Possible, satirical answers from DoJ Staff if they were free to speak:

Please provide me with the Department of Justice’s rationale behind eliminating the public corruption unit in Los Angeles, including the specific facts, statistics, and circumstances that drove this decision.

DoJ We used the same statistics used during the US Atty firings: Lies, misleading statements, and absurd extractions loosely connected with plausible explanations. The charts do not make sense; even we don't understand the linkage between the data and the decision. We hope Congress is confused as well, saying, "We trust your judgement." We trust the President's judgment. He gives us all the statistics, data, and justifications we need: "God told me." God is with him.

What initiated this decision?

DoJ: The President is the decider. The person who started this decision and discussion was the DoJ Staff working with the GOP. We jointly feared accountability. We wanted to hide evidence from the prosecutors looking at money laundering. They were getting close to finding the truth between the war crimes contracts, money laundering to the GOP, and the kickbacks provided through various US government contractors to GOP loyalists in the security industry. We arrived just in time. The evidence is "safe" inside the White House email system. CREW will never find the information.

Who was consulted before making this decision?

DoJ: The President got on his hands and kneews, heard voices, and we were told "God" spoke to him. As with the US Atty firings, the GOP political, WH legal, and WH public affairs officers were deeply involved. Also the same DoJ Staff procedures to gum to death the US Atty firings was in play. Yes, there were meetings between DoJ staff, the AG, and White House staff and counsel. The contractors didn't want the prosecutors getting too close to the FISA issues which were spilling into the war crimes issues. This was a way to thwart the investigations, but blame those who most knew the details, but were low enough on the totem pole to threaten them. What are they going to do: Sue the President? They're only prosecutors.

What was the role of Main Justice and the White House, if any?

DoJ: The White house and Main Justice's roles were instrumental, key, and important. Without them, the unit might still be chasing the GOP into the Cayman Island accounts.

The White House approved the plan, listened to the lobby'sts concerns about prosecutions, and the DOJ and WH staff jointly agreed to block the US attorneys from getting to close. With enough money, we listened more to the legal counsel who knew details of the RNC email destruction policies and plans to thwart CREW from discovering the details.

Did any of the DOJ’s prosecutors in the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section have any input into the decision-making process?

DoJ: Yes, they had input and those inputs were ignored. The onese who felt strongly about the law were asked to submit their resignations. We only talk about law and order for Iraq, but not for America.

The public integrity section's concerns to DOJ OPR, as was done with the NSA litigation, were buried. DoJ OPR was told not to look at this. Far too scary. We called it a "Special program". Part of our effort to classify evidence of illegal activity. Congress will never look. They've been beaten into submission like a wet noodle in a monsoon.

How will this decision affect the public corruption cases that have been and are currently being investigated in Los Angeles?

DoJ: What public corruption cases? There are no problems. All the cases have been declined.

The ongoing cases will be put at the bottom of the stack. We're putting an empahsis on mail theft, not GOP money laundering, fraud, or Presidential obstruction of justice. The Grand Jury will never find this. You know what a threat those postal workers have to American security: One missing letter, and the nation's security is a risk. Scary, scary!

Detroit reminds us of what government is willing to do, ignore, and remain complicit out of false accusations by criminals. This might be of interest in re the US Atty firings and the LA Ethics unit disbandment:

"unwarranted dismissal of three cops who they feared were about to disclose their illicit love affair" From

Out of the blue, government takes unreasonable action. This puts other on the defensive, distracts attention from the misconduct, and puts the burden of proof-innocence-guilt-defense on someone else. Didn't Rove say the best offense is to attack someone's strengths? Those who most know the illegal activity appear subject to unreasonable government abuse, attention, attacks, and intrusions. Perhaps the events in Detroit may shed some light on the motivations behind the illegal FISA surveillance, NSLs, and warrantless interrogations.

Perhaps what's happened in the US Atty firings, LA Ethics unit disbandment, and NSA surveillance is something bordering on paranoia in the White House. The White House well knows whether it is or is not engaged in illegal activity. The question is whether the White House trusts others to keep their secrets.

- As with Detroit, what things did the Administration fear the US Attys were going to disclose with prosections about the Administration?

- What illegal activity did the Administration fear prosecutors would stumble upon?

- What things does the Administration fear others have evidence, know about, observed, or stumbled across?

- Who may have engaged in innocent, lawful conduct, stumbled upon evidence of war crimes, but been the subject of abusive litigation, government intrusions, or absurd accusations?

- How many absurd, inconsistent, and false accusations has the Administration made about others on the basis of paranoia that the public would connect the dots and support removal of the President?

- How many absurd accusations depend on inconsistent arguments, dubious assertions, and timelines which are not consistent with evidence, required timelines, known procedures, and mandatory reporting actions?

- Which asserted "concerns about others" are not consistent with inaction in other areas?

- To what extent are the "concerns about others" (who have stumbleed upon evidence of corruption, illegal activity, malfeasance) based on selective retelling of procedures, timelines, policies, guidance?

- To what extent have "concerns about others" not been matched by adequate action, responses, reviews, or other actions by those pointing fingers?

The Truth behind the Disbanding of the Public Corruption unit was to halt an investigation into the US Attorney in Delaware direct connection to $300 million in perjury and Fraud.

We gave Tom O'Brien's office an Official Complaint on December 7 2007 and they have 8 to 12 weeks to respond. http://www.milberglies.com/CitizensComplaintClocket_at_US_Attorney_Dec_7_2007.pdf

When no response occurred we began to contact and pursue the matter heavily.

Then, the next thing we hear, is the US Attorney O'Brien is disbanding the very Public Corruption Unit and threatening his subordinates.

Now there is a huge push to force a Senate vote to complete the nomination of Colm F Connolly to the post of Delaware Federal Judge.

once a Judge, he cannot be removed unless he is impeached.

All this is testified to Under Penalty of Perjury, the Administration has been helping ocver up Racketeering in Delaware Federal Courts for several years,

We can prove over $300 million in fraud in eToys, another $100 million fraud in KB with another $150 million in Fraud in Stage Stores S TX Bankr.

All directly connected to Bain!

All involving Traub, Barry Gold or MNAT,

Who were also involved in Finova, Kmart and Levitz, among other items of note.

EToys went public in 1999 for $8 billion and bankrupt only a year plus later in March 2001 and the US Trustee with the Delaware Federal Courts permitted the Destruction of Books n Records.

http://fraud-corruption-mnat.townhall.com/default.aspx

Stand up and Fight for your American Way of Life
OR
LET IT GO!