President Intended To Mislead Congress Through DoJ Staff Testimony
Goodling and the McNulty Representations to Congress
McNulty learned something new to make him realize he had misled Congress.
Although it remains unclear what role the President had in providing this information through Goodling to Congress, DoJ Staff do confirm in the e-mails that all information they provided, or plans they implemented was coordinated with the White House counsel, political office, and legal.
Ultimately, the President was informed of the plan and did not take action to end the effort to mislead Congress.
Goodling in her affidavit reports her concern that she may have provided McNulty with either inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information.
McNulty is reported, and Goodling's counsel confirms, that McNulty provided information the Congress which was later retracted. McNulty is reported to have said that he was given misleading information, and corrected the record with Congress.
What Goodling gave to McNulty is less important than [a] the fatal assertion that she was aware of misrepresentations and concerned with prosecution; and [b] the open e-mails confirming that DOJ Staff coordinated closely with the White House on plans and information. What was said is less important than showing that the White House and Goodling were on the same page, but failed to correct the information they knew, or should have known, McNulty would provide to Congress.
Goodling's concern with her personal legal troubles says less about the details of that communication, and more about the President's role and his legal problem. He was in a position to find out, clarify the record, and ensure McNulty, the White House, and Goodling had the correct information. The President was well aware of his duty to ensure that factual, correct information was provided to Congress and he knew, or should have known, that the inaccurate information was something he as President could correct had he directed the FBI or Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor, even if it mean implicating the President for false statements to Congress.
The President's refusal to direct the Attorney General and not lead the staff to provide a truthful, accurate, and consistent message to Congress indicates the President failed to exercise his authority as President to ensure all truthful statements to Congress were timely, consistent, and with the intent to assist Congress in understanding the facts.
The President's intention was to protect himself, not cooperate with Congress, and hide his knowledge of the larger planning intended to put into effect unconsttuiaonl changes to the Constitution outside the Amendment process.
How the planning was done is less important than realizing the DoJ Staff and White House regularly coordinated on plans, media messages, and political strategy, even when those plans violated the laws. The planning spanned illegal rendition, FISA violations, NSL warrant abuse, prisoner abuse, Geneva violations, and unconstitutional usurpation of power outside the Amendment process.
Any information McNuly learned after his testimony is information Congress has that would implicate the President. This information is reliable, accurate, multiple sourced, and probative. It shows the President was involved with the illegal planning, not just the US Attorney firings or the unconstitutional usurpation of power, with with the planning mechanisms to implement Geneva violations.
The issue before us:
___ What specific information did Goodling give to McNulty
___ Was that information given with then intention that McNutly rely on that information
___ Did McNutly communicate this information to Congress
The larger issue is:
___ What information did the President, White House counsel, White House political, and public affairs agree Goodling should be given
___ What was the intention of the White House in providing this information to Goodling
___ What information did the President intend to leave through Goodling with Congress
___ How was the planning coordinated within the White House to agree to leave these impressions, facts, and misleading information with Goodling, DoJ Staff, and eventually with Congress?
McNulty knew enough to realize that the information he provided to Congress was not accurate. It remains unclear why Goodling did not also have access to other information for to have corrected the impressions McNuulty relied on.
___ What new information did McNulty learn to make him aware that his earlier representations to Congress were not accurate
___ What made McNulty confident that the original comments to Congress, which he concluded were inaccurate, were only from Goodling and not from anyone else in the Department of Justice?
___ Was there a reason that Goodling did not take the same steps McNulty took to review the accuracy of the information provided to McNulty?
___ What new information did McNulty get -- and what was the credibility of that source -- to justify in McNulty's mind that his original information from Goodling was inaccurate, less reliable, or misleading?
___ Why was Goodling not in a position to evaluate this information and reach the same conclusions as McNulty prior to providing the information to McNulty?
___ Was there a reason why Goodling did not check the veracity, reliability, and credibility of the information-source before providing the information to McNulty?
Max 1 at ConyersBlog asks the right questions [ April 5, 2007 - 1:04pm ] :
___ Max 1: If Ms. Gooling's taking of the Fifth isn't about protecting herself from self incrimination, then who is this 'self' that she protects, other than herself?
___ Max 1: If she has no involvement in criminal activity, then what exactly is there to protect herself from?
Goodling appears to invoke the fifth to protect the President, GOP, and the American legal community from being confronted for alleged complicity in organization, implementing, and putting into effect illegal activity.
As liasion between the Department of Justice and White House, Goodling appears to be complicit with illegal activity:
- War crimes
- Geneva violations
- Prisoner abuse
- Warrant violations
- Illegal circumvention of FISA Court
- Illegal surveillance
- Illegal abrogation of US Constitution
- Unlawful changes to the US Constitution outside the Amendment process
- Illegal warfare
- Witness retaliation
- Witness intimidation
- Unlawful firings
Not much difference between the Bush Administration and Hitler's Third Reich.
Congress has a job to do. The lessons of Nuremberg Justice trail are clear: Civilized nations impeach. This Congress refuses.
It is up to us. We the People must decide whether we will move to prosecute Members of Congress who refuse to enforce the law against the President; or craft a New Constitution that shall impose legal consequences for this occurring. The indictments have been written. The New Constitution is ready.
The American government has no plan, does not provide leadership, and remains complicit with war crimes. It appears the American government is looking for new forums to be defeated. That can be arranged: It can be made irrelevant if we institute a new government.
The American government cannot win with ideas or in combat. They have no hope of defending itself against We the People and our New Will. The US government is no longer relevant to We the People. This US government has a finite subset of options which they have squandered.
We the People have options.