Comparing US Atty Firings With FISA, Iraq Defenses
Ref Same crew is doing the same thing: Making excuses to explain away problems.
The common problem across FISA, Iraq WMD, and the US Attorney-firing: The story changes, and the original action was not legally justified. They're hunting for a reason to justify what they already did.
___ BTW: Anyone through to giving Libby a subpoena to appear at the US Attorney Hearings? He may not cooperate, but what's the harm with hauling him before Congress: Give him a chance to "explain" himself as it relates to his knowledge of these events.
Ref Recall Stimson's apparent statement under duress; and contrast that with the JAG memo when they recanted their opposition to the MCA. Seems like the same thing is going on with the statements in re US Attorney Firings.
The same crew is doing more the same: They get caught, and then try to explain their way out of it.
Lesson of Katrina: We See Through the Curtain
Ref Silent Patriot has it right -- this is another thing like Katrina: It pulled the curtains back, and raised questions about what was really gong on in Iraq. This is a house of cards: The management incompetence at Walter Reed is the same withing the Republican Party, and the White House. We should not be surprised why the US bothced Iraq; or why Hezbollah was able to outmaneuver the NSA-Isreali cooperation.
I'd like to see a tie-in between the US Attorney issue and the Walter Reed issue: Looking for some common problems and patterns:
___ What can we learn about the way DoD leadership worked under Rumsfeld, as it related to war crimes and managing resources; and how were the US Attorneys involved with the legal compliance issues in DoD
___ What kind of interaction did DoD General Counsel Haynes have with concerns about problems in the ranks, legal issues, and the compliance-non compliance with various standards
___ We've seen the abuse of CIA analysts for telling the truth: How did DoD work with Addington and Cheney to suppress the truth about DoD problems with managing resources
Recall DoJ Staff Counsel Absurdity On FISA Defense
They were for illegal warfare and Constitutional violations before they got caught; then they tried to pretend it was legal or for a good reason.
As you approach the US Attorney issue, don’t get focused on the mechanics of the problem; but look for the broader approach similar to the FISA excuses. This will help generalize the lessons learned from FISA, NSA, and the war crimes issues, and give you some insight into the questions to ask about this new area. We’re dealing with the same DOJ Staff as is related to NSA violations and the war crimes.
1. Doing something that was not justified;
2. Releasing information to explain it away;
3. Retroactively devising reasons;
4. Failing to show that the disclosed reasons are the same as those most likely in the memorandum.
It’s not likely that the pattern is different; it is likely that there is something else going on, and the White House isn't being clear.
The key will be to notice the inconsistencies which should, hopefully, generate some questions. Here are some opportunities:
- Changing the quality of the original statement
- Claims of classification for things the personnel involved disclose
The key to remember, unlike the FISA-NSA issues, is that the US Attorneys are [a] cooperating; and [b] there are subpoenas; and [c] the US government has asserted something, that the Attorneys may or may not feel obligated to corroborate.
These are hostile witnesses to the Department of Justice.
Watch for the reaction. If there as noting wrong, the story would be straight; and the threatened retaliation would not be there.
___ Threats to retaliate against US attorney for disclosing "classified" information
The US government is coming out in the wrong on this one -- namely, the GOP.
I would encourage the Judiciary Committee to follow up with the US Attorneys issues in the unanswered Judiciary Staff questions to The White House/Department of Justice in re NSA Ref:
___ What themes in the DOJ Staff responses to the Judiciary in re FISA were not sported by what the US Attorneys saw and observed
___ What types of questions did the US Attorneys feel they were not getting adequate FBI support in investigating
___ What's the US Attorney position on the various Geneva violations -- did they have a plan to review these legal issues
___ What information do the US Attorneys have about the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports -- were they blocked
___ How about the DOJ Staff training on blocking FOIA responses: What do the US Attorneys know about this; and what kind of video training may they have had
___ What kind of review do US Attorney have of the Guantanamo interrogations; and what can they shed light on in re Padilla's video from South Carolina that supposedly went missing: Did the US Attorneys get a chance to work with JTTF and Counter Intelligence Field Activity[ CIFA] when review this video information?