House Judiciary Agrees To Be Pesident's Lap Dog

Ref This is evidence We the People, outside Congress, are going to have to conduct oversight on this issue. Congress has permitted this to get messed up. Please read this before continuing.

Ref "Don't talk about" Gootling's alleged loyalty oaths; or CIA-related litigation triggering retalation against US Attorneys.

Congress has ignored these standards. There are issues of legitimacy and responsiveness.

Congress, not just the President, is now under formal investigation by We the People. We shall be relentless.

We the People need to launch FOIAs into Congress to find out about this absurd decision. The problem shifts from the US Attorneys -- they symptom -- to the recklessness this House Judiciary Chairman is allegedly engaging in re his oath of office. This in on the table: Alleged complicity with grave breaches of Geneva; and refusal to fully assert his oath as required under the Michigan Attorney Standards of Conduct.

Need to look at all the issues connected with DOJ Staff. The President and DOJ coordinated with this staff on rendition, prisoner abuse, war crimes, and other grave breaches of Geneva. This agreement is unacceptable. It is most likely that RNC and the President do not want the Congress to ask the DOJ Staff about their knowledge of the war crimes issues, rendition, and other things the DOJ Staff counsel has done to remain silent on issues of war crimes.

The error is for this Congress to buy into the President's non-sense that the US Attorney firings are a problem. No, they are a symptom of a larger pattern of conduct this Congress continues to refuse to openly confront as it has an oath to do: This President's impeachable offenses.

Who needs the GOP obstruftion when you have the DNC agreeing to be complicit? Same result: Inadequate oversight. We can find new leaders. This crew is a circus looking for an excuse to hide the elephants. Game over.

* * *

This Congress and Executive branch have, in effect, agreed to keep secret information about attorney misconduct. The US Attorney firings are a symptom of a larger problem this Congress, with this secret agreement, will not be required to confront.

This is unacceptable. It his denying We the People the information need to make informed judgements: Is this legal profession and US government fully asserting its oath; or is it continuing to engage in active rebellion against this Constitution? Without information, we proceed on the assumption that the illegal rebellion continues with complicity by the House and Senate.

___ When Members of Congress on the Judiciary Committee, after they have agered to keep the transcripts from We the People, learn of something that may be illegal, do they plan to maintain suppression of the transcripts; or will they forward the information to the US Attorney and DOJ OPR and DOJ IG?

___ If there is evidence that the witnesses, despite not "risk" of having their comments reviewed, lie to Congress during teh interviews, do Members of Congerss plan to do anything about it; and are the agreements with DOJ thrown out the window?

___ What will MEmbers of Congress do to fully assert their Title 28 reporting requirements: AG is reuired to report in writing to Congerss his decision not to enforce the law. What happens when Members of Congress find evidnece that the AG, despite this requirement, has no reproted his decision to "not enforce the law"?

___ Will the TItle 28 and TItle 50 exception report requirements get thrown out the window; how do Members of Congress, despite this statutory requirement to assert their oath, plan to explain the gaps in the enforcement actions by the AG against those the Congress finds did not fully comply with the law?

____ Without a public transcripts, these are not public interviews. They are hushed reports of (maybe) accurate reprots. What auditing do Members of Congress and outside counsel plan to do on the transcripts?

___ HOw do Members of COngress, in light of the Mason's Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, plan to explain to the Taliban or Iraqi insurgency why there are "benefits" to the American model that refuses to openly discuss evdience of wrong doing?

* * *

This Judiciary Chairman well knows the Attorney Standards of Conduct. Under the model rules other attorneys are required to fully cooperate. This Judiciary Chairman appears to not "connect the dots" on how the Model Rules can be used as leverage to compel DOJ Staff to cooperate.

___ Has Congress agreed to keep any information about attorney violations of Attorney Standards of Conduct from DOJ OPR, DOJ IG, GAO, or any of the state disciplinary boards?

We the People need to see all the e-mails, memorandum, and agreements related to this agreement to allegedly hide evidence of DOJ Staff counsel wear crimes; or not fully assert Member of Congress oath of office to review all legal issues related to any violation of the laws of war and US Constitution. This agreement is arguably illegal in that it impermissibly narrows the range of Congressional inquiry to an irrelevant issue unrelated to the oath of office or other illegal activity which may surface during the examination of witnesses. This is unacceptable.

We the People need access to all the presentations DOJ provided to Judiciary on this subject; and what information DOJ specifically provided to Judiciary to convince them to become the administative office of the White House. They might as well go home if they are agreeing to keep evidence of illegal acdtivity from the US Attorney or war crimes prosecutors; or are, as with the FISA reviews, not having open hearings into the issue. Subpoena power is meaningless if you don't use it, but agree to the oppose: Silence and no cross talks with outside experts.

Iraq WMD was a problem because this COngress agere to secret briefings. Same thing is happening here. This government makes the same mistakes, gets told to change, but won't change. Unresponsive goernment does not survive as evidenced by the GOP failure in 2006.

It will be impossible, unless the DOJ agrees, for We the People to know whether the Judiciary "resolution" to the issue is supportable. Congress has, in effect, given up its separate status as a third branch of government, pretending it is engaging in oversight, but assenting to secret hearings.

We need to know exactly what their thinking was behind this decision. If their decision-making is as convoluted as DOJ Staff, then we see the real story: They have no reason for what they are doing, they're bungling idiots. Time for Judiciary to be clear with what they are doing; until then, there is no prospect the Judiciary Committee can outline a plan to make someone else get clear on anything.

We need to know the questions they are asking. You may provide, for now, a copy of all questions, and share with us your reasons for having those concerns; then outline your thinking as to why this DNC solution is any different than what the GOP did in re FISA. Responsibility is on Judiciary and Conyers to explain his thinking. He owes it to the States.

Time for we the people to start a parallel inquiry.

This isn't change. This is an expansion of Presidential abuse of power, but the House Judiciary pretending they're doing something. Judiciary has become an extension of the White House. The DNC might as well go away and call itself the GOP.

___ When does the House Judiciary plan to disclose, in writing, all the terms related to this interview process?

___ When will the Chairman sign a statement under penalty of perjury that all the disclosed terms related to these interviews are fully disclosed?

___ What immunity has been promised to any of the interviews?

___ Are there any terms which the Congress, contractors, or anyone else has not fully disclosed?

___ Do Members of Congress understand that they are fully required to assert their oath as attorneys and subject to disbarment if they are obstructing an administrative hearing or not providing full information about the nature of the agreement and arrangement related to this hearing?

Secret hearings? New Constitution is on the table. This is non-sense.



If there is no open hearing, there is no guarantee we will get to the bottom of this. Like the NSA-FISA secret briefings, the President and DOJ hope to avoid public discussion of the inconsistent information. This Congress well demonstrated, without public input, it is lost. The Judiciary "agreement" to keep things confidential sends a clear signal: It is putting secrecy before the Constitution. That's how this mess started. Doing more of the same isn't change.

Congressional leaders agreeing that investigators will keep "the content of the interviews confidential pending consultation with Department officials."Ref

___ What happens if the DOJ doesn't "agree" to reveal?

___ When will we the people get a transcript of these interviews?

___ What are the conditions for the release?

___ How will we the People know whether the Members of Congress should or should not be impeaching the President?

___ How will we the People know whether this leadership is or is not fully asserting its oath?

___ Why is this election-related information being denied to We the People?

* * *

This Congress has agreed to keep information confidential on issues it does not understand. Totally backward. I could understand Congress keeping information secret on a national security issue, but this is totally different. They have no clue what they're agreeing to keep secret.

What a load of non-sense. The reason we have this problem is the President has secret e-mails and meetings. The "solution" isn't to keep it secret, but to get it on the table: What is this Congers and Executive going to do to show they are moving from illegal activity in secrecy, to open oversight before We the People?


DNC poodles won a "victory" so they can have their tummies scratched by the GOP.

Congress is turning itself into the DOJ OPR. The President doesn't agree; so Congress agrees to hide the evidence.

If there ever was a time to call for a New US government it is now.

This is not acceptable. An "agreement" to keep things confidential is the same as the DOJ OPR agreeing to remain silent about what it finds.

___ Which US Constitution does this Congress say it is defending?

___ How can there be a "benefit" to keeping We the People in the dark?

___ Why does Congress believe that DOJ will ever "agree" to have this information released?

This is no-sense.

___ How does the Judiciary Committee plan to "mobilize" public support given the information is getting blocked in Congress?

___ Why does Congress bother having hearings when it agrees, in advance, to keep details secret?

___ How will We the People know whether the responses Congress might give are or are not supported by the evidence?

___ When does Congress plan to disclose the range of questions and issues raised?

___ What will be the method by which this "interview" is assessed to see whether it is fully complying with the intent of the framers: To have a government that is responsive to the rule of law, and not one that agrees in advance to avoid accountability for stupid decisions?

* * *

This Judiciary agreement is non-sense. We're in this mess because Congress under the GOP refused to have open hearings.

FISA violations occurred because of secret courts which were turned into Kangaroo courts.

Conyers has allowed his Committee to be an extension of the White House.

Separate branch of government -- HA!

We voted for the DNC, but we have the same GOP secrecy. That's not change.

* * *

Congress is allowing itself to be an administrative arm of the DOJ IG, and is not a separate branch of government.

We need to know exactly why Conyers and the Judiciary Committee discussed this concept with DOJ OPR.

DoJ is not in a position to "prove" or "approve" anything. Congress has subpoena power. What is this non-sense about getting "permission" from the President. Congress doesn't work for DOJ. What is this?!?

DoJ has no say in what anyone does or does not do to a former employee by way of interviews. This is alleged illegal activity. This is not a classified issue related to national security.

This Congress is permitting DoJ to define how Congress will conduct its operations. "Separate" branch of government - Ha!

* * *

Interviews by a "staff member" is not going to work. We need an open hearing, all Members of Congress on the Committee, under oath, and a transcript.

Second hand information is exactly the problem with the 9-11 Commission.

___ What are the backgrounds of the staff assigned to these interviews?

___ Who developed the questions?

___ What follow-up will be available if there is a problem?

___ What is Congress going to do about false statements or misleading perceptions?

___ Will they be sworn; if not, why should anyone believe them?

* * *

It is outrageous that Judiciary is assenting to any agreement which "recognizes" any Executive "interest." Where is this so called mandate you were going to use for the subpoena power? This "concern" with Executive interests has nothing to do with you requirement to assert Legislative interests and those of We the People.

Judiciary has sent a clear signal they are not "in favor of" the Separate but equal concept.

These are not depositions.

___ What will be done to timely get explanations for inconsistencies?

___ Will the witnesses be asked if they were coached on responses?

___ What will be done to see if there have been coached recollections?

___ Do any of the people involved with the interviews have any understanding of a Congressional inquiry, adversarial system of interviewing, or cross examination?

This is the same non-sense we have with the Foley Ethics investigation.

___ Why does Judiciary need outside counsel if the agreement is to keep things secret?

___ Is outside counsel doing the interviews?

* * *

Congress and DOJ agree to "terms" on a transcript, but deny We the People.

___ Where's the FOIA for this transcript?

Open records and open government means we need a transcript. Without that, don't wonder why the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency rub the US nose in the ground. This is a sham oversight system.

* * *

What is the basis for the transcript to have met the "confidential designation" or is subject to release?

The whole problem with the President's claim of executive privilege was that the information ahs been disclosed. Why is Congress agreeing to keep hidden the questions related to these issues which are open?

Congress is, in effect, creating a joint Congressional-Executive privilege.

What do Members of Congress have to hide with the DOJ OPR and DOJ Staff?

Is there something The Judiciary doesn't want the public to know about the Judiciary's inability to do something?

___ What are the sanctions if the transcript is disclosed?

___ Why did you agree to narrowly focus on the issue of US Attorney firings, without broadening the questions into other areas which these people should be able to answer: The same decision making process in re Rendition, NSLs, prisoner abuse, Geneva violations, war crimes?

* * *

Congress has the power to look at anything it wants. DoJ OPR was blocked. This agreement does not build on the lessons of the DOJ OPR block and hides:

___ Knowledge of illegal war crimes

___ The President's illegal selection process that has been disclosed with the 23 binders and discussed in the e-mails that have been released

___ Known outside counsel coordination with EOP and DoJ on media questions

___ The times that the outside counsel was working with DOJ and EOP related to these specific people

* * *

"Pending" law enforcement issues didn't stop the President from targeting Lam; why is Judiciary agreeing not to mention the very things the President wants to retaliate against the US Attorneys: There refusal to use law enforcement as a stick to beat the DNC?

Why not ask about other things they've asked about US Attorneys?

Why not inquire into what they heard being discussed outside e-mails or in other forums?

What happens if the DOJ openly discuss the issues which they say cannot be discussed?

* * *

What about the actions of the US Attorneys who remain in place: What were the rewards given to them?

This US government is incompetent. It agrees to compromise with war criminals. This is no way to ensure accountability.

I would prefer subpoenas, no agreement to any interview, and a full transcript.

DoJ's promise to do anything is meaningless: Congress will not enforce the law.

* * *

This government is a joke. The way forward is for We the People to make adverse inferences about the nature of the agreement between Congerss and DoJ; and review the issues which DOJ does not want discussed.

We can find the evidence on our own, regardless the lack of assistance from Judiciary.