White House Policy To Retaliate For Refusing To Inappropriately Leak Information
Goodling Comments on Insubordination On Information Sharing
The objective of the retaliation against US Attorneys, as with Valarie Plame, was not to enforce any law, but to impose order, discipline, and blind allegience to illegal activity.
Goodling’s hand written notes expressed an unstated policy that the US Attorneys were to disclose information political information to the GOP, but were not properly managed on that activity. Ref
The information which the US Attorneys were asked to provide appears to have been useful for the White House and GOP to direct the FBI to issue NSLs, engage in warrantless surveillance, and target personnel for monitoring. The illegal White House effort, which Goodling appears to have been a part of in taking retaliatory efforts, appears to be linked with inappropriately harassing American citizens for their opposition to the President; and in using this information to support war crimes and abuse against prisoners of war.
It is a flawed dichotomy to narrow the analysis to either [a] the US Attorneys were not authorized to disclose the information and were punished for not cooperating with inappropriate access; or [b] the US Attorneys, despite a requirement to disclose information, did not properly have fair warnings of this issue.
Rather, the US Attorneys were not told about the "real reasons" for their firing because those reasons were not lawful and were orechstrated to hide the real objective: Retalation to impose discpline and obedience to the GOP use of senstive infromation to impose power on people lawfully opposing abuse of power around the globe and in the Untited States.
Handwritten notes: Ref
Look at the right side, notice the arrow from "pattern of" then arrow goes up to right, "insubord [insubordination] on info sharing"
Notice the original 8 of 76. Focus on the scratched out words on the right hand side.
It appears to say, "Will face" [scratched out] insubordination for info sharing.
Goodling's Handwriting: Semi-Capitol F, Not Consistently Below the Line
Goodling does not consistently write the "f" either as a capitol, or with a dangling loop in the lower case. This is important. One view is the scratched out words could not include an "f" because Goodling has a hanging loop, and the "F" would fall below the line, which does not appear in the case.
However, if we look to the left side of the document: look for "chiara" underlined. Look to the third line to the right: Notice the "fractured office" -- Goodling when she writes an "f" does not always drop her loop below the line, but has a semi-capital "F" which forms above the line. "Fractured" is a semi-capitol letter, without any hanging loop.
This suggests that the conclusion about "Find" is valid; and that the lack of a hanging loop below the line in the scratched out word does not support the assertion that it could not be an "f". Rather, it suggest that Goodling wrote "Find" consistent with how she wrote "fractured" hear Chiara.
Review of original "Will Face Insubordination" then Change To "pattern of Insubordination"
Putting aside the details, let's consider the implications of Goodling’s notes related to insubordination. We judge the following:
1. There was some sort of information sharing requirement or policy, which the US Attorney did not agree, was not following, or refused to cooperate;
2. There were proposed sanctions for violating the policy; or there were some directions to share information that US Attorney refused;
3. There was no management documentation or criminal charge for the US Attorney "misconduct", suggesting that the "failure to disclose information" was not an enforceable requirement, but a political desire of the White House to get something it was not allowed to directly ask for
4. There were threatened retaliation: Charges of insubordination as in, "You will face a charge of insubordination if you do not release this information about the status of the cases."
5. Then they changed the notes from "will face" [scratched out], to a second note below, which has the arrow, to soften it, "Pattern of insubordination for info sharing."
This appears to indicate that someone at the meeting was discussing their frustration with a failure to disclose information that the RNC wanted; and they first discussed some sort of legal action. However, realizing that this legal action would result in public disclosure of that charge, they changed it to a disciplinary issue which is a "pattern of."
This shifts the issue from a criminal-court review, to one of a private administrative action.
Commentary on Information Above
Question: What information sharing does a US Attorney have discretion; who was requesting the information; and why wasn't this information requested directly?
How does the "info sharing" relate, if at all, to NSLs, data transfers for warrants, or transfer of information between agencies?
If the information should have been shared, and it was a requirement, the question turns: Who documented this "insubordination"; or was the "insubordination" an accusation because the US Attorney was correctly not revaluing information he should not have been?
It appears the "insubordination" is because of a refusal to disclose information to White House/RNC that should not have been disclosed."
A. Status of US Attorney cases;
B. Problems US Attorneys had with the President;
C. Useful information for the RNC to get political advantage;
D. Release of confidential FBI information to the RNC for purposes of smearing and targeting;
E. Use of confidential grand jury or classified FBI information useful to justify NSA surveillance, JTTF targeting, or DHS warrantless searches-interviews
F. Refusal to provide classified information which JTTF, White House, and NSA were using as a pretext to broaden their reviews, interrogations, and monitoring of US citizen communications
There is nothing before us, in light of the DOJ IG findings on NSLs and the DOJ OPR from being blocked, to suggest that it could not have been any of the above.
The accusation of "insubordinate on information sharing" could be mean anything; and the DOJ Staff appears to have had enough examples to communicate what this insubordination meant.
It appears to implicate the DOJ Staff in their knowledge of what the information sharing was; and fails to consider the possibility that the US Attorney to refuse to provide that information may have been appropriate.
The understood policy within the White House appears to be: The GOP, Rove, White House counsel, DOJ Staff could assert they needed information -- regardless the legality of illegality of providing or transferring that information -- and should expect to get the information without question.
___ What occurred at the meeting to change the focus from charging the US Attorney with insubordination, and changing it to a pattern of insubordination?
___ What discussion point, and who raised this issues that shifted the focus of the discussion from taking action against the US Attorney direction with a charge or confrontation, but using a retroactive, administrative punishment?
It appears the answer is: The White House counsel, DOJ Staff and GOP knew that the basis for retaliating against the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information only the GOP wanted, but was not appropriately released was the GOP, White House, and DOJ Staff knew that their request for this information was not appropriate.
However, given their objective was to retaliate for this inappropriate policy; and to punish the US Attorneys for refusing to disclose information of interest to the US Attorney, they crated this ruse.
The real story has nothing to do with immigrations or the US Attorneys, but the refusal of the US Attorney to give a heads up to the CIA that they were going to prosecute them for bribery. The real issue: The GOP couldn't trust these US Attorneys to be quiet about the GOP money laundering used to finance voter fraud; and to not be quiet about the issues of information transfer out of the US Attorney office which could have been used for political targeting in the form of NSLs, surveillance, harassment, and increased JTTF-NSA monitoring of political targets.
The US Attorney firing has nothing to do with immigration, but with the DOJ Staff knowledge that it was illegal for them to request sensitive information for partisan purposes. The aim of the US Attorney firings, as with the Valerie Plame outing, was to impose order on the remaining personnel in the DoJ and intelligence community: Give us what we want, ignore the law, and you will be rewarded. If you attempt to bock us from imposing our will on you, then you will suffer.
This is connected to Cheney, Addington, Libby, and his private intelligence network which he independently runs outside Congressional oversight.
This is fascism under this White House, Department of Justice, and what this Congress refuses to impeach. Rather than confront this President for illegal warfare, this arrogant, reckless House Judiciary Chairman and Speaker have taken impeachment off the table, and have refused to enforce the laws of war. Nuremburg is precedent for imposing legal consequences on Members of Congress for their reckless failure to enforce the laws of war with impeachment.
Gooddling's notes are evidence that there was a policy in place by the White House and DOJ Staff to inappropriately use information for unlawful purposes. The NSLs, rendition, prisoner abuse, and illegal FISA surveillance is connected.
The Goodling Memoranda suggests there was overwhelming evidence that the White House engaged in illegal activity, warrants impeachment, but the House Judiciary Chairman has been reckless in not keeping impeachment on the table.
The way forward is to end the investigations, and bring charges against the Speaker and the House Judiciary Chairman for their alleged refusal to enforce the laws of war with impeachment; and to point to the Goodling Memo as evidence of the larger abuses which this House Judiciary Chairman refuses to vote to support an investigation.
These are issues of international war crimes. If the US government refuses to enforce the laws of war, then foreign fighters -- under the principle of reciprocity -- may lawfully engage in like retaliation against the Speaker, House Judiciary Chairman for any and all abuses they have refused to enforce, which they know this President is doing: Using illegally captured information to implement war crimes: Prisoner abuse, summary execution, and trial without access to evidence.
It is reckless for this House Judiciary Chairman, given his legal background, to ignore the Nuremburg Precedents, and remove impeachment as an option to enforce the laws of war.
Goodling's memo is evidence that the DOJ Staff and White House knew the requires for information was not appropriate. Rather than change their policy, they attempted to go behind the back of the US Attorney, create a sham story, and intimidate them to accept a false reality.
The problem is not with the US Attorney, but the reckless leadership in the White House that engages in illegal warfare; and the complicit Congress which refuses to use impeachment and investigations into impeachment charges as a means to enforce the laws of war.
The error is to enable a war criminal. The second crime is for legal authority to refuse to enforce the laws of war. We don’t need new investigations. We need a new system of governance which compels the lazy buffoons in the GOP and DNC to enforce the law, not make excuses to “wait until the next election” until they think the weather is favorable.
This excuse for inaction is the same non-sense the British Parliament pretended was tolerable. This is absurd and not governance but recklessness disguised as something else.