More White House War Crimes Deliberations Disclosed
White House Agreed To Block War Crimes Investigations Despite Overwhelming Evidence
The DoJ and White House staff counsel are pushing for convictions and supporting illegal warfare where there is no evidence; but blocking investigation of war crimes and illegal FISA violations where there is evidence.
The internal deliberations show there are two standards on the law. The information disclosed today forms the basis to examine why the President, Attorney General, White House staff counsel, and US Attorneys have different approaches to Geneva, laws of war, prosecutions, and war crimes.
The results are clear: This President has engaged in discussions to thwart US Attorneys from enforcing the laws of war; and advocates using prosecutions to engage in illegal retaliation. These are issues of interest to war crimes prosecutors.
___ Why is the US leadership able to quickly move on illusory evidence to wage illegal warfare; but when presented evidence of their illegal activity, the refuse to enforce the Geneva Conventions?
Ref Just when outside counsel for the White House thought they had a handle on the US Attorney firings, they've got another problem: More disclosures about White House deliberations causing more questions requiring more e-mail disclosures.
Inconsistent and shifting statements is a sign, according to some prosecutors, there are nefarious reasons that they're not willing to collectively admit to:
___ Why does the GOP claim the public "got angry" about issues which only the GOP had access to; or only the NSA has intercepted; but were not publicly disclosed?
___ What is the plan of the President to resolve his leadership problem within the White House counsel's office?
___ How does the President propose to maintain confidence in his leadership and the US Constitution when personnel formerly assigned to the White House counsel's office have been implicated with war crimes, obstruction, witness intimidation, and other illegal activity?
McKay reveals the details related to a 2004 meeting with Bill Kelly and Harrier Miers. It would be appropriate to have all e-mails related to this meeting.
McKay shockingly reveals that Miers and McKay were "concerned" about public reactions to the US Attorney.
___ Why is the White House "concerned" about whether the US Attorneys should or should not assert their oath of office?
___ What is the reason these same personnel, planning meetings, and other organizing elements were not marshaled to effectively investigate and prosecute war crimes?
___ When these meetings occurred, as they were disclosed, how did the White House counsel explain the inconsistency between the rules of evidence required for prosecutions; and the reality that war crimes were not being prosecuted despite overwhelming evidence?
___ Why is the White House getting involved with US Attorney declination decisions, when the US Attorney decides there is not enough evidence?
___ How much evidence does the White House believe is "required" to prosecute a case?
___ Why does this "level of evidence" not apply with this President’s war crimes?
___ How does the White House counsel and DOJ Staff explain their low threshold on what would warrant US Attorney actions in one state; but a high standard of evidence when it comes to this President's war crimes and DOJ Staff council complicity?
___ What is the explanation for politics entering the equation under Gonzalez but not other US Attorney Generals?
The White House has two standards: One standard is politics which is above the law; and the second is the law, which may or may not be enforced uniformly or fairly. Ideologues will assert a policy outcome -- regardless its legality -- is justified, regardless the method. They point to the "benefits" of the future, calling for the public to ignore today's illegal activity.
Hitler did the same.
For the GOP to have credibility it must demonstrate that justice is blind; nor that it is inconsistent. This remains an issue for the GOP leadership and legal community to resolve: What is their plan to ensure their legal professional and political oversight is remedied to prevent this form happening again.
The GOP leadership has a problem: IT refuses to outline a plan to provide leadership. One step forward includes telling the DNC to put impeachment back on the table.
Why is the GOP leadership "afraid" of telling the DNC what to do? Supposedly the DNC, if it were to put impeachment on the table, would suffer a backlash. Why isn't the GOP "pushing" for something that would "cause" this "problem" for their political opponents?
The GOP has no credibility. It is reckless. It cannot be trusted. It's leaders are lazy and war criminals. It continues to engage in criminal activity. Its leadership must be put on trial for war crimes.