Undisclosed US Atty Firing E-mails Show President Ignored Concerns With Illegal Firings

White House Counsel's Office Authority Undermined

The White House communications office has contradicted the White House counsel. This is evidence that the politicization of the DoJ is no different. The public relations is taking the first seat, while legal requirements and counsel guidance is taking a second seat.

Ref There are issues of WHite House counsel not providing all e-mails as Congress requested; and the extent counsel has violated his attorney standards of conduct in using dilatory tactics to delay Congress.

Quite a shift in policy, communications, views between 20 Mar 2007 and 26 Mar 2007. Raises the prospect the not all DoJ and White House Staff disagreement with the US Attorney firings has been timely shared with Members of Congress.

___ How does the Counsel's office explain [a] the communication problems surfacing in a single week related to an open issue; but [b] the absurd contention that a plan related to US Attorney firings spanning many months has no inconsistencies or adverse views?

Ref Issues related to alleged 18 USC 1505 violations in re White House counsel; and trigger 3.3 concerns in re Fieldings Attorney Standards of Conduct.

* * *

Of relevance to the US Attorney firing-investigation is the evidence that there is not a single position. Counsel does not appear to have released memos showing the other views expressed on the US Attorney firings. The White House within a week cannot issue a consistent message. There is no reason to believe that a plan related to firing US Attorneys would have no record of any disagreement, miscommunication, or inconsistencies.

Whether the White House can or cannot agree is irrelevant to whether the Congress will force the witnesses to agree: There is one record and one reality.

* * *

The White House counsel's office has been openly attacked and ridiculed by the White House communications office. This is an embarrassment to Fred F. Fielding. His authority has been questioned.

The White House is defeating its own argument. Communications says "we're not negotiating" and "we stand where we were last week"; yet the position last week was a proposal. Regardless the confusion in the White House, Congress has a plan: To have a single transcript. The absurd inconsistencies between the White House communications and counsel's office well illustrates the need for Congress to have a transcript of the Rove, Miers, and other sworn testimony.



We the People need a single written record of the Congressional examination of the alleged war criminals who have illegally retaliated against the US Attorneys by firing them. The President may not dictate terms, especially when his terms are insufficient, inconsistent, and not in harmony with his legal counsel.

It can hardly be said that the President will get better advice if his communications are secret. We see the result: Secret discussions and counsel with the President are openly inconsistent and not in harmony with the President's asserted legal positions.



The confusion is deepening within the White House.

Earlier last week, the White House counsel issued a letter which he specifically referred to a "Proposals." This week the communications office, in a separate move uncoordinated with the White House counsel, has redefined the starting position as not negotiating.

The President has a problem coordinating his staff. The White House counsel's office issued an absurd legal memorandum, pretending it was a negotiation.

Reversing itself, the communications office pretends that the White House negotiation is now a decision.

Irrelevant. The President has no power to decide what Congress reviews, how it gathers evidence, or what the Congress alone chooses to define as compliance with the Constitution.

* * *

The inconsistencies between the White House legal office and communications section are noteworthy.

We presume the Communications office, given its most frequent position, is the most up to date Presidential decision.

It falls on the White House counsel's office to explain why their authority has been thwarted; and why their attempt to "negotiate" has been trumped by an assertion.

As stated earlier, the original proposal was insufficient. For White House to issue a statement contradicting the White House counsel letter is noteworthy.

The White House position today shows that the White House has two positions, none of which are sufficient.

It is an error for the White House to recast an unacceptable proposal as a "decision." This is not a "decision" for the White House to make. Congress makes the decision when the investigation is over; and the President has no power to tell either the House or the Senate how they shall conduce their internal affairs.

The President has no power to issue an Executive Order to tell the House or Senate how they shall investigate.

Nothing the White House counsel's office or press office says has any relationship to what the House leadership chooses to do or not do.

Nothing the White House counsel's office issues in writing has any bearing on whether the House or Senate may individually examine witnesses as they choose.

* * *

Last Week Counsel's Office Issued An Absurd Letter

Counsel's office pretended that it was negotiating. Ref Wrong. It has no power to dictate terms to Congress.

This Week Communications Ignores the Letter And Said It Was A Decision

"We are not negotiating," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We are where we are, which is where we were last week. ... I can understand why people would think we have not made the right decision, but we think we have.'"Ref

Fine. We take the White House press office at its word; and that the Counsel's office issued a knowingly deceptive letter that was not consistent with the real White House position. Contrary to the absurd terms presented as a negotiation; the White House wanted to pretend the letter was a decision.

Wrong. The President has no power to decide how Congress does its job.

Subpoenas are needed. The decision has been made: The White House cannot be trusted; it is not on the same sheet of music.

* * *

It is absurd for the White House to suggest that there is no need for a transcript. The confusion within the White House shows why a transcript is needed. Even after showing in the DoJ E-mails that the White House will coordinate on a plan, the White House is unable to ensure that all people are on the same sheet of music.

This is a problem for the White House. However, the confusion in the White House is not reason for the Congress to share the problem.

Congress has a reasonable approach: A transcript so that all White House staff counsel, DOJ Staff, and GOP personnel are forced to agree that there is one reality; and that there is one sheet of music: The official record.

* * *

Things White Communications Office Ignores

Fred F. Fielding has a problem. His statements are not consistent with White House Communications.

Counsel was writing in "response" to letters from Members of Congress. Counsel stated that the letter was related to illegal activity: Firing US Attorneys.

Counsel suggested that he had been "working" to "accommodate" interests. This in no way communicates that there had been a decision by Members of Congress. What the White House Communications office believes is a "decision" is absurd.

The President cannot claim "no record is needed" yet his own staff are unable to agree or come to a common understanding within a week of what the President is communicating, his position, or what he plans to do.

Counsel stated that it was "respecting" the Constitution. It can hardly be said that the President's communications office -- when it asserts that a proposal is a decision -- has any relevance to a Separate branch of government. It does not.

Counsel stated he "appreciated" the time and "consideration" that Members of Congress provided in these "discussions." Yet, today Perino would have us believe that the real position of the White House was that there had been a decision; but that Fielding was not negotiating in good faith. This smacks of a violation of the Attorney Standards of conduct, especially when counsel has well communicated that they were a legal representative, but they would have us believe they cannot negotiate. Counsel appears to have a problem with their DC Bar Disciplinary Board.

The terms the Counsel’s office has used are contrary to the record. For Counsel to say that there has been a record, response, or documents related to "this issue" is absurd. This White House cannot agree what their position is; it is without merit to argue this White House discovery team can agree what "the problem" is that they are supposedly providing pages. It is more likely that the White House is relying on this confusion to say that they "ministered" what they were supposed to provide.

We judge the White House "confusion" is an indicator of deception by counsel; and that there are other views which have not been provided related to grave concerns with the US Attorney firings which the President overruled. Sewn within the seeds of the DOJ Staff e-mails are concerns with support and how the plan would be executed. The public needs to know what internal concerns were raised, and how the President overruled these objections, and what pressure he applied to the White House, GOP, and DoJ Staff counsel to implement a plan they appear to have not fully supported, and have reservations to this day. If the plan was sound, then all people would be on the same page. Today's inconsistencies show the White House leadership is unable to coordinate on a single plan within a week. There is no prospect that the US Attorney firing plan did not have similar inconsistencies.

* * *

If the White House is interested in ensuring We the People understand anything, the President needs to fully cooperate with Congress, accept the Congressional decision to have a transcript, and for the President to focus on the communication problem within his staff.

This President fired his White House counsel and Chief of Staff. Obviously, those personnel moves have not resolved a communication problem. This is a leadership problem this President alone can remedy by resigning. This is an embarrassment for the GOP. The longer this non-sense continues, the greater the chance of inconsistencies, and broader basis for Members of Congress to ask for additional evidence.

The President cannot claim he has "better" advice if it is provided without oversight, review, or in secrecy. These communications show that secret advice is inconsistent within the same office, party, and decision making process. Hardly one that inspires confidence that we've heard the whole story.

* * *

Counsel has well communicated that it has lost authority and is unable to ensure the Communications office and President have a consistent message. It cannot be believed that counsel's statements about what the documents are or are not mean anything.

Any assertions by counsel about what these documents may or may not reflect are dubious. We take the view that adverse inferences are appropriate. Anything which the White House counsel has asserted is false when contrary to the President's interests; and any assertion this counsel has made as one position is most likely linked with other memoranda expressing a differing, contradictory view more closely linked with the political side of the aisle.

This is the same confusion the DOJ Staff had. The problem was the two sets of rules: The law vs. the GOP political agenda. This is invalid as a basis for governance. There is one set of standards: The rule of law.

* * *

We presume Counsel's representations in his 20 Mar 2007 are false. The documents provided are presumed to couch the evidence incorrectly; and that there is other information showing White House counsel is aware of other views showing concerns with the plan; and that the concern was not isolated; and that the plan was known to interfere with pending and future investigations for improper reasons.

Fielding's 20 Mar 2007 letter to Members of Congress has been discredited.

Contrary to Fielding's assertions. the Congress cannot rely on the documents provided as the complete picture. Members of Congress are advised to look broadly at the inconsistency between White House counsel and the communications office.

The broader view needs to be subject to a single transcript which all players in the White House can agree: There remains confusion which this President alone is unable to manage. Fatal to the President' war crimes defense is his Attorney General who has lied under oath to Congress.

This White House counsel is not clear on what the "decisions" are; what the "conclusions" is; or what the issues of the day really are.

There is no reason to believe that the White House counsel has provided a fully account of all relevant information; or that "relevant" has been defined to include "other views."

___ What is the White House counsel's definition of "relevant"?

___ If there is a DOJ Staff position, view, concern, or disagreement that does not match the shifting political and legal positions, is this DOJ Staff e-mail considered "irrelevant" and not provided to Congress?

___ What is the basis for Counsel to say that something is or is not relevant when Counsel is not clear in explaining way the Communications office and legal office are not on the relevant page, but different ones?

___ How does counsel propose to explain why there is a "decision" when Congress alone decides whether the President has or has not engaged in illegal activity?

___ Is counsel proposing that war crimes related concerns are not relevant?

___ What is the reason counsel is not discussing war crimes concerns raised by outside counsel?

* * *

Counsel cannot assert that Congress has any type of view to anything. The view has been shaded, couched, and selectively shielded.

From the little evidence Perino fatally disclosed, it appears the personnel "decision making" is, as always, flawed, uncoordinated, transitory, and not linked with a firm position, but as amorphous as the Iraq WMD evidence. The Vice President does not have the power to approach We the People and compel us, as he did with the CIA analysts, to "get it right." This Vice President and his buffoon Chief of Staff Addington cannot get it right.

* * *

Counsel has also asserted that the 20 Mar 2007 Presidential position was a "debate"; yet Perino a week later would have us believe that this was a decision. Counsel may like to pretend that something is fluid, while the President believes that something is solid.

Rocks are not the same as water. DOJ Staff concerns with the President need to be part of the full record. If there were honorable people who accept responsibility, they would resign, and then present themselves to account for what has happened. It is irrelevant that this President, communications office, and legal staff are not willing to cooperate.

* * *

What the Counsel's office says about what the President must be "faithful" to is an illusion. This President isn't faithful to a single policy in a week, much less a single Constitution that has existed since 1789. We could give this man another week, then another: Things are not going to change: This Constitution remains supreme, not this clerk in the oval office.

For the President to assert that he "must" be faithful to anything belies his defiance of those principles. His interests are not in harmony with We the People. The President may not point to requirements in the Constitution as something he must "Defend" while he openly burns the document. He might as well, as John Stewart's Daily Show illustrates, put his hand on the Bible, and leave a singe mark.

* * *

Counsel has pretended that they were going to "reach a reasonable accommodation." Yet a week later, the Communications office implies there is nothing being "reached" but has been resolved through edict alone.

This President has no power to pretend he is deciding anything, when he is not sure what is Staff has done; or if he is sure, that he will remain consistent with his original position. This GOP is letting this President embarrass the American government, and materially undermines confidence that combat operations are linked with someone who is competent. Foreign fighters observe these developments with glee: The information shows the President cannot control his own office, not to mention his plans to manage an illegal war.

* * *

This President has not reciprocated to the comity Members of Congress have shown. They have not issued subpoenas. They have shown restraint. This President has not shown coherence.

Last week he through counsel suggested he was going to respond with a proposal. Now, we learn from non-counsel that the position of the President is different; and that these proposals were not proposals but final positions or decisions. Fine.

Time for Congress to remove Fielding from the discussions, and focus directly on the President: What is his plan to resign; or what is his defense for war crimes.

Fielding indicated he "was prepared" to do something, suggesting there was no decision, but something that was being discussed. Yet, today we learn that counsel has misrepresented the position, and the President does not view comity as something to respect. Fine. There is no reason for the Congress to give what is not given: Respect. But Congress will rise to occasion and rather than unilaterally shut down funds for the Executive Branch, and issue cease work orders, this Congress will give Rove, Miers, and others a chance to share their knowledge of the other dissenting views which they know exist.

This President's office within a week issued contradictory information. Rove and Miers have yet to explain how they handled the contradictions related to the US Attorney firings which spanned many months.

* * *

Counsel suggested he was "prepared to agree" to terms; yet today, we discover that we was not prepared to do anything, and in no position to agree with anything: The President has "decided" to ignore Congress. Fine. Issue the subpoenas.

It is unreasonable and disrespectful for counsel to pretend that he has a position, but as it appears, is not negotiating in good faith in contravention with his Attorney Standards of conduct.

If counsel believes that anything is the "last resort" this would have us believe that there is seeming that is intermediary. Yet, today's Parino disclosure suggests that there is no other option: The "last resort" was not a bonafide position. This smacks of dilatory efforts by counsel to delay Congress for what appear to be nefarious reasons.

* * *

Counsel has also suggested that there were other discussions that were possible. Yet, today's communication decision would have us believe that these other discussions are not negotiable. Fine. Then the reasonable decision for Congress is to issue the subpoenas, and immediately conduct oversight on the other areas which this Counsel has not timely provided information:

___ Evidence of internal concerns with the US Attorney Firings;

___ All e-mails related to the inconsistent statements;

___ What views related to concerns with the US Attorney firings were trumped by the Attorney General;

___ How these other views were discussed, documented, and the basis for rejecting these other views;

___ The basis for the President to dismiss these other views, and choose an illegal course of conduct.

* * *

This White House counsel has misrepresented the issues. These are not decisions to "request" resignations; these were over firings hidden and disguised as something else. It remains to be seen how this "request" was orchestrated; or who really had another view on the subject.

There is no basis for Counsel to say that something should be "limited" to anything. Anything counsel has said should define what Congress should or should not do is meaningless.

All internal communications related to concerns with this illegal activity need to be understood; and how dissenting views were used as a basis for this President and Attorney General to retaliate illegally.

* * *

There is no basis for the White House Counsel to say what "should” happen: They are unable to get the White House communications office to listen, much less the President.

The President has no power to "decide" whether Congress does anything. We have a bicameral legislature with two independent Houses. the President has no power to illegally recast them as a single entity. Senators are not the same As Representatives. Representatives impeach; Senators remove.

Counsel is in no position to define any questioning; or say that anything should be limited. Rather, such a proposal -- not a decision -- is meaningless. This Counsel cannot explain why this would be beneficial given the communication problem from this President.

Today’s revelations and inconsistent statements show where there is a "need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony" and other subpoenas. This Congress is not getting the full information it needs to assess who inside the White House remains a domestic enemy to this Constitution.

* * *

Given counsel’s laughable incompetence in getting the communications office to understand the difference between a negotiation and a decision, there is no basis for counsel to assert that anyone will be swerved, most of all this President, if anyone from the Counsels office were present at the Congress.

___ Does counsel plan to permit oversight of the notes taken?

___ What about counsel’s presence at the Jan 2007 AG planning meetings?

___ What is the reason that counsel's inputs, concerns at these AG meetings is not being provided to Congress?

___ Is there a reason why counsel who was at the AG planning meetings to fire the US Attorneys has not fully disclosed all notes they took at the meeting; and why there is no written record of these events which show the Attorney General has lied under oath?

* * *

There are serious questions whether this White House counsel has violated his attorney standards of conduct. He appears to have a well placed system to coordinate: The DOJ Staff shows there is deference to communications and legal inside the White House. Yet, Communications is not able to get it straight with counsel.

___ What is counsel's explanation for not being able to speak for the President?

___ Why is counsel calling one week a proposal an "accommodating" but reversing itself and asking that we take this as a "decision"?

___ How can counsel say that they are prepare to do anything when they cannot prepare a coherent statement?

___ How can counsel suggest that the lack of DOJ Staff concerns with the US Attorney firings plan has been appropriately included in the responses?

___ When does the White House counsel plan to release the information related to counsel concerns with the illegal activity?

* * *

Time for the President to decide: Is his effort a proposal, delaying tactic, a decision, or evidence that his White House counsel is violating his attorney standards of conduct?

Delays and frivolous arguments are evidence of questionable counsel conduct, especially one who well knows the possible sanctions for offending behavior: Disbarment. If there is deception, it will be understood.

We the People shall have our interests satisfied: Fully protection of this Constitution. Whether this President wants to delay, obfuscate, hide evidence, or pretend that dissention is "not relevant" for purpose of the Member of Congress data submittal is meaningless. If the President does not fully cooperate, We the People may lawfully through our state attorney generals prosecute this President for denying the States and We the People our guarantee to an enforcement mechanism.

Congress has no say on what all fifty [50] states do. That guidance comes form the Constitution itself in the form of the oath and promise to defend this constitution against all domestic enemies, especially the lazy White House staff counsel their cannot get off their rear end to walk down the hall and coordinate with the combinations office. How long do you expect your arrogance to go undetected?

You have lost on the battlefield; your legal arguments make no sense. What other forum -- besides court and the battlefield -- does the President hope to demonstrate his incompetence in leading the GOP? He is welcome to display his ineptitude on a daily basis for this White House counsel, communications office, and GOP. The DOJ Staff well know there is an idiot in the White House counsel's office; the question is whether the GOP Senate understand the damage this President is doing to their party's future.

The GOP's tenure on planet earth is not certain. We the People may lawfully compel it to well disclose and display its risk to the world community, and force it to assent to war crimes tribunals. The UN has the power to provide guidance that suggests strongly that the GOP be closely monitored because of their ongoing threat to international peace and order. The UN General Assembly and world powers are allowed to organize military force to check the GOP, especially when the GOP refuses to check its own. Self governance means self-governing, not excuses to be reckless and pretend that counsel is competent when they show they are inept.

Find another White House counsel who can lead; otherwise the GOP needs to find a new leader with wise counsel.