Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, December 31, 2006

House Rule 603 and Conyers' Ethics

What happens when a defense is not plausible, but amounts to an inadvertent disclosure of an attorney-client communication?

House Rule 603 to the rescue.

[ Discussion ]

* * *

The House Ethics issues in re Conyers should be studied in the context of the President’s alleged illegal activity involving the NSA and Department of Justice. There appears to be a common approach to rules: Feigning ambiguity despite no evidence this ambiguity was real; and a failure to timely ensure activities were consistent with legal requirements.

Where the primary oversight appears to have been compromised, the Founders created a second level of oversight: The States, the primary champions of the People’s rights and defenders of liberties against encroachments by the Federal Government.

There state proclamations are ready to compel the House to do what the House leadership appears unwilling to do: Go on the record whether they are for or against holding the President to account. Where Members of Congress may make excuses for not doing what they should, House Rule 603 remains on the table to remind the House of the primary agenda: The Constitution as it applies to all.

* * *


Conyers has freely proposed and incredible defense, subjecting those assertions to cross examination, discovery, and interrogatories.

Once defense makes an argument -- that it is/was confused -- the burden shifts to the defense to prove that defense. Without evidence, that assertion/defense collapses. Once defense makes this assertion, this opens the door for the government to examine these assertions.

Conyers is implicitly arguing there was [paraphrasing] "rule confusion." If true, there must be evidence confirming this confusion was real, contemporary, and not retroactively created. These present-sense perceptions should have been memorialized in attorney documents, reports, reviews, and recommendations. Where there is no evidence of this confusion, this casts doubt on Conyers-Attorney assertion that the confusion was real.

Conyers is also implicitly arguing for confidence in his defense. Again, there must be timely documents supporting these contentions. Where there is no evidence, Conyers cannot be presumed to have met his burden; rather, the opposite is more likely true: The defense was retroactively devised.

* * *

GOP Interests in House Ethics Conclusions

The Ethics Report conclusion is important for the Executive Branch. Arguably, the President and Administration, relying on the Ethics Report, can argue, "The House relied on asserted confusion and lack of rule-standard clarity as a defense; the same defense should immunize the President from consequences related to impeachment." It remains up to the Senate, not the House, to revaluate this defense.

Conyers defense, and the House Ethics Committee acceptance of that defense, puts the President's conduct in a more favorable light. Despite "confusion" where there were clear rules on FISA, prisoner treatment, and laws of war, the House Ethics Committee has agreed to frame issues in terms more favorable to the Administration. By approving conduct substantially similar to the President, the House Ethics report becomes an (irrelevant) legal excuse to do nothing about the President's abuses.

The problem for the President is the Title 28/50 exception reports, knowledge of the problem without changing the status of the prisoners, and Hamdan finding the President knew, or should have known, the legal requirements.

If the confusion were real, or the rules were not clear, as Conyers and his counsel suggest, when the problems surfaced there should have been some actions. By asserting this defense, this is an admission of what should exist to support the validity of this defense.

These notes, concerns, and discussions should have been documented. Once defense makes this assertion, these documents -- if they exist -- are admissible, and no longer protected by privilege. However, if Conyers asserts this defense, but claims the evidence of that confusion cannot be admitted, the defense fails. This defense can be supported by notes, study, meetings, and communications.

___ What effort, if any, did Conyers or Congressional staff counsel, make to clarify the rules?

___ What rule changes were reviewed?

___ What study of the rules did Conyers and counsel make of the issue?

___ Why was Conyers staff is a position to know, and report a problem, but some would ask us to believe there was confusion?

Confusion, if it were real, would have implied that nobody would have known the standards, what to do, or that there might be a problem. The Staff conduct belies the assertion that there was confusion. The Staff reported a problem, indicating they were clear of the requirements, which a more knowledgeable staff counsel should have known with precision.

___ How could the staff be (a) confused about the rules; but (b) knowledgeable enough of the standard to recognize a problem and preserve evidence; and (c) in a position to report a problem to appropriate authorities?

The lack of evidence is admissible. The "trust me"-defense is not valid. Subsequent events are not consistent with the asserted defense. There should be recommendations, studies, and reports. There should have been reports of the concerns as the events were unfolding, not requiring this many years to get around to reviewing these issues.

It is irrelevant how the rules were or were not defined; the issue is the conduct, not the confusion. If the problem were real, Conyers and Staff counsel should have indirectly requested changes, not confirmed the details that there was no aggressive effort to study the problem.

___ How does anyone from Conyers legal office explain why there was enough knowledge of the staff for the staff to report the problem; but legal counsel and Conyers asserted that these issues were detractors in 2006?

___ If we are to believe that Conyers looked at commentary related to these issues as detractors, why should we believe that Conyers was taking the issues seriously?

Something is either getting serious attention or it is viewed as a distraction.

___ Why does it appear Conyers and his legal counsel have shifted the focus from (a) Conyers actions and inactions; to (b) Whether the staff was or was not confused?

Missing Evidence

The House Ethics report arguably misplaces the focus on the wrong issues, persons, and time.

___ Where is Conyers' self-report of a problem?

___ If Conyers was actively cooperating, why was the investigation apparently launched not because of Conyers self-reporting the problem, but because staff reported the issue?

___ How can anyone credibly argue that the rules were unclear or staff need training, when it is the staff that reported the problem?

___ Who made the argument that the staff needed training when it was apparently the staff, not Conyers that reported the problem?

___ How can the House Ethics Committee argue that Conyers' conduct -- apparent lack of self-reporting of the issue, requiring staff action -- is creditable?

It is absurd to pretend that the staff conduct is the issue. The Staff reported the issue about Conyers conduct. It is absurd to subject the staff to training and monitoring in 2005 for direction, oversight, and actions of Conyers long ago.

___ If events happened [paraphrasing] "long ago," what sense does it make to continue oversight in 2007?

___ How can anyone argue that the staff actions of "long ago" do not have some bearing on issues in 2007 when the monitoring continues?

It appears the House Ethics Report conclusions has narrowly defined the misconduct, then "voluntarily cooperated with the reviews" as a mitigation to keep the focus on training and staff, not on Conyers.

The Report and Conyers responses appear to shift the argument on whether events were close or near in time. Events were supposedly far away when looking at the relevance; but the events were close when looking at the responsiveness. This is not consistent.

* * *

FAQ: What does House Rule 603 Have to Do With Conyers?

If, as it appears, Conyers has justified retroactive changes to reasons for inaction and actions -- just as POTUS did with Geneva, prisoner treatment, and FISA -- Conyers is in no position to credibly challenge similar conduct. House Rule 603 bypasses Conyers and forces the House to review the matter. The Precedent of Swayne in 1903 is instructive. Even if the Judiciary Chairman and Judiciary Committee cannot agree, the State Proclamation can direct that the issue go back to the House, regardless Conyers inaction. It is possible to impeach the President without cooperation of the House Judiciary Committee.


Ref Alleged Attorney Disbarment Investigation in re alleged malfeasance on legal issues.

Ref Oversight of Congress Archive

Ref Title 28 and Title 50 Exception Reports: Once the President's illegal conduct was known, where was the Congressional review to find out the status of these missing reports?

Ref Sample changing the focus: Geneva definition of torture, as is asserted "rule confusion" is irrelevant. Definition only related to abuse and the conduct, not the defendant's state of mind. Irrelevant how one defines the rules -- clear, misunderstood, or vague -- the standards were clear and others were not similarly confused.

Ref Ticking Time Bomb: There are many questions that should have been, but were not asked, that an attorney in Conyers position knew, or should have known, should have been asked. The lack of questions suggests a pattern of conduct below what one would expect of a Constitutional officer who was both trained on the law and took an oath to fully assert the law.

Ref Military Commissions Act: Retroactive changes to standards are not permissible, just as it is not permissible to lower the standard for a board certified attorney, to a standard below the qualifications of his non-attorney peers in Congress who were not confused by the rules.

House Rule 603 and Conyers Ethics

House Rule 603 Permits States to issue proclamations calling for impeachment, and the House may consider these proclamations. The Swayne Precedent of 1903 shows that even if the Judiciary Committee investigation cannot agree on what happened, they can forward the results to the House for a vote.

Pelosi and Conyers are in a curious position: Implicitly suggesting that House Rule 603 cannot compel Congress to confront an issue. Whether the House does or does not support impeachment, ore fuses to investigate is irrelevant. The States have the power to make the House go on the record: Are they willing to confront the issue, or not; will the House – regardless what an individual Member of Congress says – act as a single body to assert or not assert power.

House Rule 603 is on the table. Between now and 2009, Congress may or may not review information from the DOJ’s US Attorneys, FBI, and Grand Juries; the states also have the power to prosecute a sitting President; and international war crimes prosecutors have the power to indict anyone allegedly complicit in war crimes planning, or for refusing to prevent war crimes.

* * *

The House Ethics Committee, including the ranking and majority leaders, can using any criteria, start an investigation with or without a formal complain or allegation. The House Ethics Committee needs to decide whether it is or is not serious about reviewing what is or is not conduct reflecting credit upon the House.

Arguably, a pattern of abuses related to appropriations, and known violations of the law – which Members of Congress did not investigate – does not reflect well on the House. When Members of Congress know the house rules well enough to hire attorneys, spin the news, and change the subject, this raises additional issues: To what extent are the engaged in a course of conduct to explain away their alleged malfeasance for what they should have done while a ranking member on any committee.

* * *

Before the November 2006 election, Congressman Conyers allegedly made public statements related to his concerns that various media outlets were making hay out of non-issues. Conyers allegedly posted information on his blog suggesting that the public attention of these media reports was a good sign and the public should rest assured that these were merely partisan issues. Conyers allegedly used the word “detractors” to suggest the public revelations were partisan, unwarranted, and amounted to nothing.

In the last days of December 2006, the House Ethics Committee released a summary statement. The facts contained in the summary statement, and facts reported by The Hills suggest Congressman Conyers in the summer of 2006 knew, or should have known, that his statements related to alleged “distractions” were understating a problem. Conyers knew well enough of the legal issues to hire an attorney. As reported in The Hill, the Congressman fully cooperated with the investigation, and the FBI was brought into the nexus.

The Hill reports that the Congressman accepts responsibility for the problems, and Conyers reportedly was blaming a bad result – the alleged improper use of employees for campaign activities and personal business – as a [paraphrasing] “lack of clarity in the rules.” This seems odd to suggest. If the record is correct, it was the Congressman and others in the DNC who suggested in light of the Iran-Contra affair that Cheney’s statements about [paraphrasing] “unclear Congressional rules” were disingenuous excuses by the Administration.

Perhaps the record is incorrect, and the Congressman expressed no opinion. The point is that regardless what Cheney or others may or may not have done on issues of violating the law, the general thrust of the public statements was that there was a concern within the House leadership that it was not reasonable, nor responsible, for any member of the Administration to blame the “lack of rule clarity” as a bonafide excuse for not following the rules.

Rather, in light of the FISA, NSA, Geneva, and other alleged war crimes, the Administration has allegedly engaged in a similar course of conduct: Blaming the “lack of clarity” in the rules as a pretext, defense, justification, and other excuse for not coming to Congress, refusing to cooperate with the law, and not fully doing what one should have done: Fully followed the standards.

* * *

All Members of Congress and Administration officials have open access to government staff counsel, they have hiring plans, and a requirement to publicly report to the leadership whether the staff counsel are or are not meeting their performance plans. These are statutes outlining the basis for assessing whether personnel are or are not being gainfully employed.

Title 41 of the US Code outlines various rules, methods, and requirements to do various things, including a reporting requirement to the US Attorneys on issues. There is also a biannual report Members of Congress must provide to the House leadership; the next report is due at the end of March 2007. Title 28 and Title 50 are also exception reports which Members of Congress knew, or should have known were not fully being followed; and had the option to forward their concerns to their peers in either party, ranking members, US Attorney, and Inspector Generals.

* * *

It would be appropriate for the public to examine the state of the Congressional ethics investigations in light of the Foley and Conyers findings. These are two Congressman who have been the subject of an investigation, and in both cases – both the DNC and GOP targets of that investigation were found not to have engaged in any conduct that did not bring discredit upon the House. We leave it for history to decide whether this conclusion is warranted.

Going forward, in light of Conyers 2006 summer statements on the investigation, it appears as though someone might not have been quite as forthcoming with the public that he might have been with the investigators. Contrary to apparent public dismissals of the issues – apparent characterizations that the charges were from long ago, unwarranted, and partisan – a plain reading of the House ethics report summary paints a very different picture: That the allegations did have some substance, and things were not going as smoothly as one might have hoped.

Rather, it appears as though, based on the findings that the [paraphrasing] “rules were not clear” that someone was or was not enforcing clear, vague, specific, or uncertain rules. Rules are not things that can be blamed; rather, the responsibility – as was the case with FISA – was for those who were engaged in the conduct to have sought clarity, rather than fumble in the confusion.

* * *

It is important to consider the NSA wiretapping issues, FISA requirements, and Conyers conduct in the nexus of House Rule 603. If we take Conyers at his word that impeachment is off the table – despite House Rule 603 which permits the States to put the issue on the table and agenda – we must consider why there is certainty of inaction on impeachment while the Constitution delegates this power to the House, not to Pelosi or Conyers to ignore or not exercise.

The Iran Contra affair as was the case with FISA hinges on the abuse of power. The House Judiciary Committee has an important role. However, the House rule 603 Swayne Precedent suggests that even if the Judiciary Committee refuses to timely do anything, the House – as a body, outside Pelosi’s control – can independently put a time limit on the investigation of the Judiciary, and compel a report by a certain date.

Bluntly, the States have the power in the State Proclamation to ask that the House vote on ordering an investigation, submit a final report, and take a vote on the final report within a specific time. Nothing Conyers or Pelosi does can change how the States craft or issue this proclamation.

* * *

If Conyers is going to have a role in the reviews of the FISA issues, it is troubling that his explanations for what did or did not happen on his personal ethics issues echo those of the Vice President in re Iran-Contra. Bad results are not because bad rules, but because leadership refuses to consult with counsel to clarify the rules; or they fail to provide leadership and guidance despite a problem.

Attorney General Gonzalez has faced some interesting questions from The Senate Judiciary Committee, specifically Senator Feingold. We’ve repeatedly heard Feingold question the veracity of the Attorney Generals statements, questioning why Gonzalez did or did not seek clarification and Congressional assistance when he should have. Some suggest that the matters were too secret or sensitive; yet the FISA requirements are clear – this is what is required. If there were other approaches, those should have been made part of the record and the FISA statute updated to accommodate what the President wanted to do. This was not done.

* * *

I’m not satisfied with the House closure of either the Foley or Conyers investigations. If Conyers is on probation, or there will be subsequent reviews of whether his office is or is not complying with the rules, this means the issue is not closed, but remains open. It is not correct for the House Ethics Committee to conclude anything until the probationary period is over.

Conyers has been nominated to be the Judiciary Chairman. His job as Chairman, among many things, will be to oversee the Department of Justice, US Attorneys, and make modernizations to the rules of evidence, and seek Administration input on civil rights statutes.

It is troubling that someone in Congress who proposes to oversee another branch in their effectiveness of implementing rules may be in a position to decide whether charges should or should not be brought. I fail to see how someone who apparently explained away a material finding of incorrect conduct as a “partisan issue” can credibly challenge or oversee similar allegations of rule violations in re FISA, NSA, and the Geneva Conventions. Perhaps there is something obvious that we might be shown to suggest the apparent discrepancy is unreal. I am not convinced.

Rather, based on the House Ethics Report summary, and the contrast the findings are with the Conyers public statements in the Summer of 2006, I fail to see how the public comments on the blog can be characterized as anything that reflects credit on the House or the Congressman. It appears as though the Congressman, in light of his hiring a private attorney, knew enough to know there was a legal problem, but apparently failed to seek counsel when the issue was first raised.

Based only on scant Press reports, it appears as though the conduct from long ago – in the 1990s – was the subject of the House investigation, which Conyers – according to The Hill – implemented changes in time cards. It appears as though Conyers did not independently do this, but required the staff complaints to generate this result.

My concern is whether Conyers voluntary cooperating and new time keeping system was implemented after the incidents first occurred; or whether they started after the House Ethics investigation started. This remains an open question. My concern is that it appears as though the complaints about 1990s-era conduct were valid, resulted in changes, but these changes were not sufficient to resolve the issue, prompting the Ethics Investigation.

Taken broadly, this appears little different than how the President and DOJ OPR handled the legal issues on what should or should not have been done in the wake of the DoJ OPR review of the DoJ Staff counsel conduct over the NSA issues. The President appears to have done something only when there was public oversight, hardly warranting confidence that he could independently do something in secret; or that the President’s FISA reviews – outside the FISA procedures – were credible replacements.

Similarly, once the Rendition issues surfaced and the Hamdan ruling concluded the Geneva Conventions did apply to all prisoners regardless their status or location, the Administration transferred the prisoners from Europe to Guantanamo. Addington is reported to have not supported these changes or improvements in prisoner conditions because the adjustment would have been an admission of the original wrong doing.

These are issues which the Congressman will have a direct, if not important, role in reviewing on matters of allegations of Presidential criminal conduct. Each example contrasts sharply with what the standards were; and forms the basis for a reasonable line of inquiry in Conyers’ “Constitution In Crisis.” The oath of office was clear, the requirements were known, and the obligations to find out and comply with the law were known. Government officials had the duty to find out the law, comply with it, and not rely on ignorance or feigned confusion. These are serious charges to make about any President, especially when the link with alleged war crimes, illegal war, or invasions of Iraq without there being an imminent threat. Conyers was one of the moving parties arguing the President’s Iraq invasion was illegal.

* * *

Presidential oversight and asserting the rule of law are not discretionary. They are requirements which all US government officials swear an oath to do. The oath is to bind action, remove discretion, and ensure there is a 5 USC 3331 legal standard to determine whether one has or has not faithfully done heir job.

The Ethics investigations reveal that the Minority Members have the power, ability, and option to independently do things. Members of Congress, when they learned of the illegal FISA, NSA, and Geneva violations knew, or should have known, that there were substantive Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that should have been filed, but were not.

Something is not adding up. The Vice President during the Iran-Contra affair stated the lack of Congressional rules [in effect] transferred the responsibility for the illegal conduct back to the Congress. Congress did not buy this argument. IT remains to be understood why a similarly alleged vagueness of rules is prompting the Attorney General to argue the same on the FISA, despite his having repeatedly appeared before Congress requesting changes after Sept 2001. There was needed coordination on all things, but this was not done.

* * *

The Congress needs to decide whether it views its oath of office as something that will keep the Constitution in a superior position mandating accountability and the full assertion of the oath of office, balanced with a reasonable duty to find out, and assert all lawful options to responsibly assert power as a faction; or whether it means whatever the public can be convinced it means. This is an arbitrary standard.

Before us is the case law of the 5 USC 3331 litigation – scant. This is not impressive. Going forward, it would please me if the US Attorneys and Attorney Generals were called before the Senate Judiciary Committee to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports and comments they received on matters related to FISA, NSA, Geneva, and other alleged violations of the law. The issue for the Senate to review is whether the Department of Justice was or was not timely provided information from any or all Members of Congress as they reviewed the issues; or whether there is a reasonable explanation why the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports have not been fully investigated as the oath might reasonably expect.

Once there is a clear story on what the Department of Justice has in its files by way of Member of Congress reports, investigations, and request for actions, the Senate will be in a position to decide whether it is or is not in a position to independently judge whether the President has or has not committed a crime on similar issues.

The error is when the Senate, by refusing to review what it has or has not done – by way of complicity with the President’s conduct, is asked to judge the President’s innocence or guilt on issues which the Senate is allegedly complicity: Illegal activity, failure to review evidence, and not fully complying with the law.

* * *

I have serious doubts whether the Senate and House are able to independently review the pattern of conduct and find a reasonable conclusion. The Ethics Reports for Conyers and Foley suggest high misconduct is required before a clear rule is deemed to have been violated. This is not impressive, especially in light of the large body of evidence, trends, and other valuable information in Conyers’ “Constitution in Crisis.”

Something isn’t’ adding up.

___ When were the rules violated?

___ What specific action, when Conyers knew of the rule violations, did he take?

___ Was the modernization of the time cards made within days and weeks of the original violations; or was the modernization effort made only after the House Ethics investigation started?

___ When did the Congressman know that the rules were [paraphrasing] “not clear”?

___ What effort did the Congressman, when the original rules were violated-not followed, take to clarify the rules, consult counsel, or clarify for staff what was appropriate?

___ If the clarification was provided early and the issues were resolved, why is Conyers on probation in 2006 for events that supposedly happened long ago?

___ What information did Conyers provide on staff counsel performance before, during, and between the 1990s and the 2006 final Ethics report; were staff counsel evaluations reasonable given the apparent lack of interest Conyers took in timely resolving the issue;

___ How does Conyers explain the public statements suggesting the media reports in the Summer of 2006 were [paraphrasing] “detractors” while he apparently knew the FBI and legal counsel were not in violent agreement as to what happened?

___ Who specifically had a duty to clarify these rules?

___ How did other Members of Congress resolve these issues?

___ Did other Members of Congress report a “problem” with the rules?

___ Which other “problems with the rules” similarly “caused” other staff, counsel, and Members of Congress problems?

___ Who permitted, did not stop, or failed to review the conduct and did or did not review whether the conduct was or was not fully meeting the rule requirements?

___ Which documents did Congressional Staff counsel provide, issue, document, make, or otherwise file when these issues were knowing in the 1990s; and how did the Congressional Staff counsel actions – across all Members of Congress – square with what Conyers and his staff counsel did or did not do?

___ What effort was there to review the Conyers financial payments plans, and compensation packages and award fees to Staff counsel; were the performance reports consistent with the pattern of conduct which Staff counsel engaged on these legal issues; or is there a disconnect between what Conyers reported as their performance, and what Staff counsel has documented, made available, or is ready to discuss?

____ If the investigation is closed, what plan is there of the House to make available to the Grand Jury the evidence which the Conyers Staff Counsel allegedly made, created, and documented on these legal issues?

___ Has the US Attorney been given full access to the Conyers Congressional Staff Counsel Comments and documents which Staff created?

___ How does the US Attorney assess the Conyers Staff counsel conduct in light of the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ If Conyers and others were “appropriately” taken action, and fully cooperating, why is there a problem when Members of Congress are asked to account for the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

___ What plan is there of the Ethics Committee to review the pattern of Staff Counsel Conduct which Conyers and other Members of Congress did or did not do; and compare that as a baseline with the known staff communications on issues related to the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports?

* * *

Adverse Inferences

When a Member of Congress documents in writing that they view – what turns out to be in hindsight – valid concerns as distractions and politically motivated charges, and the Members of Congress accepts responsibility, this is a fatal admission:

1. The publicly issued statements were contrary to what the Congressman was doing, and knew his Staff counsel were aware;
2. It is not consistent for the Congressman, by not fully embracing the “politically motivated charges,” have us believe that he is taking responsibility.
3. Fully responsibility should have been a fully acknowledgement that the public comments on the issues had merit; given the option to remain silent, but the choice to characterize the concerns as “politically motivated” does not tend to inspire confidence in the Congressman’s assertion that he is accepting responsibly. Rather, it suggests that he’s negotiated a deal, and has accepted something as a compromise. Full cooperation would have mean, and competent counsel would have advised, for the Congressman to remain silent on the issues. HE chose to speak, make documented public comments, and essentially dismiss the concerns of the open media.

We judge the following:

[a] The Congressman’s counsel is a competent corruption attorney, well versed in the House rules, and aware of the legal issues.

[b] Congressman Conyers knew, or should have known that he should have provided adequate oversight, and investigated the issues in a timely manner. Because he publicly made comments to the contrary in 2006, this does not inspire confidence that he was accepting any responsibility.

[c] The NeoCon approach to the war in Iraq is not distinguishable form the Congressman’s approach to these personnel matters. Richard Perle has not shown real remorse, only a concern that a valid agenda would have been asserted and achieved if he had more resources. Similarly, the Congressman in 2006 – based on his apparent public misstatements – does not appear to have similarly shown remorse or responsibly, merely frustration that his staff challenged him on something hew knew, or should have known, was not appropriate.

[d] The promised probationary period is narrowly defined to employee staff conduct and training, but fails to look at the larger legal issues which Conyers will be expected to review: Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; whether they were or were not fully documented.

[e] We judge Conyers Staff Counsel Compensation reports, as required for their periodic review, are not consistent with the work performed; and Conyers has a problem in reconciling what staff counsel was doing, which tasks Conyers was seeking guidance, and which legal standards Counsel hopes to apply retroactively in 2006 to the conduct in the 1990s.

[f’] Just as the Military Commissions Act retroactively granted immunity to all Government employees for actions 2001-2006, but this was not legal in that it is a retroactive change to the law; and as Hamdan stated that Geneva applied, but Congress continues to appropriate money for illegal things; we judge there are not compelling lines of evidence from Conyers or any Member of Congress to the ranking Committee chairman, ethics committee, US Attorney, or Inspector Generals on issues which all Members of Congress knew or should have known were to be documented din the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

[g] Conyers has not shown real remorse. His public statements in the Summer of 2006 are not consistent with a desire to fully cooperate, but spin the public to believe something which was incorrect – there were bonafide concerns, and the substance of the conduct was substantially in contravention to the pattern of conduct other Members of Congress engaged.

[h] Claims that the rules were vague belie the lack of evidence that other staff counsel were confused; or that other Members of Congress had a massive wave of confusion on these legal issues. Rather, the lack of investigations suggests that only Conyers was confused, raising questions as to whether that “rule confusion” was retroactively crafted, as did the Attorney General on the FISA issue.

[i] We judge the Conyers approach to standards, rules, and requirements with as much confidence as we hold the President’s and Attorney Generals – zero. Both Conyers and the Administration have apparently retroactively devised an explanation that does not stand the logic test: The pattern of abuse, if the rules were this confusion, should be well documented, pervasive, and out of control. The reality is Conyers appears to be the sole Member of Congress, despite his legal training, who appears to suffer this retroactively rule confusion and ambiguity.

[j] Conyers does not appear to have fully exercised his professional skill as an attorney to properly review the information, nor manage the staff concerns, then organize his staff counsel to adequately review the legal issues. Rather, Conyers being a licensed attorney, appears to have fallen well below the standard which an attorney should be expected: To independently review the issue, not appeal to the ambiguity of the rules as a basis for continued defiance in 2006 of no wrong doing.

[j] We judge the pattern of conduct which Conyers has exhibited is substantially similar to the larger patterns of abuses of the Administration on issue of the DOJ OPR, FISA, war crimes, and other important issues raised in the “Constitution in Crisis.”

[k] We are concerned that the scope of evidence subject to Judiciary Committee review is large, but when compared with lines of evidence showing an apparent lack of attention to (1) attorney responsibilities; and (2) legal requirements; and (3) a duty to find out and provide leadership, there is a problem. This pattern of conduct, when compared with the alleged pattern of abuses by the Administration is stunning: How are we to believe that the Judiciary Chairman can adequately review and objectively evaluate this information? The answer: The Chairman is not in the Senate; any decision not to impeach the President is unrelated to the Chairman’s job to present evidence, not make a premature judgments whether the President may or may not be removed from office.

* * *

We do not question the Congressman’s ability to review evidence. He’s well documented his concerns in the House Ethics Report. We do question the credibility of his conclusions, which only the Senate can make: Is the President innocent or guilty of the charges which the Congressman may or may not process.

When someone views, as the Congressman does, public denials as acceptable while the underlying conduct belies those protests, the Congressman and President appear to be in the same corner, not in bonafide adversarial positions. Given the Congressman has no power to make a voting decision on issues of Presidential guilt or innocence, we would prefer that the Congressman did not publicly define whether impeachment is or is not successful in terms of factors he has no control: The Senate review of those facts and their unreviewable verdict.

If the Congress views the President as being guilty, that is his choice. If there is mounting evidence of his misconduct, there is nothing stopping the Congressman and others from independently going to the well of the House and charging the President with a crime. It would please me, given the scope of the alleged Executive abuse of power, that the House keep the following on the table as an agenda item – the possibility of impeaching the President and others not just once, but multiple times for different charges. There’s no reason to have a single impeachment, especially if the Senate doesn’t get it right the first time.

Some of the evidence is known and can be quickly charged; other evidence may take time to package into Articles of Impeachment for subsequent trials. Each time the GOP Senate reuses to convict the President, the House Judiciary and States will have more information of what new information is needed in the next impeachment to achieve a desirable result: Removal from office.

* * *

I applaud Congressman Conyers principled stand on the issues of impeachment. What is surprising is his apparent perception that We the People are not in a position to make adverse inference; or independently form judgments to the veracity of the Congressman’s Summer 2006 statements. It is our view that the Congressman’s conduct does not inspire confidence, but smacks of the same line of abuse, misleading statements as the President, only differing orders of magnitude, not their contempt for professional governance relative to clearly promulgated status.

Perhaps other Members of Congress and the public might review the record and ask whether – if the rules were as vague as we are asked to believe – why there is no evidence of other wrong going; and why it appears only Congressman Conyers, despite his legal background, has a difficult time understanding when to clarify rules. Where there is vagueness, the Administration sought to draw the line where Conyers and others do not agree. Conyers appears to have drawn a line retroactively, as the President has done, and asked us to believe that the President and he cannot have their conduct examined on the table.

Perhaps the Congressman may wish to discuss his concerns with his personal legal issues, and discuss publicly whether his reluctance to impeach is related more to a desire not to have his personal conduct examined; or whether there is another explanation why the Congressman appears in December 2006 to pretend that something was vague while other Members of Congress and Staff Counsel were clear in what was or was not appropriate.

* * *

Conyers appears to not want to challenge the President’s conduct because Conyers appears to have rationalized the following:

- Retroactive creation of defenses which are not plausible;
- Assertion of confusion where less legally competent personnel were not confused;
- Assertions of resolution, despite public statements belying this desired perception
- Real concern over legal issues, despite asserting the issue was partisan
- Not having timely done, from the outset, what one should have done
- Only adjusted course and path when the public learned of the activity
- Continued denials of a problem and attacking the staff who appropriately raised the issue

As with the FISA court and President’s failure to fully comply with the law, the fact that Conyers in December 2006 remains on probation suggests there is more to the story as to why the Congressman has or has not fully accepted in the Summer of 2006 all responsibility for what he did.

* * *

The Conyers and Foley Ethics investigations have a common theme: Alleged misconduct, but no accountability; a valid concern originally raised, but a finding that the conduct does not bring discredit upon the House. If these conclusions are the thinking of the House, We the People should not be surprised if the President is never charged with a crime: The House views the selective testing of the rules and laws as business as usual. The only difference is that the House believes inaction might lead to control of the White House, while the White House believes inaction believes might lead to control of the US Government.

Inaction on issues of rule enforcement, especially on issues of ethics investigations is only part of the problem. When the House leadership chooses to not fully do what it should, it sends a bad signal, especially to We the People: Administration officials have leverage if they can couch their retroactively devised defenses in terms that Conyers might “appreciate,” not what the law reasonably would expect.

House Rule 603 helps mitigate the apparent problem Conyers and Pelosi have with understanding the difference between factional clashes and discretionary disregard for rules. Impeachment investigation, when it is part of a proclamation from a state under House rule 603, takes Conyers and Pelosi out of the picture, and recasts the affair in terms of what the House as a legislative body will or will not do.

The Swayne Precedent shows us that the Judiciary Committee can be bypassed, and that even if the Committee refuses to support any adverse inference, a State can compel the House to vote on whether to investigate and impeach, regardless what the Speaker of the House or the House Judiciary Chairman may believe is or is not an impeachable offenses.

House Rule 603 effectively strips Pelosi and Conyers of discretion, as is needed, when they appear to have self-interests and biases interfering with whether they view the course of conduct as illegal, or something that is merely a partisan distraction. Rove argued that the level of opposition was a sure sign the GOP was winning; we was discredited. Before he steps into the well of the Senate, perhaps Conyers may wish to revisit his 2006 statements and reconsider whether he remains a credible leader to properly assert the oath of office and properly review evidence objectively.

* * *

There are issues of Chairmanship veracity. The House Intelligence Committee Chairmanship was in dispute. One prospective nominee had an impeachment against his name and he was not chosen. We’ve been led to believe that the right choice was made, and that one’s credibility hinges on one’s track record. Perhaps Speaker Pelosi may whish to reconsider the choice for House Judiciary Chairman; without the threat that he might lose his chairmanship if he dares raise impeachment, perhaps Conyers might return to his principled ways and lead the charge against the President. It appears he’s conflicted, silent, and not willing to charge the President because he fears rocking the boat. The President rocked the boat; the right answer is to throw all the factions into the water with the sharks, keeping the Constitution safe, dry, and entertained in the boat; and let the factions do what the Founders expected – Clash in the well of the Senate.. Let the victor use something other than the Constitution to dry themselves.

* * *

Regardless whether the House GOP or Conyers-Pelosi agree or disagree on impeachment, the way forward is to compel the House to decide whether it will investigate the President with an impeachment investigation; or whether the House leadership needs new leadership and guidance in the form of a New Constitution.

The issues underlying the Administration’s alleged cause of illegal conduct demand attention. The way forward is to decide before the examination starts whether the House has the right people reviewing the issues, or whether there are relevant concerns which need to be appropriately addressed. IT does not look good when the man possibly leading the critical legal review in the House is on probation, or that his staff is subject to additional monitoring and scrutiny. There are other staffs that are not in a learning curve; perhaps Conyers and others might agree that the Conyers staff is not sufficiently trained to follow time cards, and do something slightly more complicated like reviewing whether the President is or is not able to follow other rules. Before the Conyers staff can credibly oversee others, it must demonstrate it can do so on its own. The House Ethics Report summary states the Conyers staff shall undergo training. That is fine; let them get their training while America gets back to protecting the Constitution. When the Conyers staff is trained, they’ll have time to catch up. America is not waiting for Members of Congress to find it convenient to understand the rules; some are taking the principled stand to apply the rules.

* * *

Tacitus wrote of an agreement to distract the Roman citizenry with war. The objective wasn’t only to wage a war that would not be supported, but to distract attention from the agreement on the eve of the war.

There is more to the story on what Conyers did or did not do. It remains to be understood, if the Congressman was supposedly “unclear” on “vague” rules, what others rules, slightly more complicated, he did not effectively review, ask for assistance, or seek guidance. The right answer is for the US Attorney and FBI to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports; and ask to what extent Staff counsel, Members of Congress, Conyers, and others were or were not fully doing what they should have done.

The House Ethics Reports into Conyers may have been closed on this issue, but the FBI appears to have information that remains open and part of an active file. Those files are not supposed to be destroyed for many years.

___ What pattern of conduct would interfere with Conyers’ oversight of the investigation of the President on issues similar to the lack of clarity on rules: DOJ OPR, FISA, NSA, and Geneva.

___ What is the plan, in light of Conyers open disclosures of the attorney-client communications, for these known communications to be brought into evidence?

___ Is Conyers asking that We the People recognize a privilege for the Congressman that should or should not be recognized for the President?

It is hardly taking full responsibility when one does not timely review a matter, especially when one has the legal training to know to clarify the requirements, or ask for help from competent legal counsel. Neither appears to have been done as should have been reasonably expected of the Congressman. This alleged malfeasance is not an issue the House Ethics Committee thought might bring discredit upon the House. They made an error – the conduct raises substantial questions whether the House leadership is or is not effectively ensuring it is meeting the high standards of professionalism and integrity it demands of the President on issues of war crimes, prisoner abuse, warrants, and surveillance.

A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors, and they are in a position to independently do things which the CIA and NSA have no ability to intercept.

Translation: The White House may or may not get a heads up that Conyers legal defense, although it fooled the House, can be introduced into the interrogatories to challenge more retroactive defenses. Once it is shown that the defenses were retroactively created, the original documents related to the illegal conduct are admissible. The only way the President and Conyers can credibly assert that the defenses were plausible was if they have written evidence that these defenses were actively discussed at the outset, not contained in subsequent documents. Where there is an absence of evidence where there should be, war crimes prosecutors and prosecutors may conclude that a Member of Congress, Attorney General, and President have retroactively fabricated a defense and not done what they should have done: Follow the laws, fully assert their oath, and bring credit upon the United States Government. This hardly inspires confidence that Members of Congress can independently conduct their business in secret, especially when they openly assert remorse while their conduct and statements belie this assertion.

* * *

The GOP is hardly likely to argue for a different chairman – they’d rather keep someone in place who has a known problem, then couch the President’s legal defenses in terms Conyers will likely say, “Wow, I did the same thing, and the House said No problem, Guess it would look stupid for us to be inconsistent.”

The DNC is not likely to independently agree to a change in the House Judiciary Chairmanship. This would reflect poorly on their ethics. Then again, when did the DNC suddenly get concerned with ethics? After they got caught, not from the outset when the staff raised the original concerns. Stunningly similar to the President’s strategy.

* * *

Conyers appears to be leaning on Pelosi to justify inaction; then he changes his excuse to whether impeachment is or isn’t popular. The Framers intended for the factions to clash out of self interests, not conclude that inaction was best. The oath requires something else.

It appears Conyers is avoiding some of the Presidential impeachment issues because of his silence, inaction, and lack of timely resolution of issues. Indeed, he fully cooperated after the staff complained, not when the original requirements were disclosed.

The issue with Conyers isn’t what he did or didn’t do; but whether he remains objective in reviewing like conduct in the President. He and his staff are on probation, undergoing on going review and training. One cannot be objective while they are still learning; they are students not masters.

There can be no silence on issues of power and the law. You can call it ethics, integrity, trust, the oath, or governance. The common thread is whether the elected officials can be trusted at all times to do what they should; or whether they make excuses to not do what they promised to do: Fully assert their oath to protect the Constitution.

Conyers and Pelosi, despite having no delegated power to take impeachment off the table, have incorrectly asserted that impeachment can only occur if is popular. This shows a lack of understanding of the Federalist Papers and the Founders intent to have factions clash, especially when the issue was unpopular. There are no medals for second place in politics – you are either asserting your oath all the time, or you’re not.

It appears some, out of social tact, have an interest to remain silent on issues of power and rules; and pretend a favorable ruling by the House on an ethics issue gives someone carte blanche to review others. Conyers arguably didn’t review his staff in a timely manner. He has produced an impressive report, but he is not the only Member of Congress who is in a position to lead an investigation.

The concern is Conyers specifically rebuffing valid public concerns about the issues, while he knew, or should have known, these were real concerns. His conduct, regardless the House Ethics conclusion, does not reflect well upon him or the House. He’s well outlined the President’s abuse of power, violations of the laws, and failures to fully follow the rules. Conyers well knew the importance of rules and the laws when he passed his bar examination, rand for Congress, and supported the Watergate Investigations.

Conyers appears to have an issue which warrants more explanation and review. His staff appears to need some support, assistance, and guidance. Ideally, a Member of Congress should provide the leadership. We think it appropriate that the US Attorney be brought deeper into the nexus and review the pattern of conduct in light of the apparent Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports that were not reviewed; and that the Senate review whether the Department of Justice, FBI, and US Attorney do or do not have a similar conflict in that they’ve not timely reviewed these issues as they should have, and the exception reports were not filed for another reason.

We recommend the US Attorney review the evidence provided to the House Ethics investigation to review to what extent Conyers made implausible statements on whether he believed the rules were vague. We judge, and this is only an opinion not an accusation, that he made implausible assertions of vagueness which he knew or should have known were not consistent with his true clarity of the laws. We conclude this adverse inference would be supported by the lack of evidence related to lesser qualified Members of Congress who were not similarly confused or lost in the alleged feigned “lack of clarity”-defense.

It is our view that a reasonable case can be made that Conyers left misimpressions with the Ethics Committee, raising questions as to whether his cooperation was full; and to what extent his statements warrant review in terms of perjury before an official proceeding; or whether there were feigned ignorance of the rules and laws which cannot credibly be supported by the fact pattern, course of conduct, or what is most reasonable.

We conclude the US Attorney should review the minority comments and dissenting views of the Ethics Committee, and be given full access to the documents in light of the statements, conduct, and other public evidence which is not reasonably consistent with the opposite conclusion. Once there are any disclosures, even inadvertent on a blog, these are matters for legitimate inquiry, and eliminate any reasonable belief by the Congressman that his attorney-client communications are completely privileged on these disclosed matters; and remove the full expectation that all Congressional Ethics Investigations are absolutely secret or immune to a Grand Jury examination.

It remains to be understood what level of evidence the Ethics Committee relied when concluding the Congressman’s asserted lack of clarity on the rules was real. This belief appears to be unreasonable, not consistent with the evidence suggesting most Members of Congress were not having problems. Conyers’ assertion of this as a defense is one for him to prove, not have secretly asserted without credible challenge and independent examination. If Conyers and Counsel did not wish to have this asserted defense approach challenged, it would have been appropriate if Conyers had kept silent on issues when he had the Constitutional right to remain silent. He chose to speak, opening the door to reasonable adverse inferences, and compromising his absolute attorney-client privilege on these asserted defenses. An attorney-client communication on a legal strategy becomes admissible when the public disclosures of those communications occurs; and the discussion becomes the basis for the Ethics Committee to conclude something that may be contrary to what is most reasonable.

It remains to be understood whether Conyers and Counsel have agreed to orchestrate a fraud, and retroactively devise a defense which does not appear plausible. We conclude, in the absence of a credible attorney-client communication proving the contrary, that it is reasonable to conclude not defense existed when the issues were first raised; and that the defense has been retroactively devised as a litigation strategy to insulate Conyers from serious legal consequences. It remains to be understood to what extent these communications were made with the intent to mislead, leave false impressions, or achieve another objective beyond a seemingly implausible defense.

If not already done, we recommend the details and evidence the FBI, US Attorney, and House Ethics Committee have related to Conyers be forwarded to the Michigan Attorney Disciplinary Board; and Conyers’ counsel disciplinary board, which we presume is the District of Columbia. Conyers and his counsel are advised to seek independent counsel. No claim is being made they have engaged in professional misconduct. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

* * *

It’s disingenuous to characterize questions related to these issues as a partisan attack. This is the Founder’s intention of having factions clash. Without the adversarial system, the FISA court is not well served. It would be appropriate if the Congress similarly embraced the idea of public debate and challenge, even when the House Ethics Committee makes a conclusion that defies reason and the known facts. Perhaps there is another reasonable explanation.

We look forward to a spirited debate in 2007 and more State Proclamations calling for the House to investigate and impeach officials in the Bush Administration. It only takes one state; and one state can lawfully make the House run in circles. There are 49 others, and then there’s the small matter with the German and Italian war crimes prosecutors.

They wished this.

Read more . . .

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Ranking Ethics Member Has Options

The whining since the GOP abused power has been uncompelling. The DNC, as the ranking member on the ethics committee, had the discretion to review peer conduct in the House.

House rules allow the chairman and ranking member of the ethics panel to initiate informal inquiries into allegations of misconduct in the absence of a formal complaint.Ref

* * *

I'm all for assigning blame where blame is due; the problem is when the legal options under the House rules -- the power of the ranking Members to independently start informal inquiries -- is not asserted.

For the President and Congress to have jointly agreed to fund appropriations for illegal activities, Members of Congress would have to know of the illegal conduct, not do anything, and then (somehow) avoid an ethics investigation.

Indeed, the RNC may have controlled Congress, but nothing prevented any of the ranking members from taking action to review:

___ Who, in the House, knew of the illegal activity related to war crimes, but did nothing;

___ Who had a duty to report, investigate, and prevent illegal activity, but failed to act.

The first error is to enable the President; the second to do nothing about peer misconduct in that enabling; the third to pretend one did not have the power or option to do anything.

* * *

It doesn't matter whether the GoP or DNC was in control of Congress or the Ethics Committee. Both parties have failed to make a fair showing that they have taken timely action to review the apparent failure of the Members of Congress to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.

Read more . . .

Clash of Factions Unrelated to Popularity

This builds on these comments

* * *

Curious how a “lack of popularity” on issues of taxes is considered irrelevant for Congress; but when it comes to issues of prosecuting the President for war crimes, Congress is concerned with populism. When Congress makes taxes contingent upon “popularity,” it will have credibly shown that the President’s conduct and impeachment should be measured by popularity.

Whether something is or is not legal is secondary to the bigger problem: Know illegal activity prior to Sept 2001 was not been challenged. The “national interests” argument fails when the illegal activity started before the event invoking a “new national interest” – illegal defiance of the Constitution. National interests cannot outweigh the law when the event invoking that interest had not occurred.

Newsflash: Despite Democrats winning the popular vote, DNC in Congress doesn’t believe it has a mandate to assert power. Due to lack of popularity, we the People are on vacation – writing a New Constitution -- until Congress awakens to its duties.

* * * *

The idea of an election is to recognize the elected-leadership has the majority support. The DNC management of the impeachment question asks that we pretend elections are something else – that the majority, despite speaking, didn’t speak and isn’t a majority.

Consider the approach Conyers and Pelosi have taken on the impeachment question. Rather than independently asserting their oath and act, they’re reported as waiting for popular support.

___ You mean winning an election isn’t popular support?

___ Are you saying that despite taking an oath to do what you what might not voluntarily do – whatever that might be – you want a third trigger to your actions?

In theory, they should do what should be done. Consider the four triggers that Conyers, Pelosi, and the DNC are asking for:

1. Trigger One: Doing what should be done – “Please remind us”
2. Trigger Two: The election – “Please work to support us”
3. Trigger Three: The oath of office – “Please make us promise”
4. Trigger Four: The popular support – “Please work to remind us of what we promised”

In practice, the oath of office, or trigger three, is the only legal foundation anyone needs. The oath is designed to bind people to do things that they would normally not volunteer to do.

Note Trigger Four is a culmination of all previous triggers: Essentially duplicating all other requirements to act, and shifting the responsibility for governance back to the People: Implicitly, “If you don’t’ remind us of what we’re supposed to do, then it’s your job to do our job.”

* * *

It is unacceptable that Conyers and Pelosi have shifted the burden for whether there is or is not impeachment onto We the People in the form of requiring popular support reach an unspecified level.

Popular support, as Conyers and Pelosi apparently are communicating, are far removed from the leadership’s essential purpose for being in power: To assert power independently out of an interest to clash one faction against all others.

It is reasonable to not require Four Triggers for Pelosi and Conyers to awaken to their duties, move with all due speed, and prosecute the President before Congress.

* * *

I take great exception to the DNC leadership, including Conyers and Pelosi, suggesting that a legal duty – of asserting the oath, and charging anyone with a crime – is a power that can only be exercised if an unspecified, vague, and irrelevant standard is or is not met.

Suggesting that “impeachment is not popular” is irrelevant. Accountability for war crimes isn’t popular but must be done. There is no discretion. The oath compels the Members of Congress to enforce the law, or they can be prosecuted under 5 USC 3331.

The absurdity of the argument over impeachment hinges on the changing standards by which impeachment is or is not going to be considered. The voters have popularly elected the DNC to govern – that means, without oversight or constant supervision, for the DNC leadership to independently exercise leadership, manage a plan to protect the constitution at all times.

Whether the US population does or does not think that something related to accountability is or is not “popular” is irrelevant. The DNC has won the majority vote and controls Congress. Implicit with that majority is the precondition that a majority of Americans, knowing the DNC could impeach the President, might impeach; and they voted for the DNC knowing that the impeachment option was an option.

However, for the DNC leadership, despite winning the majority, to suggest that a “new standard of majority” is required before they will take action asks America to pretend there was no election, implicitly: “Yes, we won the election, and the DNC majority is the popular will of the people, but we in the DNC leadership want something more.”

Get real. You don’t need anything else. Let’s list what you already have, but are not exercising your options:

1. You have the legal power to assert your oath;
2. You have the legal obligation, as you promised with your oath, to preserve the Constitution;
3. You have the legal and Constitutional power, using any criteria you choose, to bring charges for anything against any US government official

It is irrelevant whether those charges do or do not rise to Constitutional standards warranting removal. The House may, at any time, for whatever reason, impeach any Government official for anything.

It is irrelevant whether the Senate may or may not convict. Impeachment is a sole power of the House. There is nothing else required.

* * *

It is troubling to hear any commentary from any of the DNC leadership that, despite the oath, election mandate, and Constitutional power delegated to the House, that the DNC wants another hurdle for action: Whether those who may oppose and not support accountability can or cannot be convinced to support what they have otherwise not supported.

This is absurd. The House is a political creature of the Constitution. Nowhere is the House required to decline to assert power because the objects of that lawful assertion of power disagree. Rather, the intent of the framers was to organize, induce, and inspire factions to clash, not wait until the opposing faction agrees there should be no clash.

It is absurd for the House leadership to suggest that the intent of the framers – that of having a clash between factions – is only possible when all opposing factions support the possible consequences of that clash: Adverse consequences. It is ridiculous to suggest any opposing group will support adverse consequences – if they did, the original abuses would not have occurred; and the prospect of consequences would have deterred the original wrong. This did not occur.

By design the Framers designed the US Constitution to create factions and induce them to clash, not fear a clash over what may or may not happen.

* * *

I am concerned the House leadership, despite their well recognized experience, appear to have not comprehended the notion of clashing factions, not only in Constitutional legal theory terms, but in a practical application of asserting the oath.

Perhaps the leadership, if the weather is favorable, may wish to openly discuss these issues:

___ Why are you asking for support from an opposing faction is not inclined to support consequences?

You have been given the voter’s mandate; the voters made a fully informed choice: By voting for the DNC attached with that was the possibility that the House might assert all powers, regardless what the voters said.

Each election is known in advance to be a two-year time window. For two years after the November 2006 elections, the new majority leadership can do anything they want. You already have the majority support.

___ How do you explain, despite the majority support, a fear that you do not have the support which you are Constitutionally delegated?

This makes no sense. You were voted to implement the powers you were delegated; not, contrary to the Framers intent, ask the voting public – despite their support -- to seek permission to do something We the People – through the Constitution – have expressly delegated to you the power to do: Impeach.

The issue of “popularity” is a concern. Voters have no say in whether the House is or is not delegated the power to impeach: The delegation of power, regardless the voters desire, is expressly delegated to the House. The voters have no input to whether the delegation of impeachment power is or is not real: It is a real power delegated expressly to the House with the Express intent that the House leadership use that power ANY WAY YOU DESIRE WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PUBLIC. We voted for you knowing fully well you may or may not choose to assert this power of impeachment.

You do not have to come back to We the People to get support, permission, or an approval. Our delegation of power in the Constitution was intended to give you the latitude to conduct impeachment proceedings on secret issues which We the People may not be given access. Congress has the power to review information in secret; and this information can be the basis to impeach anyone in the US Government.

The concern is that if, despite your ability to review information in secret, you still have to be monitored, and you have a problem: You’ve been given the power to independently act, review evidence in secret, but We the People cannot be sure that you’re going to do your job. Rather, despite possibly reviewing secret information, you may choose to assert that, on the basis of We the People having access to that information and not understanding your decision, that we might not support your decision. This is irrelevant. You have been given the power though the electoral process to act as our REPRESENTATIVES; it is absurd for the DNC leadership in the House, despite this REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT to pretend otherwise: That somehow, despite this delegation of power, each assertion of power by the House in the clash of factions, has to be sent back to We the People in a referendum. IT does not. A Republic is not like that – power is delegated so that you use it, even on secret matters, to fully assert your oath, protect the Constitution, and ensure it remains a viable document.

The perverse request for “voter support” – to assert a power you have expressly been delegated to assert, and forcefully clash with in the clash of factions – belies the notion of a Republic. Either the House leadership will assert power AS HAS BEEN DELEGATED BY THE VOTERT MANDATE IN THIS REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT -- or you will be reasonably described as being complicit in the destruction, lack of protection, and failure to preserve the Constitution.

American citizens are note required to maintain allegiance to the US Government, only the US Constitution. When the US government – as appears the case today – refuses to do what it promised in its oath, but there is no enforcement mechanism for that failure to act – then WE the People have been DENIED our GURANTEED right to a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT which expressly assumes and relies on an ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

American citizens may lawfully revoke their allegiance to the US government, withdraw all support, move to other lands, wait for an imminent threat from the US Government and United States, and lawfully wage a pre-emptive war against the US government – AS RECOGNIZED AS LAWFUL UNDER GENEVA – with the express intent of lawfully destroying an imminent threat. Foreign fighters have chosen to wage lawful combat against US Government interests.

If you will not enforce the law, then you are an enemy of the law, and under the laws of war, when you are complicit with war crimes, you may be lawfully targeted for lawful destruction. It is within the scope of possibility that the US Congress can be lawfully targeted by the world’s foreign fighters on the assumption that – without an enforcement mechanism of the US laws – the US government remains on the verge of invading all nations.

All foreign governments may lawfully work in concert to lawfully invade, destroy, and level the US Congress on the basis of this reasonable assumption. You will no longer have a place to work. You will have a job without an office. You will have a title without a place to hang your name card. Call it what you like – the US Congress, if it refuses to enforce the law against the US government officials – can be lawfully identified as being complicit with an imminent, illegal invasion of unspecified countries.

These are hardly issues of popularity. Consider what happened after 9-11: There was no nation al poll of what should or should not happen: It was clear there had been a wrong; and the solution was to impose lawful justice through combat operations.

A clear wrong, a clear plan, and a clear agenda. It is another matter whether that plan was poorly executed. Once there is a violation of norms, Congress in the wake of Sept 2001 swiftly moved – it was self-evident there was a wrong which had to be immediately be remedied.

Yet, when we look at the abuses in the wake of 9-11, suddenly the Congress which can move speedily if inspired, suddenly pretends that moving at a speed fast than a glacier might upset the populace.

___ When did Congress, in the wake of 9-11, take a poll of what the populace wanted?

There was no polling. There was a clear wrong, and Congress knew what had to be done.

__ What is the excuse for Congress, despite a clear wrong, pretends it cannot do the same – assert power?

You do not have the liberty, discretion, or latitude to rely on polls. The wrong has been done; the time for the clash of factions is overdue. It is irrelevant that the GOP factions in Congress were unwilling to clash with their GOP factions in the other branches of government. The voters have spoken: We expect you to clash, not wait for us to speak again.

* * *

If Congress has to be told -- AGAIN -- how to do your job, or that it “might be nice” if we saw you enforce the law – then We the People no longer have a GUARANTEED REPUBLIC, but one that is ARBITRARY, and CONDITIONAL. This is UNCONSTITUIONAL.

Congress cannot make a decision to act or not act on the basis of polls. As with 9-11, when there is a clear wrong, Congress must assert power, regardless the disagreement some in opposing factions may have.

You have a mandate, you have been delegated Constitutional power, you have the majority, and you are given the responsibility to clash as a faction against anyone the House chooses to clash with. KNOWING THAT, WE VOTED TO SUPPORT YOU.

If we have to be asked for permission to do what we TOLD you through the CONSTITUTION you had the RESPONSIBILITY TO DO – CLASH – then we need to rethink the competence of those we have elected to office to exercise these powers.

Perhaps the problem is the DNC leadership and the House chamber does not like to Clash; maybe the House thinks that enforcement of the law is discretionary.

* * *

Let’s Consider the purpose of a Legislature, in the context of the British Parliament, the model Congress was build upon. Simplistically, Parliament existed as a forum for We the People to meet and challenge the King. It was a forum. The goal of that forum was to make it known what We the People wanted. For the moment, put aside the issue that it didn’t work all the time, and the important disagreement of 1776 which helped create Constitution.

Parliament existed as a forum to challenge, check, and act as a platform. Its function was to act as the branch of the People and Lords to challenge, support, guide, or remind the King what is most reasonable.

Fast forward to 2006: Congress, despite the principle of a Legislature, is asking that – like a King which needs reminding – that Congress needs a reminder. Let’s play along:

___ What body, outside Congress, is Congress asking to remind Congress of what is reasonable?

___ Does Congress Comprehend that it is not a King, and cannot credibly argue that it requires a reminder, as a King requires a reminder from Parliament?

___ What is the form of this outside body that Congress is asking We the People to create so that Congress, despite its oath and Constitution, get a reminder of what should be done?

___ Does Congress comprehend the absurdity of its request – asking for We the People to “support” and impeachment – when it is Congress that should be turning its attention to the Executive and saying, “Why should we support you?”

The burden is not on WE the People. The Burden is on the President. This Congress, like a King, is lazily pretending it is unclear what should or should not be done. We the People, if we are to believe the stupidity and laziness of this Congress, would be best inspired to call Congress on its bluff – create a fourth branch of government that would, as a Parliament reminds a King, act as an institutionalized reminder on Congress.

That institutional structure has been devised and is part of the New Constitution. The error is for Congress to lazily pretend it can do nothing “Unless the population supports it,” but pretend that it does not need the oversight it is asking for. Either

1. Congress is lazy and requires a fourth branch to oversee it; or
2. Congress is lazy and will not assert its powers; or
3. Congress is afraid of asserting power in a clash of factions for an irrelevant reason; or
4. The leadership in Congress -- despite an oath, election, and delegation of constitutional power -- requires something else to awaken it to what the Framers intended: CLASH.

Let’s consider the possible things of “what else” Congress requires to awaken it to its legal responsibilities.
1. Combat operations are ongoing, and the US government is being defeated, but that wasn’t enough;
2. The prospect for war crimes indictments and disbarments against House leadership is on the table, but that wasn’t enough
3. Something else.

Indeed, there is something We the People can do. Notice the pattern Congress has – despite a clear law and agreement in THE CONSTUTION to clash, Congress pretends those legal REQUIREMENTS are discretionary, and they have retroactively passed new laws undoing what they promised to do.

Consider the trend: Clear agreements, but Congress makes them discretionary. Consider the only real source of Congressional power – the power to tax, appropriate money, and to choose or not choose to delegate the decision on whether money can or cannot be spent.

The General problem is the US Government has a discretionary view on specific legal agreements; We the People may lawfully reciprocate and similarly characterize all contracts as discretionary. We are a nation of volunteers, not barterers.

Congress has no power to tax anyone who refuses to enforce contract obligations; or who is not exchanging one good or service for another.

The way forward is to remind Members of Congress that We the People can, as Congress has done, impose a discretionary authority on whether financial transactions and contracts will or will not be enforced. This is not barter, nor is it an exchange, but a nation of volunteers who freely engage in their desired activities.

If Congress is serious about making its powers discretionary – which they have no power to do, but let’s play along – then We the People should lawfully reciprocate and make all our agreements, contracts, and anything else related to financial transactions, business, and any other financial movement DISCRETIONARY, and NON CONTRACTUAL.

Consider an example: The quote that I wrote: “Beware the leader” – Barbra Streisand publicly performed that quote, and millions of others have mentioned the words. Congress has no power to tax any revenue related to that quote because I REFUSE TO ENFORCE THE COPYRIGHT LAWS RELATED TO RESIDUALS.

Because Congress will not do its job, I refuse to enforce any financial obligations on ANYONE AROUND THE GLOBE related to this well known, well publicized, and body of work which is the subject of litigation, ongoing contractual disputes, and is potentially the source of significant tax REVENUES for CONGRESS.

CONGRESS is DENIED the power to make any claim on all work, performance, or any other transaction related to the performance of that work because I REFUSE to enforce the Copyright Law.

Every citizen of the United States can do the same – make it known that you will volunteer, make your ideas publicly known, and REFUSE to compel anyone to pay anything for your services. The error of Congress is to make people believe they have no options; the truth is that Congress has no power unless we provide it money.

I am not suggesting that you do not pay taxes; or that you engage in barter as a means to avoid tax liability. Rather, I’m suggesting that CONGRESS get a wakeup call: If they look at the Constitution as discretionary, then WE the People should look at all contracts related to revenues, financial transfers, and other things – WHICH CONGRESS DEPENDS TO GET REVENUES – as discretionary.

Congress has NO POWER to compel anyone to enforce a contract; rather We the People can jointly agree NEVER to enforce any contract related to anything that might resemble a financial benefit for Congress.

It is my view that if enough people, corporations, and other entities credibly demonstrate our commitment to reciprocate for what Congress fails to do – that of not enforcing the law – then Congress MIGHT wake up. IN the meantime, the way forward is to call Congress on its bluff, and create a New Constitution that will do exactly what Congress is implicitly asking for: A fourth Branch of Government that, as Parliament challenges the King, so too will this Fourth Branch have the EXPRESS goal to CHALLENGE the Congress:

___ Why are you doing that?

___ Are you sure you’re doing your job?

___ Why are you not asserting your oath?

___ Where is the evidence to suggest you can do nothing?

___ Why are you not faithfully executing your duties as required?

___ Is there a reason that you’re appropriating money for illegal warfare?

___ Do you have a plan to end unlawful support for illegal activity?

___ Can you make a good case why you should not be indicted for war crimes for failing to stop what you know, or should have known, was not a lawful activity?

___ Can you make a credible case why you, as a Member of Congress and at attorney, should not be disbarred for not having faithfully asserted your oath to preserve the Enforcement mechanism required under a Republic?

Where Congress refuses to show it is competent, new rules can be written. Consider what Congress did with the Military Commissions Act, it rewrote the law RETROACTIVELY. This is illegal.

However, under this principle of reciprocity, and a NEW CONSTUTION, we the People may lawfully reciprocate, and make a NEW RULE which expressly delegates to ourselves the power to retroactively make new rules going back to 1789. We have the power to delegate ourselves a NEW POWER which can expressly target MEMBERS OF CONGRESS for anything we arbitrarily choose we want to say must be enforced, prevented, or prosecuted.

If Congress wants to say that the Constitutional enforcement requirements – firmly attached to their oath – are discretionary, then We the People may, with equal discretion, choose to retroactively change the laws which Congress is working, and retroactively undo the power structures which Congress depends.

Translation: If you refuse to assert your power – as you promised – We the People reserve the right to delegate ourselves the power to retroactively do things that will undermine the independence, discretion, and latitude of Congress to independently work, and we may delegate that power to a FOURTH BRANCH which has the sole objective of making Member of Congress daily work routine a LIVING NIGHTMARE.

That New Constitution has been drafted and Congress is DENIED the power to have any input. Oh, by the way – We the People may do anything we like, even if it is not popular with Congress. Federalist 78 says we can, with a proper ceremony, present this New Constitution; and Members of Congress are not allowed to act as if the changes may or may not be put into effect. You have to still do your job under the existing Constitution.

* * *

Consider the joint Congressional-Presidential threat to use military force to compel Goodyear Tire Employees back to work. Arguably, the US government is threatening to use military force to compel civilian workers to support the illegal efforts of the US military.

Let’s consider the DHS workforce camps. Put aside the tin hat arguments about what these might be for. Consider the single idea: The US government is stating that it may, for whatever reason, detain people and put them into workforce camps. Fine.

We the People can do the same for Congress. Under New Constitution, we can compel the US Military to – whenever we desire – to turn the US Congress into a work camp, and lawfully imprison Members of Congress in the Capital MAKING THEM WORK.

The threat of force against We the People was “good enough” for the President and Congress; it’s “good enough” for We the People to lawfully threaten force and imprison Members of Congress in the labor camp they pretend they are free to come and go as the like. Wrong answer.

Members of Congress and Staff counsel have a problem. There have been war crimes, and they’re making excuses to do nothing. WE the People have options. Others have ideas. It should be the express national policy of We the People to:

1. Remind Members of Congress that we should not have to remind them of their oath;
2. Remind Members of Congress that they took an oath to preserve the Constitution;
3. Remind Members of Congress that we expressly delegated them the power to impeach anyone for any reason
4. Remind Members of Congress that we expressly agreed, IN THIS CONSTUTION, to have a GUARANTEE of an ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
5. Remind Members of Congress that we are not required, and cannot be compelled to enforce any contract, agreement, or financial arrangement which Congress might derive any indirect benefit
6. Remind Members of Congress that the Framers intended the factions to clash
7. Remind Members of Congress that a clash of factions is not a majority, but a clash of one or more people in one faction against other factions of one or more people
8. Remind Members of Congress that it is absurd to ask for “popular support” for something that has been popularly INCLUDED as an EXPRESS POWER in the Constitution – the power to impeach
9. Remind Members of Congress that the correct focus should shift from whether We the People can or cannot justify support, to whether the PRESIDENT can or cannot justify support.
10. Remind Members of Congress that We the People can create a New Constitution which expressly creates a fourth branch of government that will do exactly what this Congress implicitly asks for – A new forum to challenge Congress just as Parliament challenged the King
11. Remind Members of Congress that they cannot threaten the use of force to compel anyone to support illegal war crimes
12. Remind Members of Congress that if they threaten force to compel people to support war crimes We the People may lawfully draft langue in a New Constitution delegating to ourselves the express power to lawfully use military force to COMPEL members of Congress to remain CONFINED to Congress until they complete their work, assert their oath, and preserve the Constitution.

* * *

We the People delegated Congress powers, one includes the power and right to legislation, which includes speaking from the Well of the House. This is called leadership.

It is absurd for Congress to delegate that leadership responsibility and duty back to we the people by saying, “We want the public to support what we refuse to do – assert powers delegated in this clash of factions.”

Anyone in the Congress, regardless the faction or party they choose to align themselves, can lawfully say anything on the House floor without fear. When consistent with the Chamber rules, speech is absolutely privileged on the House Floor.

The DNC cannot credibly claim that it is up to the variable “popular support” whether there is or is not impeachment. It’s not our job to mobilize America – it’s the job of the leadership in the Congress to use their bully pulpit.

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of shutting off funds to Senators who refuse to agree to remove the President from Office?

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of cancelling all military contracts in districts where GOP Senators continues to allegedly support illegal warfare, and block accountability on the President?

___ Why are Members of Congress afraid of shutting down all funding to any and all GOP Senators who refuse to assent to the rule of law, assert their oath, or do what they should do?

There is no answer. Rather, despite having the power of the purse, the Congress incorrectly believe that this power can only be yielded against the President. Wrong. The power is one, by the Framers design, would be wielded against the opposing factions in the Senate.

SO let’s have it: If this DNC leadership is serious about preserving the Constitution, let’s preserve it by lawfully denying funds to any Senator’s district that refuses to support the immediate removal of this President from office. Let the GOP Senators threaten a filibuster; let the President vote a bill; let the GOP be the one that is obstructing accountability. Then impeach, impeach, and impeach: Make it the job of the GOP Senators to explain why the want to support illegal warfare, have no accountability, and rubber stamp the President’s non-sense excuses for maladministration.

It is the job of the DNC in the House to prompt the debate, and rally the nation to support what you feel you need support. It is not our job to support you – we’ve already done that. You have the majority; you have the power; and you have the duty to clash with the opposing factions. The GOP cannot claim that you’re being mean – the GOP chose to freely start this confrontation when it crossed the line. This confrontation is one the President has started; it is not a question of whether it is or is not popular. It is illegal.

The DNC must use the bully pulpit of the Congress to lead; it cannot delegate this leadership responsibility to those who have elected you. Lead, or we’ll make you with a New Constitution.

* * *

A New Constitution can include a legal mandate that Americans, when they are under the threats that they are today, can be immediately defined as being lawful combatants, and no longer subject to sanctions for any invasion.

Rather, it is possible for the US Government to be summarily exiled to a finite space, and that all American Citizens will be legally – temporarily – assigned to a new Nation. Once this transition occurs, all illegal actions of the US government can be the basis for We the People to conclude that the US Government is an imminent threat; and under the laws of war, we may lawfully invade, and destroy Congress.

By assigning all US Citizens to a “temporary foreign status,” all combat operations by American Citizens would be subject to the Geneva Conventions, not p[art of an internal battle, and whether the US Government did or did not do something would be irrelevant. The US Government would have no resources, people, or ability to defend itself; nor could it lawfully compel anyone to enforce any laws in any other nation. Congress would be stripped of the power to declare that there had or had not been an invasion, and all American citizens’ part of this lawful uprising, rebellion, and insurrection, would be protected and immunized going back to 1789.

This is not currently possible or legal, but it could be if the Constitution were changed. It is possible to create a New Constitution that would lawfully deny the Congress its discretion to do what it is doing : Not doing its job.

* * *

Let’s consider the terms of the oath of office: One key word is “preserve.” For fun, let’s look up the definition of “preserve.”

- To maintain intact
- Prevent something from spoiling it
- Prevent decay
- Prevent something being diminished, or disintegrating
- Prevent something from declining in health or vigor
- Prevent something from deteriorating to an inferior state

Our Constitution was created with the idea that it would be superior to the alternatives. It can hardly be called superior when, despite being delegated power to clash, the DNC leadership asks for permission to do what is expressly DELEGATED.

The Constitution can hardly be called full intact when it is no longer structurally supported; even if the Oath were a super-super-precedent, these members of Congress have asserted that it is discretionary, subject to qualifications, and something they need not respect. The clear signal is that regardless the law or requirement, Congress chooses discretion, nor duty.

To support this constitution, and prevent it from declining, one must accept the recognized state of the Constitution – that factions would clash. It is unpopular for factions to clash, but it is the intended means to prevent the Constitution from spoiling, declining, or deteriorating. If Members of Congress are making excuses why they are not clashing, then they are not fully preserving the Constitution, but permitting it to deteriorate.

It is illegal for Members of Congress, out of fear of doing something unpopular, from doing what it took an oath to remove discretion: The obligation to do what is unpopular, when inaction and all other options, fuel the declining health of the Constitution. Where the laws are not enforced, the Constitution is in an inferior state; where Congress illegally passes a retroactively law saying old law is changed law, the Constitutional prohibition against retroactive law is not being respected, and the Constitution is made inferior to the Framers express intent in the language of the Constitution.

It does not matter than a judge can be convinced that the law can be something it cannot; or that an attorney believes that are immune to accountability for failing to prevent war crimes. Your duty is something you had the obligation to fully assert, fully comprehended – and you agreed, with your oath, to do this. Within the Constitution is the obligation and requirement that the oath be to all laws and treaties, not the ones that can be selectively twisted.

Indeed, 9-11 was a shock compelling swift action; but swift action does not in 2006 justify inaction for the wrongs committed on the back of an original injustice.

The desired state of our constitution is that factions will clash; and a faction of one can start a debate and public discussion on impeachment. Where Congress has the power to do something to fully preserve the Constitution, but refuses to assert it, that is evidence of Members of Congress violating 5 USC 3331. The issue of a legal requirement and duty is not one of popularity, but of obligation, even when unpopular.

Mobilizing support for your action is an exclusive legislative tool and power. The public debate in the House on impeachment should be geared toward forcing the GOP Senate to confront – as a faction – what they have refused and avoided – the faction that remains a threat to their Constitution. Unchecked factions do not preserve anything, but permit that abuse to fest. The GOP understands this thinking – it is the basis for their justification for attacks on the Taliban; yet, the DNC fails to see the similarity between the GOP and the Taliban – factions doing injustice, factions which must be challenged, and factions which may lawfully be confronted. You are either asserting your oath and challenging the abusive factions – regardless their popularity – or you are complicit with that illegal activity which leaves our Constitution in an inferior state.

* * *

American inaction on American government war crimes, and Presidential abuse of power, remains an imminent threat for all people and all nations. When Members of Congress choose inaction, the imminent threat forms the basis for other nations to lawfully rally their people and combat forces to directly confront America. America’s combat forces are stretched, overseas, and in no position to timely mobilize.

It’s one thing for Congress to abuse power by inaction; quite another to fail to comprehend that the abuse of power, when taken to the extreme in these strained combat situations, leaves Congress exposed to lawful decimation. When Members of Congress defy their oath, and fail to fully assert all powers to ensure the Constitution remains in a superior state, the result is not simply a diminished Constitution, but an inspired enemy which has the legal foundation to wage war. Congress cannot make a revitalized army to defend the Capitol in a matter of days; it will take time. It is absurd for Congress, in this vulnerable situation, to glacially move while the injustice is clear.

* * *

Impeachment has been described by some as a political act. This incorrectly suggests that it is a partisan move for advantage. Impeachment is a power which must be used when all options have failed to keep the Constitution in its superior or state.

The popularity of action by a faction – lawfully asserting a delegated power – is irrelevant. If popularity were the measure of success, the misinformed voters, inspired to believe in non-sense, would celebrate war crimes. This is impermissible.

Popularity is of little relevance when the laws are ignored. The misinformed and naïve will popularity support those who abuse power. This is impermissible.

Leaders who must be reminded of their oath are not leaders, but stewards. Leaders who must be reminded to put their oath before popularity are neither competent nor trusted to do in secret what they refuse to do under the exposure to sunlight.

Impeachment is a test not just of the accused, but of the faction – the House majority – in whether they are or are not serious about keeping the Constitution superior, or letting it become inferior. There are alternatives: New leaders, New Constitutions, and New Camps to lawfully compel Members of Congress into work details to clash as a faction, and compel the preservation of the Constitution.

* * *

The error with relying popularity is the perception that – if there is just a little bit more evidence – the last holdouts might shift their support.

___ How long does Congress plan to investigate?

___ Why are Members of Congress not willing to impeach on the easy evidence-charges first; then, as time passes, expand the impeachments, with the more difficult charges?

___ Who is saying that the President may only be impeached once?

___ Why is the GOP Senate not being lawfully threatened with multiple impeachment-trials so that they must explain their refusal to convict self-evident violations of the law to We the People?

Congress is not limited to challenging the President with crimes, but can charge him with anything based on the lack of evidence of his competence. When one defines “impeachment” – a charge of a crime – on the basis of whether there is or is not a conviction, the House leadership misses the point of the impeachment: To publicly ensure factions clash. The Senate has no vote on whether the House Members are or are not fully asserting their oath; only the House can choose what illusions it embraces to believe an inferior Constitution is superior.

* * *

Rather than engage in endless road shows to rally public support, I ask Members of the House to consider an alterative: To, without notice, impeach, and use the Senate well as the ultimate road show. The less time the GOP Senate has to make defenses and excuses, the less prepared they will be to justify their inaction. Indeed, the ruse would require careful timing, but I believe is superior to the alternative – wandering around the country from city to city asking the people who have no vote on conviction to be inspired by those who have already inspired us: The DNC leadership. You were elected because you offered the alternative; do that, you have the support you need. Within your ranks and within the GOP are those who will put their loyalty to the Constitution above all things, and know that impeachment is appropriate. Those who matter will know you are doing the right thing; leave it to use to convince our peers that you are doing the right thing – but you must do the right thing, until then, we will be divided in whether we do or do not support what you may or may not do.

We need action, a clear plan, and let We the People rally to your plan, then we will support you. Until you have a clear plan to put the Constitution first, your desire for popular support – as a condition of impeachment – is backwards. Let the evidence, as any jury would review it, be the test and the standard: Let the Senate fail or succeed; let the Senate be confused whether the voters will or will not support their action.

The faster the DNC leadership injects this debate into the well of the Senate, the faster the GOP will be tripped: The GOP believes it can manipulate the voting public to support GOP Senators who refuse action. Make it clear to the GOP Senators – if they refuse to convict, there will be more evidence of more crimes in the next impeachment, then the next, and the next until they get it right. Eventually the voters will understand that it is the GOP Senate that wants to leave the Constitution in an inferior state and that the GOP Senators are not fully asserting their oath. This is not meant to be nice – it is the clash of factions to protect, preserve, and defend what has been left in an unacceptably inferior state.

* * *

It would please me if the House leadership were to outline a general framework for impeachment – in the context of the number of impeachments that are planned; and how these impeachments will be orchestrated in terms of lawfully targeting GOP Senators who refuse to do what they should: Remove the President from office.

___ Which appropriations to which States will be shut down

___ Which Senators can be assured that, given their lack of support, their voters will see the Senators have jeopardized their State’s economic security

___ Which States show the greatest inclination to support war crimes prosecutors

___ Which States’ Attorney Generals are in a position to bring charges against the President

It is not appropriate for We the people to be delegated with the responsibility to do what the DNC leadership could do with a single act, announcement, resolution, or proclamation: It can be the finding of Congress that specific GOP Senators are complicity with illegal activity, and this information is forwarded to the war crimes prosecutors, State Attorney Generals, and State Attorney Disciplinary Board.

Public support will come when there is momentum. We the People started the momentum with the 2006 election; now Congress must run with the torch, and not hand it back to We the People. Force the GOP Senators to demonstrate they are competent to run with the torch, and they are appropriately imposing the burden on the President, not We the People.

If Congress wants to reward itself for inaction, this can hardly be called superior. Congress cannot reward the inferior, but compel We the People to be superior. Those in Congress who cannot be trusted to do their job can be exiled to a work camp where you are forced to do the peoples business: The US Capitol. Congress cannot take a vacation from its legal duties, while expecting Americans to remain working to support war crimes. When Congress, despite its oath, cannot be inspired to support the Constitution, no one can be compelled to do anything that might support Congress. Any consequences American citizens have been subjected to compel their cooperating with illegal things, can be lawfully thrown back at Congress: They may lawfully be compelled to ensure the same threats for failing to fully assert their oath. Where citizens are possibly denied consideration or standing, Members of Congress may suffer the same consequence. Where public citizens are threatened with loss of home, safety, and liberty if they choose not to cooperate with illegal things, Members of Congress through 5 USC 3331 prosecutions may be subjected to the same lawful consequences and forfeitures. Neither Congress nor the US government can compel any American to remain loyal to a government that refuses to preserve what it has no discretion to weaken.

* * *

Congress must be clear with the evidence and testimony it wants examined; indeed, revealing too much might tip the GOP to obstruct what must be known.

* * *

Impeachment can be for any reason; and the Senate can convict for any charge. Whether that conviction results in removal is secondary. Do not ask whether the President and Senate will cooperate with the removal; but whether the Constitution will be inferior if the House refuses to do what may be unpopular. Success is not in terms of whether the President is removed, but whether the factions have clashed to ensure the Constitution remains superior. The Constitution is superior as long as Congress is willing to ignore the transitory passions of those who wish to make the Constitution inferior.

If power is not used, and factions do not clash, the discretion to impeach can be made mandatory, as is the case with the 5 USC 3331 obligations. Congress has no power to compel anyone to support, with silence or deference to inferiority, what is contrary to the oath. Americans and others may take their business where the law is superior to the inferior US system.

Congress cannot make We the People do anything unless we consent. We have consented to your delegated power of impeachment. We the People can compel Members of Congress they are complying with 5USC 3331. We may, arbitrarily, make new rules that require Members of Congress to prove they are innocent, otherwise they are presumed guilty. Congress cannot credibly argue that some can have the burden of proof shifted, while this standard is not retroactively applied to Members of Congress,

We the People may offer advice, opinions, entertainment, service, hope, ideas, quotes, suggestions, solutions, and results FOR FREE, and Congress will not be able to tax this transaction. Without barter or exchange, Congress is power to compel anyone to provide revenues. Without money, you have no power. We the People are the source of all power – We have the money, you do not.

What’s worse than an expensive quality product? Quality that is free and cheaper than the trash this US Congress is spewing forth to justify malfeasance on 5USC 3331 duties. Congress, if it chooses the inferior, sends a signal that United States employees, management, and systems should not be used. “Sorry, we do not hire people who are affiliated with alleged war criminals.”

All Congressional power can be made ineffectual. Responsible people can put everyone on hold until Congress wakes up. Responsible people can refuse to contract with war criminals. For every law Congress refuses to enforce, We the People may similarly agree not to enforce contracts: No commissions, no lawyer fees, and no revenues for Congress to tax. When everything is free without regard to agreements – as Congress views the law and responsibility to keep the Constitution superior – Congress remains powerless.

* * *

Congress cannot credibly delegate the responsibility for impeachment on the basis of popularity. We the People should throw the monkey on the back of Congress:

___ What’s the Congressional plan, if any, to ensure the Constitution remains superior, not inferior;

__ What is the plan of the elected officials to lead their faction, and create the clash the Founders and We the People expect?

___ Or, are the leaders saying, despite being elected, they have no plan to “get a plan”, and are delegating their legal responsibility – to keep the Constitution superior – to We the People?

The way forward is to remind Congress: The overall “impeachment management plan” is not something that has to be devised out of thin air, not can it be delegated to We the People. The “big plan” is the Constitution.

If Congress wants better guidance and feedback of “what to do” that what is in the Constitution, Congress, by its actions, is communicating clearly: “We need a New Constitution.” It is ready. Congress has the power to remedy the flaws, or the flaws can be remedied without Congressional inputs.

Congress has the duty to oversee the President, self-mange, and conduct its affairs; while engaging in legislative activity related to governance. Congress is not interested in the popularity of the Committee Rules: The Constitution, not popular will, defines what is or is not acceptable. This power of rule making has been delegated to the House and Senate for their discretion; it is not something Congress need to present to We the People at every step a validation or vote of approval. We are a Republic, not a direct Democracy. If Members of Congress prefer direct democracy on issues of impeachment, then feel free to make the case with a lawful amendment; until then, the rules of the House – not direct democracy or populism – apply to the clash of factions.

The way forward is to generate a plan that will be useful to We the People to oversee this US Government, and generate support – on top of the election – for the needed changes Congress refuses or is unwilling to assert as the Framers intended: The clash of factions. We can create new factions, and we can compel less amicable clashes. Congress can be forced with a New Constitution to directly clash with combat forces; and held under siege until they do their work.

Keeping the Constitution in its superior state requires vigilance. The oath must be asserted, not left to the discretion and popularity of those who did not take the oath. If the oath was intended to be contingent upon the popularity of the clash of factions, the oath would have included the statement, “Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so long as it is convenient, and does not upset the opposing faction and remains popular.” The oath does not include any language related to convenience, popularity, or the degree to which any faction does or does not support or oppose the required efforts to faithfully assert all lawful options – doing ones more al best – to assert ones oath. Where there is no language within the four corners of the oath, the language does not exist, and cannot be relied upon a mitigating factor whether the members of Congress have or have not fully complied with their 5 USC 3331 oath of office.

* * *

It is incorrect for the DNC leadership to muddle and confuse [a] impeachment; and [b] conviction. The two are not the same. A “successful impeachment” is unrelated to the Senate, but wholly within the four walls of the House: Do the House delegates fully assert their oath to ensure the Constitution remains superior.

It is irrelevant whether the GOP Senators agree or disagree. Information can change public perceptions, especially evidence of DNC leadership inaction and excuses.

The DNC needs to take the lead in engaging the media on impeachment. The GOP is engaging in revisionism, hardly generating irrelevant public support. Juries and prosecutors are told that the trial should not be waged in the media; yet the DNC House leadership prefer the media to generate support, while the GOP Senators are not confronted in the Senate, as they should be. Soon.

The DNC cannot credibly argue that popularity will make a difference. Even if the GOP, by 1/3 margin supported removal, the DNC has yet to specify the level of support would tip the balance; nor make the case that a specific threshold is relevant.

There was a sense of urgency for action in Iraq, albeit based on fabricated evidence; yet Congress shows little urgency to confront a real threat -- not imminent, but pervasive. The GOP wanted fast action based on cursory reviews; the DNC wants exhaustive reviews of exhaustive evidence of conduct warranting removal. Perhaps if the DNC and GOP might come to an agreement: The compromise is on the speed of the removal – fast or faster -- not the assertion of power.

All other agendas are irrelevant: The only relevant agenda is keeping the Constitution superior, and preventing it from becoming inferior. Until the Constitution is first and only agenda, Congress should not be trusted to manage lesser agenda items. If Congress cannot handle simple evidence, it cannot be trusted to handle complicated issues. Impeachment is a test of competence of factions to assert their oath, not in their ability to generate support for inferior Constitutions. Inaction changes the focus from the primary violations to whether Congress is or is not complicit with those violations; and doing or not doing what they should. It is an excuse to distract attention from the failed oath. We the People didn’t take the oath of office. It is inappropriate for the DNC to seek coverage to support what they – by their oath – agreed to support: The Constitution. Popularity is irrelevant on the oath, standards, laws, and evidence or facts. Continued defiance of the oath, and deference to inferior Constitutions is inexcusable and warrants an increase in the 5 USC 3331 penalties.

Congress, in failing to check its flawed logic on the impeachment debate, makes a poor showing whether it is or is not competent to handle the larger issues: Oversight, fact finding, and evaluating reality. Demonstrate the simple; perhaps confidence in the complex might be warranted. Congress flawed logic on the impeachment issues is arguably reckless, giving fair warning the GOP and DNC are equally capable of ineffective governance. Waffling on public issues inspires confidence the secret issues will be similarly bungled – no wonder the President wanted to keep the illegal NSA activity prior to 9-11 Secret: He can be sure of the Congressional incompetence in understanding the difference between the law and the conduct. Popularity gives way to duty; your duty is enforceable 5USC 3331.

Betrayal is measured by the original abuse of power; the subsequent refusal to enforce the law; then the refusal of the factions to clash as they agreed.

* * *

The way forward is to consider what We the People, in the absence of Congressional leadership, must do to ensure Presidential accountability, and a superior Constitution. History’s guide reminds We the People that a government may have to be openly challenged, especially when it remains committed to inferior results. A superior challenge is to refuse to recognize the abused powers, and create a system where the abusers are lawfully excluded.

If we must remind Congress to check facts, we have a bigger problem than whether the Congress is or is not competent to assert power. It is doomed to get lost in the details while the opposing factions expand their abuse. Our job is to keep looking where Congress is not focused, vigilant to the possibility there are other illegal ruses unfolding. This illegal activity cannot lawfully be classified and should be immediately shared. Yes, the shredder trucks are busy. Adverse inferences can be made when required documents are not available

The mandate after 9-11 was clear: The world was with us. Today’s question is what kind of mandate will this Congress establish with what it does or does not willingly do on issues of the oath and the Constitution. The world examines whether the US Constitution remains superior. American values is not a buzzword to replace the rule of law with inferior performance; nor is it a green light to employ values invaluably. The greatest error would be to let the Taliban show the world it has a superior system of accountability. The only option is to work within the law; by moving outside the law, the faction has no option but to clash.

Sovereignty is a question of whether the US government is able to manage its own affairs; or whether outside forces must be brought into the nexus to do what the US government refuses to do – enforce the law. There was consensus the Sept 2001 attacks were not acceptable; it cannot be credibly argued this status quo can go unchallenged. We were told we needed to put our snake boots on to confront someone abroad; the snake boots are on, the confrontation at home as started. Sept 2001 was not a mandate for tyranny, but justice; nor a mandate for abuse, but accountability; the error is to use 9-11 as the pretext for an inferior Constitution.

We must see that illegal activity is challenged, not muffled under the smokescreen of foreign adventures. Foreign threats cannot be used to make our Constitution as inferior as that perceived threat.

Our Civil War, when it was over and the factions had clashed, hinged on reconciliation. It is premature to talk of reconciliation; the factions must clash. The DNC cannot credibly argue for inaction while the GOP continues to abuse power, and rewrite history over whether the power was or was not abused. Until the GOP is lawfully defeated by a superior Constitution and faction, the GOP remains a threat to the superior Constitution. Talk of reconciliation, without a confrontation, is premature. Compromise leaves us with an inferior Constitution.

The GOP has a higher burden of proof. They have betrayed our trust. This cannot be permitted nor rewarded within inaction. It is the duty of the government to assert its oath, not wait until it becomes popular to do what has not been rewarded. The only measure of any reward is whether the Constitution remains superior. It’s debatable what might be devised to prevent this; but there are options which Congress refuses to consider. It remains to be explained by the US Attorneys and American legal community how this level of illegal activity of illegal activity could spread, but the legal community is silently endorsing the silence of factions. The American legal community has not adequately policed its own; a new system of governance is required to compel attorneys to put their oath before their loyalty to illegal factional activity. The way forward is for We the People to cancel contracts, remove support, and withdraw allegiance for those institutions which refuse to keep the Constitution superior. Some may have agreed to do nothing about illegal support for war crimes, but that is no basis for anyone to remain complicit with that illegal support. We cannot sympathize with those who show no sympathy for a superior Constitution.

America, like the USSR was, is not guaranteed a pedestal in history. A desired place in history must be actively preserved, not hoped for. Peace will come when the world sees it has abused power, and the leadership has been appropriately held to account, regardless the popularity of that confrontation. Until then, foreign fighters may lawfully wage war against American with the express goal of destroying what Americans refuse to lawfully manage: Their Constitution. Mismanagement is not an excuse to wage illegal warfare or put ones leaders above the law. The US confronted this abuse of power in Nazi Germany and the USSR. The US government must decide whether it will voluntarily do what others have refused, or whether it is similarly destroyed. America must be held to the same standard, otherwise it remains illegitimate. Americans may lawfully give up their citizenship and defend other lands and superior systems against what Americans refuse to respect: The rule of law. No allegiance can be compelled when there are no compelling reasons.

* * *

The way forward is to openly discuss the criteria to evaluate whether this DNC House and Congress is or is not competent; or whether it should lawfully be replaced with a new system, which may or may not have at its leadership either the DNC or GOP.

Criteria to Evaluate Government

___ Does the government do what it should without constant monitoring of every action; or can it be reasonably trusted to do what it should do, even in secret.

___ If the military is required to ensure it does what it should, adverse inferences can be made – the Government requires tyranny to do what it otherwise refuses to freely do. That is not freedom but despotism.

___ Does government have two standards on agreements – Strict interpretation with respect to We the People, but compels discretion when standards are applied to government.

___ Does government have two standards on whether leadership, competence, faith and performance are or are not implemented. Is there one standard to justify accountability; but a second standard to justify moving the line on accountability.

___ Has the issue broadened from the original wrongdoing and maladministration; to whether those charged with oversight responsibility can or cannot be trusted to faithfully do their job to oversee?

___ Has the government responded to the sovereign – We the People – or must the government be reminded of what it freely took at oath to do without being told. Faithfully doing ones job, regardless whether we the people are or are not watching. If secrecy is abused, secrecy can be denied as a lawful forum to make independent agreements.

___ Has government interpreted mandatory requirements as discretionary, thereby destroying the agreement it agreed to preserve: The Constitution

__ Is the government mandating We the people do things the government should do; then berating the public for exercised those requirements, but has done nothing with what the government has requested: Support, loyalty, and allegiance

___ Can the government be trusted to do what it promises

___ After being delegated power, does the government delegate responsibility back to the sovereign – We the People

___ Is the government serious bout its statements, oaths, and actions to ensure the Constitution is superior

___ Does the government create new requirements, outside our agreement, to justify inaction?

* * *


It is inappropriate for the majority party to delegate any responsibility or notion of “popularity” on issues which are outside popularity: The binding oath, the Constitution, and the eternal duty to ensure the Constitution remains superior. It is not the job of We the People to popularly re-support what has been given the Constitutional mandate, power, and discretion to assert power as a faction and compel others to prove they remain loyal to a superior system.

Where factions fail to assert power, despite that express delegation, the faction fails as a credible force to preserve the Constitution. That faction must be challenged, lawfully invigorated, or left to wither where other failed factions have been lawfully destroyed.

The American factions, despite being defeated by combat factions, refuse to accept that defeat on the battlefield is final: There are no other options. The Constitution, despite its obligations, was thwarted, and left in an inferior position. The factions have put their factional interests above their oath, and pretend inaction is justified until the factional competition becomes popular. It never will, and will never be, as the Framers intended.

Power is not employed lightly. It is only marginally delegated. We the People have retained all non-delegated powers which include the lawful power to put Congress in an inferior position, and lawfully expose it to the lawful threat of further combat losses in foreign shores. If Members of Congress are not interested in protecting the Constitution, We the People need not show interest in protecting Congress.

Combat is serious business. Congress must decide whether it is willing to keep its snake boots on and confront the mess it alone has permitted to spiral out of control; or whether adults from foreign lands shall impose order where American refuse. Congress shall have to decide whether it will voluntarily choose to assert its oath, confront the inferior Constitution this leadership has created; or whether Congress is forced to confront on the battlefield additional combat losses, then compelled to assent to a New Constitution which Congress may not find popular. Victory goes to those who prevail, not to those who pretend one victory is sufficient as an eternal mandate. A mandate is not a pedestal; it is a start, but hardly the first move. You must do your job, assert your oath, lawfully assert power, and compel the factions to clash; otherwise, Americans shall be compelled to ensure additional combat losses, then forced to clash at home. These are issues of power not popularity; of prudence not passion; of protection of what is superior, not deference to lesser standards. American citizens, the world, and future generations will observe, take note, and choose whether the American model is or is not superior. The model is superior only when it remains a model not an excuse to avoid confronting the inferior.

Choose wisely.

Read more . . .