- he had the ability to ensure the Constitutionally required appointment process was followed, but ignored them illegally. Gonzalez made a decision to support an unconstitutional agenda, and has violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution. This is illegal activity.

"to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys." -- The record does not support that the US Attorneys were asked to resign; but they were fired using threats, intimidation, and a plan that is not consistently explained.

* * *

Original snip from TPM:

The Attorney General recently clarified his statements from a March 13 press conference, as Mr. Sampson stated during the testimony. The Attorney General explained in a recent interview on March 26, 2007, "[f]rom time to time, Mr. Sampson would tell [him] something that would confirm in [his] mind that that process was ongoing." During the interview, the Attorney General stated he "was never focused on specific concerns about United States Attorneys as to whether or not they should be asked to resign." Rather, as the Attorney General has already explained, his discussions with Mr. Sampson were focused on ensuring that appropriate people were aware of and involved in the process. Furthermore, the Attorney General explained -- consistent with Mr. Sampson’s testimony today -- in an interview on March 14 that he directed Mr. Sampson to lead the evaluation process, was kept aware of some conversations during the process, and that he approved the recommendations to seek the resignations of select U.S. Attorneys.

Read more . . .

Separate Inquiry into DoJ Demand For No Public Oversight

Ref Using the same methods which disclosed the details of the NSA surveillance program and fatally disclosed the link between the NARUS STA and JTTF, we proceed into the alleged conspiracy of DoJ Staff counsel to violate their oath; and the nature of the agreement with Congress to assent to illegal conduct.

The agreement is illegal and unenforceable.

* * *



Here are the targets of this investigation:

Paul McNulty
William Moschella
Michael Elston
William Mercer
David Margolis
Monica Goodling
Kyle Sampson
Michael Battle

* * *

This review will determine the range of conduct DOJ Staff counsel appear to be concerned about in terms of the Geneva Conventions and the Attorney Standards of Conduct.

A quick view of the investigation targets reveals a couple of things:

A. They're attorneys subject to debarment; and know or should know attached to their conduct while working in DOJ is a requirement to report peer misconduct to DOJ OPR.

B. As attorneys, they have an oath of office and are required to fully enforce the Geneva Conventions through Article 82.

C. The course of conduct has been affirmatively linked to an alleged conspiracy

D. Conduct reveals out of court inconsistent statements which the investigation targets have not satisfactorily explained

E. Counsel appears to have engaged in conduct raising substantial questions about their suitability in complying with their attorney standards of conduct

F. Counsel has an interest in dissuading public discussion of conduct which may warrant disbarment, or war crimes prosecutions

G. Counsel should know who illegally abrogated the Constitution in developing illegal procedures to nominate the US Attorney outside the Constitutional requirement.

H. Counsel have made comments in the open e-mails and other e-mails

I. They have been guaranteed some sort of immunity, deal, or promise without knowing the nature of the alleged misconduct

J. They appear to be desperate to squelch public knowledge of material information which appears to raise questions whether their chances for continued service to the Untied States as an attorney, or on the bench, is in doubt.

K. Counsel have been under review and their activity has been monitored

L. Using methods the NSA cannot intercept, we know which DoJ Staff counsel have raised issues outside the window which Congress has agreed to narrowly review their issues

M. It is presumed that all White House counsel, DoJ Staff counsel, and outside staff counsel are in communication through their legal counsel.

N. There are issues which staff counsel have coordinated using methods which do not comply with the document retention requirements; and this deviation has been known to at least one of defense counsel despite a duty to ensure fully compliance in the law

O. None of the DoJ Staff have given a fair explanation why they did not timely report evidence of peer misconduct to DOJ OPR

P. Counsel has been linked with inconsistent statements in official releases and memoranda to Congress; asking anyone to believe that suppressed interviews will be more likely to produce better information is absurd.

O. Some of the attorneys believe that they could be implicated for serious violations of the law.

* * *

Despite the open information showing there have been substantial violations by DoJ Staff in re NSLs, FISA, Geneva, and other alleged war crimes, the buffoons on the Congressional Staff decided not to use this opportunity to openly ask on the record general questions about their pattern of conduct.

The absurdity of the Member of Congress agreement to suppress the interview is baffling. There is no requirement to get any additional information from DoJ Staff counsel. They have no credibility, they have openly conduct themselves in a questionable manner, and the burden of proof rests with them: Do they have a plan to justify confidence they are fully complying with all DoJ OPR reporting requirements; and what is their plan to cure their deviations from the Attorney Standards of Conduct.

They way forward is to apply the methods which have been well demonstrated with the NARUS STA 6400, rendition, war crimes, and grave breeches of Geneva, and identify the available information and the lines of evidence supporting a war crimes prosecution of the named DoJ Staff counsel.

* * *

Goodling's problem is that she's openly admitted and stated that if she answers any question she is at risk of being prosecuted. Fine. Then we presume for the purpose of this investigation that she knows of material information that should have been provided to DOJ OPR, but this information has not been disclosed as required. This fatally puts Goodling in an inferior position with respect to the Attorney Standards of Conduct.

Moschella has issued absurd statements in re FISA. DoJ IG, however, has concluded that DOJ Staff was involved with illegal FISA violations and other things which did not meet the warrant requirements. For purpose of this review, we presume that Moschella, despite a duty to find out, did not conduct a review nor ensure his statements to Congress were reliable. we presume Moschella believes that he is facing a concern that he has provided misleading information to Congress despite his knowledge that the information was not reliable; or that he failed to timely review the information once he had a reasonable basis to question its truthfulness; or he did not, as required, timely correct the record.

Elston has engaged in conduct which raises serious questions about disbarment. This has been documented. Elston has not issued any credible denial or provided any evidence to arrive at any other conclusion. Elston is presumed, for purposes of this review, to have a reasonable believe that he could be disbarred.

Paul McNulty is reported to have admitted that he did not provide truthful statements to Congress; has admitted this; and did take the time to correct the record. McNulty's letter to the Congress partially mitigates his problem; however, it remains to be understood whether he, as counsel, did adequately supervise junior DOJ Staff counsel. McNulty is presumed to be a hostile witness to Gonzalez who the Senate reports exists evidence that he has committed perjury.

Kyle Sampson is a former White House counsel who has an ongoing communications relationship with a law firm known to have reviewed specific communications, White House administrative procedures, and other things related to data retention. Outside counsel appears to have a problem in that it knew of the retention requirements, but those standards do not appear to have been timely reviewed.

E-mails for all other investigation targets are not supportive of any conclusion that they raised concerns; or that they timely raised objections to any Constitutional violations. Rather, they appear to have substantially supported the President's unconstitutional effort to circumvent the Senate and do not appear to have timely reported their information to Congress, US Attorney, or DOJ OPR.

In short, none of the investigation targets appear to have a clean record. Given that position, none of them appear to be able to provide a coherent story of what did or didn't happen because they appear to have legal issues confronting them, and they appear to be tainted.

Against this backdrop of a line of witnesses who have very little legal defense against war crimes, disbarment, or other alleged criminal activity, the Congress is under the false impression that they need DoJ Staff counsel assistance. Wrong. DoJ Staff counsel needs to reminded of their legal obligations under DOJ OPR; and their Attorney Standards of Conduct to fully cooperate.

This Congress did not use the tools of the ABA to leverage the attorneys, nor did it credibly compel the Attorneys to dance before We the People. This DoJ Staff counsel have arguably supported war crimes, yet the Congress seems concerned that they might be willing to cooperate. Despite no requirement to get additional evidence to prosecute the DOJ Staff counsel, Congress appears to have granted a pseudo-immunity to each of the investigation targets.

The inquiry focuses on the nature of the agreement which Members of Congress crafted; and to what extent Congressional Staff counsel have failed to assert their oath, and have in effect, taken a position that is contrary to their oath of office and duties as Congressional Staff. This is not looking good for either DoJ or Congress.

* * *

Members of Congress need to explain why, despite the oath to the US Constitution, Members of Congress are focusing on deal with people allegedly complicit with war crimes; and have no explanation how the clear constitutional violations need to be reviewed.

We don't start with evidence, and then try to build a case. We start with the known alleged illegal activity, then explore whether the available evidence will or will not successfully disbar counsel. Once that disbarment occurs, then we're ready to talk deals. Until the evidence is milked from open sources, it's premature to have any discussion or agreement, especially when Congress does not know what it is agreeing to. This Congress is working on an artificial timeline to find out the facts of a red herring; and fails to grasp reality: There is no statute of limitations for war crimes. We've gone this long without compromising with war criminals; what is the urgency to find out something in secret? NO answer form this Congress. As with the Iraq WMD issue, they're attempting to pretend that something has to be done quickly, yet the real issues need to be reviewed: What is their rush to agree to something that puts We the People second? No answer. This agreement is arguably reckless.

* * *

Fatal to the DOJ Staff counsel is the issue of Title 28. This is a mandatory reporting requirement that the AG has or has not enforced the law as required. Given Goodling's assertion -- that she has a legal issue -- and Gonzalez proven inconsistent statements in re his involvement, we presume that there have been no Title 28 exception reports filed as required.

This is not a burden only for DOJ Staff counsel. Once Members of Congress, seeing the evidence of illegal activity, review the Title 28 exception reports, or the lack of reports despite the requirement, the question turns to DOJ OPR to assess who knew or should have known; and where is their report.

The real beneficiary of this agreement isn't the President, but the Congress: There will not be sufficient public discussion of the known evidence linked with Title 28 exception reports which Members of Congress have not followed up despite the evidence of illegal activity.

This is the starting position which Staff counsel thought it would be "better" if there was no transcript. This agreement is illegal, not enforceable, and contrary to the Constitution which compels assent to the rule of law, not excuses by the American legal community to do nothing about their peer misconduct. That is backwards. However, given the Member of Congress decision to ignore the available information, we have to assess to what extent the decision is related to other objectives related to campaign contributions; or whether this is bungling of epic proportions.

Staff counsel hare represented by attorneys who provide funding to both the GOP and DNC. Despite White house counsel apparent frivolous arguments, and refusals to timely cooperate, Attorneys in Congress do not appear to be raising White House counsel disbarment issues with the DC Bar.

It appears as a starting position that Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff have a common objective that is not consistent with the Constitution: That of maintaining confidence in a legal profession which has let this DOJ Staff counsel conduct and recklessness go unchecked. Yet, it appears as though the GOP has convinced the DNC that the best focus is on facts, without regard to whether that fact finding is credible; or whether the facts are relevant.

They're not. This fact finding focuses on a symptom, and ignores the open evidence showing there continues to be an alleged rebellion against the rule of law. That Staff counsel are incompetent to leave this evidence is irrelevant: The size of the evidence before us is not an indicator of what must be suppressed, but what must be litigated unconditionally.

Turn the table and consider Guantanamo. DOJ's approach has been to demonstrate force and avoid trials. The DNC argument against this GTMO procedure was that there must be something to hide. Yet, when the same agreement occurs, DNC and GOP are singing a great tune: "It's for the best." Yet, international requirements per Geneva demand open proceedings. Where Prisoners of war under Geneva are afforded a right, Members of Congress are in no position to argue for the opposite for We the People. This problem attaches to the GOP and DNC Staff counsel in both parties and branches.

* * *

The issue going forward in re the listed targets of this investigation:

___ What information do we have that shows they are complicit with war crimes;

___ What was their relationship with Addington, Bybee, Gonzalez, and others alleged to have assented to Geneva;

___ What is their knowledge of NSL processing procedures;

___ Which information that DOJ IG said is evidence of the DoJ Staff counsel illegal activity in re warrant processing attaches to the targets of this investigation;

___ Who knew, or should have known, that there was peer misconduct which has not been reported to DOJ OPR as required?

* * *

This is where we turn things upside down. Goodling has fatally asserted that she has a legal problem. The issue becomes: Which of the investigation targets are in a position to know what this might be; and why did they not report this information to DOJ OPR as required under the DOJ and Attorney Standards of Conduct?

Arguably, Goodling's fatal assertion attached to all the DOJ Staff counsel. Because there are constitutional violations -- which Staff counsel knew, or should have known -- but those requirements were ignored and the objective of this usurpation, then the issue turns again: TO what extent have the DOJ Staff counsel been reckless in not asserting their oath.

* * *

There are two broad lines of evidence which DoJ Staff have not been confronted. That is the Workflow listing. As you may recall when Lam was the subject of a latter, Staff counsel knew which Administrative Support personnel to contact. Each tasking has a workflow order number.

Each of these numbers is tracked. If there are gaps, as there appear to be, someone knows what was really done. It's possible to find out who did what' and why the want it suppressed.

Also, there have been meetings involving people on the White House counsel's staff, but these meetings were in the Department of Justice's AG's office.

Gonzalez also has a known AG OTUS e-mail address.

What appears to have happened is the Members of Congress and staff counsel are lazy and have not reviewed the e-mails. However, this problem also attached to the investigation targets: They have no idea what is really in there. Their problem is that Congress doesn't want to dig into the questions and e-mails; and the DOJ Staff counsel cannot put a straight story together.

Two groups equally lazy and incompetent have agreed to compromise to keep thing secret. That's not going work.

* * *

Based on a quick reading of the above, you'll se that there is a reasonable basis to ask, in light of this known evidence, why Members of Congress thought that keeping anything secret would be good.

Again we're talking about the same staff counsel who are allegedly complicit with the retaliation against US Citizens for questioning the Iraq WMD issues; knew or should have known about the rendition and prisoner abuse issues; and do not appear to have fully asserted their oath to timely report peer misconduct to the DOJ OPR.

The evidence is the opposite:

A. Secrecy in re FISA_NSA_NSLs has produced DOJ IG evidence that DOJ Staff counsel were aware of illegal activity, but did not timely report this misconduct.

B. Secrecy in re Iraq WMD links to DoD IG findings that there was no imminent threat as required under Geneva, yet the US Congress continues to appropriate funds for illegal warfare

C. Secrecy in re 9-11 gives us worthless evidence that defies physical principles; and no explanation why the NY Fire Department was not stopped from putting water on thermite. When Thermite-initiated fires are doused with water, thermite burns hotter, explaining why steel many days after the attacks continued to glow.

D. Secrecy about the Afghanistan Box care incidents has given us thousands of uninvestigated deaths, which violate 5100.77;

E. Secrecy over the GTMO trial procedures has given us DOD Attorney retaliation against Prisoner defense counsel in violation of Geneva.

F. Secrecy in re warrants has given us illegal surveillance; yet DOJ refuses to cooperate with the inquiry, leaving Congress to throw their hands in the air.

The problem is President. His secrecy is the means by which he is destroying this Constitution. The US Attorney firing relied on this shield.

If Congress wont’ use the available open evidence to review issues; then it means that a private conclusion to do nothing or something cannot be credibly asserted on the basis of “trust me.” This Congress challenges a President who does this; and We the People are reasonable to question the motives of the US Government that attempts the same.

”Trust me” doesn’t work, as evidenced by the Constitution and the three branches: To check, not trust.

It is absurd for Congress to argue that more secrecy is needed. No, secrecy has been exploited. Time to end the secrecy. Congress refuses. Fine, Congress and the American legal community are denied the guarantee it may continue operating as a self-governing organizations.

* * *

Let's talk about the so-called "non issues" Members of Congress and DOJ Staff would have us believe exist. The problem isn't that there is illegal conduct in 2001-7 Which Members of Congress and staff counsel on both sides of the aisle have ignored; but that they face the partisan opposition over irrelevant legal issues. TO avoid an irrelevant issue, they've agreed to continue with what has given us what we have: Secrecy.

Now Congress and the DOJ Staff have well articulated the real problem: It's not the US Attorneys, but the joint agreement by Congress and the Executive to not openly assert their oath and protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.

We the People are prepared to do what Congress is incapable of doing; or what the DoJ Staff refuses to do: Protect the Constitution against the rebels inside Congress and the DOJ Staff who are lazy lawyers and arguably ill suited to continue practicing law.

We presume for the moment that the basis of the agreement between Congress and the Executive is not to solve a problem, but to avoid throwing mud where it needs to be thrown: Into the eyes of lazy, reckless, and incompetent legal counsel in both branches who refuse to ensure heir peers are openly challenged for conduct which does not meet their attorney standards of conduct.

* * *

We turn to the evidence we have; and consider whether the Member of Congress and Congressional staff counsel have been reckless in not openly asking questions and daring conclusions about what most likely happened.

There is no need to get an explanation why DoJ Staff counsel did what they did -- it's illegal to support unconstitutional violations; and engage in amendments to the Constitution outside the amendment process. We don't need a straight story why they violated the Constitution; we need some straight leaders who can put aside the issue of what they did or didn't do in re Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports, and can call their peers in the legal profession what they are: War criminals involved with a conspiracy to undermine the US Constitution.

Congress has no power to permit any agreement which suppresses evidence of this Conspiracy. The agreement is illegal and not enforceable; and all evidence this Congress receives under this agreement shall be forwarded to war crimes prosecutors with one goal: To decide which of the DOJ Staff counsel to prosecute for their involvement, support, and refuse to prevent war crimes.

As with the illegal procedures to circumvent the Senate role in appointments, Members of Congress may also be linked with this alleged conspiracy to ensure US Attorney are not openly challenged; and prosecute Members of Congress who have agreed to keep evidence of war crimes suppressed.

The issue is not the facts on the US Attorney firing, but the evidence that members of Congress know that they could be in legal jeopardy for not fully asserting their attorney standards of conduct, and heir joint failure to end illegal warfare. The answer is not to hide the evidence; but to admit: The Members of Congress are doing this because they have a personal interest in not seeing the legal issues attached to them as attorneys. They had a duty to act and have allegedly refused, raising Title 28 and Title 50 exception report issues; and questions why the legal counsel and Members of Congress who were attorneys did not document, as required, their knowledge of the DOJ Staff counsel complicity with war crimes.

This 2007 agreement to suppress this information is not timely.

* * *

Arguably, each of the offenses in re war crimes which attach to the DOJ Staff counsel also attached to Members of Congress in re their decision not to timely oversee the issue of Geneva Violations.

The US Attorney firings are a symptom of the effort by this US Government to jointly not enforce the Constitution; and permit lesser standards trump the oath of office requirements in re Geneva. The problem isn't the lack of facts; the issue is the pervasive illegal activity but lack of enforcement by the American legal community. There's a leadership problem in America, not just the Congress or the American legal community. Law and order has broken down.

* * *

Members of Congress and the DoJ Staff counsel have a problem. These issues related to alleged violations of the laws of war. If the US government does not end this non-sense foreign powers may expand their lawful retaliation and engage in like abuses against similarly situated personnel.

Members of Congress and DoJ Staff counsel who have been complicit with prisoner abuse and not ended -- they may be lawfully targeted by foreign fighters for like abuses. This does not advocate that action only outlines what Geneva permits. If the Congress will not engage in fact finding to prevent war crimes, then foreign fighters have been delegated the power under the Geneva Conventions to use lethal force against the US government. Those are the issues.

If the Congress chooses to pretend it is a republic, but acts like a dictatorship, Geneva allows foreign powers to do anything to the US Government which NATO did in Yugoslavia. DoJ Staff counsel who continue with this non-sense or cooperate with these sham Congressional reviews can be adjudicated for war crimes.

However, their problem isn't that someone knows, but that there is no evidence where there should be: DOJ OPR has nothing; and Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports do not exist as required. This was known.

* * *

Members of Congress and DOJ Staff counsel have two options to resolve disputes. The legal forums -- which they refuse to assent, or they have no chance of victory -- or the second, and less preferred, the battlefield -- which they have jointly shown they are incompetent in managing, much less ensuring their legal requirements are met.

There are only two options. Members of Congress and the DOJ Staff with this agreement have sent a clear signal: They put themselves above Geneva and the US Constitution, but would have us believe they have an agreement.

No, this agreement is illegal, unenforceable, and evidence of their conspiracy. IT doesn't matter whether they understand this: The issue is whether they, as legal counsel, comprehend that the net result of their actions is a violation of their oath of office. IT doesn't matte whether they understand; the issue is whether they, as counsel, should understand the net result.

This is an illegal agreement and not enforceable. But it is evidence that the US government is not serious about the rule of law, fact finding, or accountability for all branches of government who have attorney standards of conduct.

If Congress chooses to engage in sham oversight, then foreign fighters may engage in sham agreements with the US government, yet fully planning to break these agreements as they are not enforceable.

What Congress and the DOJ Staff do or not do, in contravention to their legal requirements, may be the basis for foreign fighters to bring combat operations to the District of Columbia and specifically target for capture using methods which the DOJ and Congress have not stopped -- rendition -- for purposes of ending this sham US Government.

* * *

Either Congress will end this non-sense; or foreign fighters through the Geneva Conventions will lawfully be able to engage in like retaliation against the DOJ Staff and Members of Congress.

This US government has an oath. It ignores the violations. IT engages in sham agreements. It refuses to hold lawyers to account. We the People are not required to support this illegal rebellion.

Under the US Constitution we are permitted to request outside assistance. This Congress and DOJ Staff have well communicated they are not just imminent threats, but they are ongoing enemies of the Constitution.

Please encourage your friends and state officials to implement their corresponded packages; and discuss what methods your state will formally ask for assistance in defending this Constitution against the illegal rebellion led by this Congress, Executive, and the American legal community.

They wished this.

Read more . . .