Executive Privilege Does not Shield Staff Counsel Discussions on Illegal Activity

President's Fatal Assertions

Executive Privilege partially shields conversations between the President and his staff. It does not shield illegal activity staff counsel coordinated to illegally retaliate against US Attorneys.

Privilege falls away as a defense when those issues have been disclosed, even inadvertently; and the issues supposedly do not involve the President.

Privilege cannot protect what cannot be protected; and it cannot shield what is a disclosed conversation. Once disclosed, whether that conversation does not does not involve the President is irrelevant. Congress may ask, and compel the Staff to respond, whether the President was or was not involved.

Other information will confirm or deny the answers Rove and Miers provide.

Either the President was involved with the illegal firings, and privilege cannot protect his illegal activity; or the President was not involved, and privilege cannot apply to the already disclosed Staff coordination on an illegal activity.

However, by empathically asserting privilege applies, yet the President would have us believe he wasn't involved, he's asking for a shield to fatally-disclosed converstation between DoJ and White House Staff which cannot be re-protected. The adverse inference, based on the totality of the circumstances, is that the president was involved with the illegal decision; and he is incorrectly attempting to pretend that White House-DOJ Staff discussions which have been disclosed cannot be examined. This is beyond what Congress is required to recognize.

Discovery may continue. The Congress is not required to recognize any claim of privilege. The President's direction to any staff counsel or assistant to not fully cooperate is obstruction of justice; and is an illegal effort to block a lawful inquiry into matters which have been disclosed, and cannot be protected.

* * *

Ref

The President has fatally made several assertions which have no basis in law, are not supported by policy, and contradict the Supreme Law of the land. The information he has freely provided today may be introduced as evidence during a war crimes tribunal.

The President cannot claim "privilege" on conversations between White House counsel and DoJ Staff. These conversations supposedly do not involve the President. However, if the President insists on asserting privilege with the intention of Protecting his conversations about the US Attorney firings then he's fatally asserting protection for something that does not need to be proven: Not what he said, but whether he was or was not involved in the decision.

Asserting privilege on the US Attorney firings fatally raises the legal problem for the President: He can only assert privilege for something he was personally involved; and it does not protect the open conversations which have been documented and openly reported involving his White House counsel and DOJ Staff.

White House counsel can be forced to testify under oath. If they refuse to testify, then that refusal can be adversely and correctly interpreted to mean that they are protecting the President for something he supposedly was not involved. The President in asserting privilege has fatally raised the legal issue: Not whether, but how much the President was involved with the decision to fire the US attorneys; whether the President did or did not participate in illegal activity, planning, and other efforts to illegally retaliate against the US Attorneys. The President cannot claim that he has the authority to fire someone; but claim that firing did not involve the President.

The President does not dispute he has the power to replace. The question is whether the president wants to admit that he fired the attorneys illegally for their effort to prosecute the President's political allies who crated shell companies to funnel money to the GOP for partisan purposes. The facts and evidence are not on the side of the President; neither is Congress.

Executive privilege may not be delegated to non-executives; or to shield conversations that the President supposedly said did not involve him, but are supposedly lawful. If the conversations is lawful, then the Staff coordination on this issue – which has been disclosed – is subject to Congressional review.

* * *

1. Any statement this President made about any meetings with Members of Congress are discoverable. These meetings have been publicly reported. We the People are allowed to see all memos related to this planning meeting, and any other agreements which the Congress and President's advisors have openly disclosed.

2. The President may not make any secret agreement with any Member of Congress, nor threaten them to agree to something that is different than their oath of office.

3. It is false and misleading for the President to say that he has any power to violate the law. This President has one power: Executive. He may not illegally retaliate against US Attorneys for their efforts to enforce the law.

4. Contrary to the President’s unfounded assertion, he does not have the power to remove anyone from office because of his desire to block inquiry, obstruct justice, or retaliate illegally.

5. The President must explain why he is not com [lying with the mandatory hold-over provisions.

6. We are more than two years after the 2004 election. It is ultimately for the President to argue these attorney firings are or are not related to any election related decision.

7. Attached with the responsibility to appoint is the duty to oversee and enforce the law. This President has not done this. Under the Constitution, the Senate is not required to recognize any appointment when the President is exceeding his power.

8. The President has no power to violate the law.

9. The President has not explained the mandatory hold-over provision; or why he is violating this provision two years after it has been in place.

10. It is irrelevant what this President says he believes. The issue is whether there has been illegal retaliation against US Attorneys attempting to enforce the law and assert this oath of office. This President has obstructed the DOJ OPR and blocked reviews of the Valarie Plame leak investigation. It defies logic to suggest he is concerned with any inquiry or fact finding.

11. The President has fatally admitted that he "approved" the ruse of "new leadership." This is an illegal agreement.

12. The President has not addressed the four point plan which his White House counsel approved, and coordinated with multiple agencies in the GOP and Executive Branch.

13. The appeal to confusion is meaningless. There is one President. He alone has the power to clarify. HE refuses to permit clarity. This is obstruction.

14. The President has not provided a complete record. It doesn’t matter how many pages he does provide: The President alone is blocking full compliance and cooperation with Congress.

15. It is meaningless whether or not the President does or does not approve the explanations, how they were handled.

16. The President is making a disingenuous offer to "correct" the problem. His track record is not consistent with this promise. He has openly thwarted Congress in re FISA, DOJ OPR, and other investigations. His idea of being "determined" is to violate more laws and with determination not be held accountable.

17. The record cannot be corrected until the President fully cooperates with Congress. The President is not serous when he says he is willing to do anything.

18. The President cannot "correct" a record that is full of inconstancies his staff has created. The only correction is for this President to either resign; or fully accept the Congressional conclusion that these inconsistent statements are evidence of obstruction of justice.

19. The Attorney General has already lied under oath. Ore testimony from the Attorney General is not going to give us better information. His testimony is worthless. His explanations are frivolous. And whether the decisions were or were not explained is meaningless: They were illegal. The reasons for the illegal activity are irrelevant.

20. This President, because his DOJ Staff counsel is reckless, has created a pile of evidence of criminal activity and conspiracy. Rather than assent to the law and take his medicine, this President would like to pretend that his cooperation with the rule of law should be believe. No, more is required.

21. There was no plan to replace the fired US Attorneys. If there was an orderly, reasonable process in place -- which there is not -- this President would not have to explain.

22. The process to fire a US Attorney is meaningless. Even if it were relevant, this late in the game, the White House still cannot explain the illegal activity and planning of retaliation; and get a straight story. The President is absurdly arguing that there was an orderly process to violate the law; but confusion about the compliance. This is a leadership problem of the GOP to solve.

23. Congress may follow-up and ask any question of all DOJ Documents provided. The White house staff is involved with these released memoranda.

24. Doing what one should is not something that is rewarded. It is required. The communications have been disclosed. They are part of the public record. They show bungling, mismanagement, and ineptitude: Congress has the power to review Rove's and Mier's role in this incompetence.

25. The President is lying when he refers to the US Attorney firings as anything but firings. The President has not denied the White House was involved with the firings.

26. This President has fatally released information showing his staff and legal advisors were involved with illegal retaliation. Once the Staff disclosed illegal activity and were involved with the communications, they are part of the public record. If the President will not permit cooperation, then adverse inferences shall be made.

27. Separate branches of government are required to comply with the law; not pretend they have an impenetrable fortress to plan and implement illegal activity.

28. If the President want to rely on "candid advice" the President needs to hire counsel that knows the law. The White House counsel's office does not work for the President: They are public employees responsible to We the People. The President failed to maintain attorney-client privilege.

29. It is convoluted logic for the President to claim he should get illegal advise from war criminal; but then claim that the Separation of Powers should recognize these war crimes as unchallengeable. Separate branches shall check power; not remain complicit with illegal activity.

30. The President’s "concern" that his staff communications cannot be subpoenaed is meaningless. The threat of impeachment and oversight is designed to act as a deterrent to war crimes an illegal activity. This threat did not dieter this President.

31. The Staff should live in constant fear that their illegal activity will be scrutinized.

42. Once the memos are disclosed, these are no longer internal deliberations which are protected, but they are evidence of illegal efforts by DoJ Staff to violate the law.

43. WE the People have been ill served by this Reckless President. This President has received illegal advice from counsel who believed they could wage illegal warfare. The Beybee Memo is evidence of Gonzalez complicity with these war crimes. What may or may not happen to White House and DOJ Staff counsel for their alleged involvement with retaliation, conspiracy, illegal rendition, prisoner abuse, witness retaliation, obstruction of justice, and other illegal acts are matters for the State and DC disciplinary boards to review.

44. The important issue isn't the decision, but the process by which We the People have been denied the full service of US Attorneys attempting to make independent decisions who to prosecute or not prosecute.

45. The relevant facts: This President cannot decide in advance what the relevant facts are or are not.

46. The President has not fully provided all documents. He has not provided information to outside White House counsel. Why is the President not offering these communications?

47. Half measure are not ade3quate. The framers intended factions to clash. The fishing expedition started when this President chose to pick and choose from the muddy waters he attempted to drown the Constitution.

48. This President has no hope of a legal defense before The Hague. He is regrettably pretending he is a leader. He is a war criminal. This President has engaged in sham trials and refused to comply with the laws of war. This President’s agreements are meaningless: he openly defies his oath, does not honored the Constitution. Making documents available is not a victory, but a sad state of affairs this President must be lawfully held to account.

49. The President’s conduct is illegal. His solutions are half measures. This President has chosen confrontation with the Constitution. Any efforts to oppose any subpoenas are illegal.

50. This President has not provided any information showing who specifically discussed firing some or all of the Attorneys. This President has fatally asserted that there were discussions to fire people; but has not provided the specific information backing up his assertion.

51. It is too late to argue these firings are related to the second term. They are related to relation. The President has failed to discuss the mandatory hold-over provision.

52. There was no basis for to believe any discussion on hanging counsel has been adequately couched by this President.

53. It is not appropriate for Members of Congress to directly contact personnel working for the President. The Members of Congress should have routed their mail to the Attorney General. Members of Congress did not do this. This is not consistent with the principle of comity.

54. This President has not explained how he has addressed complaints about his war crimes. There is no merit to any GOP argument that they were concerned about fraud: They were actively committing it. There was no concern with solving a problem, but in creating a mess for the voters. These actions were not appropriate contrary to the White House’s assertions.

55. The President is lying when he calls the Fired US Attorneys "resigners." He does not appreciate their service; if he did, he would not have had them fired. This President does not regret the mess he's created: It's anther smokescreens to delay. This President has not acted appropriately. The President has not been reasonable. He is a war criminal.

56. It is too late for this President to believe he can escape a war crimes indictment and accountability. This President has relied on illegal efforts to retaliate against US Attorneys who have known about the money laundering through DoD contractors to the GOP fund raisers. This President is wasting time. HE has started an illegal confutation. The People’s business is the Constitution; this President defies it.

57. This President has ignored the Constitution. HE pretends he is a leader. He is a buffoon. He is incompetent. His staff counsel are reckless. Until the President puts the Constitution first, he may not claim that he is doing anything of merit on behalf of the American people. He is an outlaw.

58. This President has not answered the question whether he is completely convinced there was no political pressure: This President applied illegal retaliation to target US Attorneys attempting to do their job. Rather than state whether he is or is not convinced of anything; the President relies on cursory reviews to assert that nobody found anything.

59. Saying there is "no indication" of anything is absurd: Where there is evidence, he cannot see it; where there is no evidence, he starts illegal warfare.

60. This President’s reaction to this illegal activity is not reasonable. The interviews shall be recorded and under oath; or the evidence shall be admitted as worthless. The burden is on the White House and GOP to justify confidence in their assertions.

51. This President’s reviews are worthless. He cannot explain why he will or will not say why he is or is not convinced of anything. His idea of being convinced or seeing an 'Indication" of anything is to believe in fairy tales. His staff counsel have engaged in war crimes, not removed themselves, and they are complicit with grave breaches of Geneva. There is a mounting pile of evidence that this President and His staff grossly abused their power and illegal retaliated against people who attempted to report the truth: Valarie Plame, Sibel Edmonds, Lt. Col Schaeffer, Gen Janice Karpinski, US Attorneys assigned to defend Guanatanamo Prisoners, US citizens protesting illegal warfare, Senator Kennedy by putting him on a no-fly list.

52. Fielding's offer is meaningless. The President did not refuse the assertion that some Administration officials have testified under oath. The President cannot choose to not cooperate with Congress.

53. When the President says he is going to "safeguard the ability for Presidents to get good decisions" he is asking that illegal decisions be accepted as good. This is absurd. Until Congress gets fully support. the adverse inferences is reasonable: This President and others have defied their oath and engaged in illegal warfare.

54. This President isn’t worried about Precedent. He has ignored Our Precedent; The Constitution. The President's error is to believe that he is going to get better advise by keeping illegal activity secret or hidden. We've seen the results: Guantanamo, Rendition, FISA violations, illegal warfare in Iraq. Despite "secrecy" this President’s idea of a "good" decision is to make a mess of Iraq and Louisiana.

55. Fair warning to all legal counsel: If you are involved with illegal activity, you could be forced to testify before Congress under oath.

56. Let's go to Court Mr. President, and show the rest of the information indicating that the Congress has been misled; and that there is a reasonable basis for the President to be prosecuted for war crimes. The Congress has read the information; and there are follow-up questions. Once the President provides part of the picture, Congress may open the door the rest of the way to see the complete picture.

57. The framers intended the factions to clash. The President’s "concern" with a clash of factions is not a credible concern: It is required. This President has violated the law despite losing political elections. There is no basis for this President to say that compelling others to agree with non-sense is a good plan; it is illegal. We the People know what is on this President’s mind: Illegal rebellion, war crimes, and obstruction of Our Will.

58. The truth is simple: the President refuses to cooperate with full inquiry into his illegal activity. It is not lawful for DoJ Staff to have impeded investigations or retaliated against US Attorneys who attempted to assert their oath of office.

59. We the People can only trust the facts if those facts are provided under oath; and we are given a chance to evaluate whether the facts as presented are true; or whether Rove and Miers have violated their oath to provide truthful testimony. Without a promise to do what is right, the reasonable adverse inferences is that they are lying, have engaged in illegal activity, and we need to prosecute to Rove and Miers for obstruction of justice.

60. How a decision was made is not relevant. The issue is whether the result of that illegal activity did or did not undermine The Constitution. IT has. Rove and Miers testimony and statements are only worth anything if they are under oath, with transcripts, and in public view. The e-mails with their names are on them. Nixon reminds us that White House counsel is not able to hide what has been disclosed.
Testify and cooperate; or face lawfully consequences: Jail time.

61. The issue of Presidential deception is a separate matter than whether the issue of privilege and power to fire is or is not relevant. When he says that the US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President [No, there are holdover requirements] the President is raising an irrelevant issue. He has the authority to fire someone, but not the authority to retaliate illegally; nor hide evidence of that illegal activity; nor shield conversations between two staff members. Staff Members are not the executive; and their conversations have been openly revealed. Privilege does not shield what has been disclosed, especially when it supposedly does not involve the President.

62. It remains to be understood who in the white House and GOP guided DoJ to agree to "recommendations" that matched the President’s agenda to retaliate. The DOJ staff deserves more scrutiny; their conduct shows they are not decent people but buffoons and should be investigated for disbarment.

63. The President has the power to lead and remove politics from law enforcement. This President crated this mess and is pretending that DC is a create he cannot control. Wrong, it is something he can lead. He has failed.

63. This President is not interested in the truth. The truth, if it were possible, would have had a consistent line of evidence. we have the opposite: Inconsistencies. This is a basis to expand the inquiry.

64. If the GOP wants to have any hope in 2008, they need to provide leadership to this failed President and find a new one. Where's the new VP?

65. Despite secrecy, this President has implemented reckless decisions.

66. This is drivel: "And if information is the desire, there's a great way forward." Indeed: Cooperate or go to jail. This President has rejected the Constitution. His proposals are not reasonable, they are half-hearted. If this effort to get information was bad, ten the GOP would be pushing for more information to "embarrass" the DNC. They refuse to provide full information to show the DNC is wrong. The GOP is wrong; and the GOP has nothing to warrant confidence that we can see they are anything but wrong.