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:
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.