One issue that's surfaced is there is an e-mail from "M" to TPMM; then there's a
second poster at TPMM also posting as what appears to be "another" DoJ official.

We don't have enough information to know whether "M" and "infurmashun" are the same or different people.

Infurmashun,

Disclaimer

This comment is an opinion, does not raise questions about your competence, and falls under the exception as a fair comment on a news item of public interest. Any asserted claim of defamation is rejected, especially given you've apparently made subsequent comments warranting fair, public comment and response.

If you'd like a formal response to your law firm or senior partners at your law firm, then feel free to provide a copy of your law firm stationary, and include contact information. Until then, we're stuck with your apparent non-sense, convoluted arguments which appear to miss the point.

Concern: Missing the point, invalid argument, false premise

If you're going to "correct" someone for something, you need to get the quote correct. You've got it wrong and you appear to be missing the point. Is this considered "good" staff work by you in your firm, and as formerly assigned DOJ staff counsel? Good grief.

Here is the misquote:

As to the "best attorneys" piece, M's e-mail said "some of the best attorneys," not "all of the best attorneys."

Wrong, the quote did not say what you said it did.

It said this:

some of the attorneys just weren't pulling their weight

The quote has nothing to do with "best attorneys", you're confusing the two.

1. One has to do with the firings;
2. the other has to do with the replacements.

The "replacement" attorneys were quoted this way:

Now, that section has been merged with the frauds section, which has dozens more attorneys, many of whom are the best attorneys in the office. From

The quote, rightly or wrongly, states that the unit that was disbanded, was merged with a unit that has "many of whom are the best" attorneys. So the issue goes back: Why weren't those "best" attorneys transferred into the "disbanded" unit; as opposed to disbanding the unit?

You haven't addressed that issue. Nice dodge, you appear to have learned well in DOJ.

Question for TPMM: Why is someone formerly assigned to DoJ distracting attention from the issue:

- Why weren't the "best" attorneys in the frauds section transferred to the ethics unit, as opposed to disbanding that unit?

- What is the reason DoJ employees have so much interest in explaining away the disbandment of the unit?

- Why was the unit disbanded, as opposed to being put under probation, or staffed with "better" counsel?

- If there was a training problem within the unit, why not inject with leadership, training, and experience other legal counsel who would perform?

- Why so much support for the "need" to disband the unit?

All we're getting (apparently) from former/current DOJ personnel are misquotes, and not direct answers. A sign of a problem, TPMM. Stay focused, and keep at it. There appears to be denial, non-sense, and excuses to shift attention, not provide direct answers.

The. Same. Problem. We. Saw. With. The. US. Atty. Firings.

We need to take a second look at this post from infurmashun.

It is curious that someone, apparently no longer connected with DOJ, would quickly dismiss public concerns about an issue which still hasn't been explored.

The concern is this: Someone, apparently "out of the loop" would have us question the motivations of someone outside DOJ, and change the subject from the DOJ disbandment decision, to whether or not someone's commentary on that disbandment should be listened to.

Let's refocus: Why are these people appearing to, in part, rely on ignorance and incomplete information to suggest someone has it wrong? The burden of proof is high on former DoJ Staff personnel to justify confidence in their sweeping assertions and claims.

This is news, which the US Attys appear to have asserted the opposite:

And as far as FISA and NSL abuses, the USAOs are the voice of reason in the administration on this front. The USAOs don't control these processes (the FBI and Main Justice do),

- "Control the process" -- huh? How can you say the "FBI controls the process", when the US attys are the ones who have the declination decision?

- Which "process" are you referring to: Be very specific: Which oversight, which reviews, which timelines, and which specific documents and reviews?

- Are you saying (a) the FBI, as investigators, and (b) DOJ staff, as supervisors above the US Attys, are working at odds with the US Attys; and is the DOJ AG not harmonizing the US Attys, FBI agents, and DOJ Staff?

Even if the "FBI did control the process," why weren't the US Attys ensuring that their conduct was lawful; and why aren't the US Attys, upon learning of the FBI liess to the FISA court/NLS abuses, bringing prosecutions against the FBI agents?

Inaction by the US Attys hardly sends a signal that "someone else" was or wasn't doing somethign wrong; inaction requires an agreement by the US Attys not to prosecute the FBI agents and others in DOJ who have alleged violated FISA and improperly used NSLs. This isn't "improper" conduct, it's alleged criminal conduct.

US Attys control the prosecution decisions of FBI agents and DOJ Staff. Or are you saying that someone trumped the US Atty's office, prohibited the prosecutions of FBI agents and DOJ Staff, and said that all DOJ OLC legal memoranda which is allegedly frivolous cannot be prosecuted by the US Attys as a war crime?

We have no evidence the US Attys are prosecuting FBI agents or DOJ Staff for alleged war crimes, FISA violations, illegal NSLs, or violations of the warrant requirements. "Voice of reason" is meaningless when the DOJ OLC, OVP, and WH Counsel appear to have trumped the US Attys, blocked prosecutions, and retaliated against US Attys for allegedly attempting to enforce the law against GOP public officials.

Is this not the real reason for disbanding the LA ethics office: That the ethics office was getting so slow-rolled by the GOP but the US prosecutors were stilling pursuing the cases, that the GOP was running out of options, and the "only option" was to disband the unit?

How close were the US Attys in LA to something really close to the White House, GOP leadership, and alleged complicity of political appointees within DOJ staff to alleged war crimes, FISa violations, conspiracy in re telecos, rendition, frivolous legal arguments, and DOJ OPR referrals to the DC Board on issues of alleged war crimes?

We don't know that. But it appears we're hearing convoluted non-sense to not dare consider that these issues might be the motivate to shut down the unit. What else does DOJ have planned for outside counsel who are helping to create a smokescreen; is the GOP going to reward outside GOP legal counsel with promises of future assignments as US Attys if they agree not to raise these issues of alleged war crimes, and alleged malfeasance by Asst US Attys?

All this alleged illegal activity, and we don't have very good insight into the explanation why the Asst US Attys haven't resigned en masse. Supposedly there was a "big concern" with the FISA violations, prompting supposed "threats of resignations"; but on the other issues, we hear today comments that "this sounds reasonable."

- Did any of the US Attys or Asst US Attys in LA threaten to resign for not getting the support they needed to break down alleged GOP barriers to prosecutions, investigations, and enforcement?

Budget Issues

Let's look at what's going on about the explanations for the disbandment. Whether TPMM has or hasn't covered DoJ "budget" issues in the past is irrelevant: We're narrowly talking about the disbandment.

The issue with "budget" is that, after the Ethics Office was disbanded, we originally heard information along the lines of non-budgetary issues:
- Training
- Lack of progress
- Statistics

What appear to be happening is that when the first line of responses didn't take hold, suddenly they broadened the explanation to include other factors. It may be true that there are budget issues. The point was this "budget issue" was not narrowly mentioned when the disbandment decision was first raised.

This smacks of explaining away the real issue: "Budget" was specifically mentioned, as opposed to vaguely referring to the explanations for the disbandment:

The budget problems -- no new hires, no raises, more work for less people -- had a devastating impact on the office's morale. And O'Brien's done a ton to address that -- raising salaries for the first time in years, bringing in dozens of new young prosecutors, and praising folks publicly for good work in ways no USA has in years. I observed all these things first hand.From

This is a problem, in that it misses the point:

The budget issue is not a new issue -- it's been covered here at TPM and elsewhere. From

No, the issue of "budget" had not been expressly stated by the LA US Attys when the story first broke about this disbandment. Rather, it was later, someone else raised it. Whether TPMM had or hadn't addressed the issue before is irrelevant: The budget issue was not expressly included with the words and commenting on the disbandment decision.

Again, the issue isn't what was driving the decision (that's another issue), but whether the explanation for the disbandment was or wasn't plausible. Rather than DOJ stating the reasons, we're relying on no-longer-assigned DOJ staff to refer to the "budget" issue. This smacks of outsiders, who have no information about the real reasons for the disbandment, to explain away something. The issue is that the focuse of the explanation is shifting from the disbandment decision and whether it was or wasn't proper; to whether the spin about that disbandment decision makes sense.

TPMM has no reason to be concerned about the spin, especially when there's this much effort to avoid directly discussion the real reasons. Spin about a disbandmenet decision, or whether that spin does or doesn't make sense does not address the issue of the disbandment. One issue is the decision; the second issue is the spin about that decision. It's absurd for the poublic to rely on formerly assigned DOJ Staff comments about the spin of that disbandment, but we're not hearing discussion about the real reasons for the disbandment.

None of the formerly assigned DOJ Staff or US/Asst US Attys who are commenting on TPMM have expressly stated, "We were privy to all the GOP-WH-DOJ staff deliberations about the US Atty disbanding the ethics office in LA." Rather, they're focusing on the unrelated issue: Does the spin about that decision, unrelated to the real reasons, make sense. If you're not part of the WH-GOP-DOJ OLC deliberations, then it is arguably meaningless for a forerly assigned counsel to comment only on the spin, and not comment on the real reasons for that disbandment. To be clear:

- We do not know what communiations the DOJ OLC, WH Counsel, or DOJ AG had with the US Atty in LA;

- We're not sure whether GOP, WH, or DOJ Staff loyal to the President above the Constitution have other reasons

- We're not interested in hearing whether the "spin about that disbandment" sounds reasonable; but whether the excuses for ending the review of this question defy logic, but warrant follow-up.

Based on what we've read it appears teh following is going on:

- DoJ Staff formely assigned to the US Attys Office in LA are not able to address the discussions the LA US Atty had with GOP, WH Counsel, or the DOJ OLC on the real motivation for disbanding the office.

- The discussion about the "budget issues" was not narrowly nor adequately raised by the US atty in LA; but was raised, after the fact, when the spin didn't take hold, by civil counsel formerly assigned to DOJ;

- DoJ Staff and formely assigned US Attys/staff/asst US Atty shave an unusual interest in explaining away the concerns about the disbandment on the basis of information which is not protected nor reliable.

Let's focus on the last point for a moment. DoJ Staff, when it gets information, is required to keep that confidential. The problem with formerly assigned US Attys/DOJ Staff publicly commenting on this disbandment is that they know whatever they say on this is their personal view, not liked with any internal deliberation. But for someone to say, (paraphrasing) "I used to work there" or "I know people who still work there" is meaningless, unless:
- Formerly assigned DOJ Staff, now commenting on TPMM, are getting information about the decision that they are not entitled to get.

Either they have new information linked with internal deliberations (raising the prospect of a security leak); or the comments they're making are really out of self-interest to shut down a review by TPMM of the larger alleged war crimes/malfeasance implications.

Said another way, it's curious that someone no longer assigned to DOJ would, without apparent access to DOJ internal deliberations, accept on face value what we're being told, but those explanations do not add up:

- DoJ Staff, if they had "poor stats" about the LA office, have not shown any effort to transfer US Attys from other units into this "poorly" performing unit;

- DOJ/US Attys assertions that this was for a "good" reason is not consistent with the coercion, implicit threats, and surprise of the US Atty staff.

- Outside concerns have not addressed the real reasons for the disbandment, merely commented on the spin about that disbandment, but offer us nothing new. Rather, the commentary appears incomplete, raises other questions, and asks that we believe those who cannot point to any evidence of the US Attys prosecuting DOJ Staff, DOJ OLC, WH counsel, or OVP counsel for alleged war crimes, FISA violations, or POW abuse. Someone has a credibility problem when they ask us to believe their commentary about the spin, but they cannot point to specific evidence they may or may not have about what the GOP, OVP, DOJ OLC, and WH Counsel were discussing.

At this juncture, formerly assigned DOJ Staff/former Asst US Atty comments on these issues should resolve these issues, not raise additional questions about their claims. We're going in the wrong direction. Things are not adding up.

We have two problems. The explanations for the US Atty disbanding the office do not add up; and it still appears formerly assigned DOJ Staff/Asst US Attys have been sitting on two sides of the fence: Not resigning or prosecuting; yet, asking us to believe that the spin about this disbandment should be believed in the absence of any public review of the DOJ OLC workflows on these discussion points with the LA US Atty on the disbandment decision. Specifically:

- We need to see the working group memoranda, notes, and calendars of the US Atty assigned to LA, the DOJ OLC calendars; and the DOJ Staff calendars;

- Formerly assigned DOJ Staff counsel/former US Attys need to provide something specific to show us they have new information, or something specific about the real reasons for the disbandment; and move away from apparently commenting on whether the "spin about the disbandment" does or doesn't make sense. It does not.

The point, not to be lost, is that this is hte same problem we had with the US Atty firings in the initial stages of the review. Rather than getting closure, the subsequent explanations did not add up, and created a bigger mess. The same is happening with this: Rather than getting closure, we're seeing inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies are subtle, but they are real and connected to what appears to be a smokescreen. Whether that smokescreen is real, or not is one issue; whether it is evidence of a larger effort to hide war crimes, POW abuse, or US Atty inaction on that is another. And whether the GOP supports disbanding the LA Ethics office because it was getting too close to issues the GOP thought it could slowroll remains to be understood. The response from the former DOJ staff/Asst US Attys are not helping address these latter issues; but appear to support the former smokescreen. Whether they intend to or not is irrelevant and secondary to the question: What was the real reason the US ATty disbanded the LA ethics office; and is this related to the US ATty firings in re political concerns driving prosecutions/declinations.

This thread, e-mail, and responses from DOJ former officials needs a follow-up.

Notice this rule does not require the opposite: To prosecute. It only imposes a standard to "not" prosecute unless there is probable cause.

A member in government service shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when the member knows or should know that the charges are not supported by probable cause.

Arguably, any agreement to suppress evidence of war crimes is not enforceable; and the original employment agreement mandating that suppression could be a subsequent offense under the laws of war. This rule would make it a violation of the standards for an attorney, formerly assigned to DOJ, to agree to not enforce the laws of war to avoid WH-GOP-led abuse against counsel.

However, arguably, an exception is this: The terms of the employment contract US Attys signed:

(1) Is a part of an employment, shareholders', or partnership agreement among members provided the restrictive agreement does not survive the termination of the employment, shareholder, or partnership relationship; or

- Did any of the formerly assigned Asst US Attys, as a condition of their employment, agree to keep secret evidence relating to war crimes, POW abuse, FISA violations, misconduct by peers, or Geneva violations?

- Has anyone signed an agreement to "not comment on" or "neither confirm nor deny" the terms of any agreement related to war crimes, POW abuse, FISA violations, or other illegal activity and policies of the US government, GOP, or other legal counsel?

Consider this DC rule which outlines the requirements to report misconduct by peers. However, here you'll see that there is not similar standard in CA: CA is not listed at 8.3.

A US Atty assigned to DC for "training" could have one set of standards; while the people they are training in LA, may have a different requirement. Saying someone "from DC" is going to be brought into LA to provide training is useless unless those who are brought into LA are experts on CA law. The DC-based people have different standards. Thus, we conclude the "training explanation" lacks merit; and doubt whether the "future training" of the personnel removed from the disbanded unit will ever take place; or that they will be from DC.

Someone needs to provide a clean story:

- Why are people in DC, with different ethics requirements, better suited to provide training to US Attys/Asst US Attys in California?

- What was the process DOJ planned to use to reconcile the "DC-based experts" on the law with the legal requirements of counsel in CA?

- Before these "DC-based" lawyers are brought into LA, who will be providing "training to the trainers" to ensure the DC-based are "up to speed" on the CA requirements on US Attys assigned to LA?

- Why isn't DoJ using CA-based legal counsel to provide training to CA-based legal cousel within DoJ?

We may wish to consider issues of alleged bribery: Have any of the US Attys been promised something of value for inaction on war crimes. Here">http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/dc/narr/DC_NARR_8.HTM#8.4:300">Here we see that there are exceptions to the "moral terpitude" standard:

The DC Court of Appeals has defined moral turpitude as conduct "contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."

- Have any of the formerly assigned US Attys agreed to not enforce the laws of war in exchange of promises of future employment, or GOP support for them as judicial nominees?

- Who formerly assigned to US Attys office is reluctant to speak on issues of alleged war crimes, FISA violations, NSL abuses and the lack of prosecutions on those legal issues given possible political opposition for them as a judicial nominee?

- Who in private practice is reluctant to comment on these alleged war crimes issues out of fear of retaliation by the GOP, WH, OLC, CIA or others for commenting on war crimes issues; or risking their chances to get a judicial nomination and confirmation?

- Does DOJ OPR concur with the former Asst US Attys comments on their actions/inactions/decisions in the wake of learning of the alleged Geneva breaches in trial procedure?

- Is there an issue of "honesty" which DoJ OPR through the DC rules would investigate; but they would ignore when applying the CA rules to US Attys in Los Angeles?

- Who ensure the DOJ OPR are ensuring US Attys are not gaming the ethics standards to justify inaction in re Geneva breaches, FISA violations, NSL abuses, or other activity which DOJ should prosecute?

- In re ethics, Geneva, FISA, NLS, and warrants: What happens when lawyers working for the US Attys office in LA refuse to play the same game DoJ, GOP, or the WH Counsel is playing: Do they have their unit disbanded for non-sensical reasons?

TPMM also has a gap, suggesting that something from the origianl email is missing:

O'Brien also done more to fix the budget problems, to boost morale, and enforce accountability in the office than any U.S. Attorney in LA in recent memory.

[TPM gap here]

It's the accountability piece that motivated the disbanding of the public corruption section.

- What were the conditions of the revelation of the email?

- What text was removed from this block, or other sections of the discolsed email?

- Is there any email TPMM has not disclosed related to this disclosed communication?

- Why is there a space between these two block quotes?

A decision of the Senate, is unrelated to the US Atty's subsequent actions. This smacks of an irrelevant, dubious attempt to get verbal armor, where non is warranted:

he was backed strongly by both Democratic senators Boxer and Feinstein for a job that most people figured was too radioactive to get Senate approval for anyone in the wake of the U.S. Attorney's scandal.

The US Atty is subject to review. That the Senate may have "approved" him doesn't mean that US Atty is not subject to scrutiny. Rather, invoking armor, this kind of armor, makes the problem worse: "This is the best defense the US Atty has: His conduct today doesn't stand on its own; the only option is to rely on the Senate's decision, before the disbandment decision.

Irrelevant the Senate supporters were in the DNC: That just an attempt to get the DNC-membership to do nothing. Wrong.

It's irrelevant the Senate confirmed; and unrelated to the disbandment decision, the spin about the disbandment, or the stated reasons for the disbandment. A weak defense does not defend, but invites more questions. Hardly a good sign for DoJ or the White House.

Why should we believe this:

In fact, a huge group of folks moved from the public corruption section to the frauds section a year or so ago, and that's worked out just fine.

- Did the White House agree with this talking point?

- Why is this relevant to explaining the US Attys's threats against counsel for discussing the "right" decision?

Smacks more of "nothing to see here, move along." Nope.

Are these disclosures about internal DOJ declination decisions related to investigations:

And Mary, I'm sorry, but you're wrong about the Lewis investigation. Debra Yang's move to Gibson Dunn had absolutely no impact on the case. She was not running the investigation -- she had no impact on the day-to-day of the case. So that had no impact. O'Brien's appointment of Emmick to the Lewis investigation was widely seen and reported as a major boost to the investigation and an indication that the investigation was being taken very seriously by the office. No one expected Emmick to go anywhere, and he was an office institution. There's no conspiracy here. The investigation is still going, despite major challenges. From

- Why is someone commenting on investigations, without going through DOJ PA?

- Why is anyone in or formerly with DOJ commenting on investigation decisions or details?

- Are they commenting on a peer in the legal community, and their ability to do their work?

This smells like a cover-up with major DOJ spin. Note what is missing from this: Outside decisions to not support or retaliate against US Attys who want to prosecute or investigate, but that action contradicts political objectives:

the USAOs can make sure these things are done right in the cases they prosecute, and can refuse to prosecute cases where these things were not done right.

What may or may not have happened before is separate from what is really going on: We still don't know. The way this "talking point" is worded, it leaves open the possibility someone inside the LA US Atty's office, at the disbanded unit, has been gagged, and threatened with other things if they dare prosecute a case which the President, DOJ AG, or others do not like.

- What about the cases that they refuse to, are blocked from, or told not to prosecute?

- How many cases did the White House know this unit was exploring, but didn't want prosecuted?

- Why didn't you comment on the cases that the US prosecutors know should be prosecuted, but are contrary to the President's/GOP/DoJ objectives?

The more you re-read the "M" email, and the subsequent comments from "former" Asst US Attys, the more convoluted things are. This is not adding up.

Follow-up needed. Tell your friends. There's a mess here. Looks like the White House is sweating.

Based on information and belief, we judge one factor behind the LA Units' disbandment has to do with issues related to war crimes, Geneva violations, and official misconduct warranting prosecution before a war crimes trial. The information below may form the basis to issue indictments against senior Administration officials, former and current US prosecutors, and Members of Congress in re alleged malfeasance and failure to enforce the laws of war.

Confluence of Factors

As we continue with the analysis, there are several issues which dovetail, which include a list of statutes, authorities, and issues related to alleged war crimes:

- US Attys Standards of Conduct in the US Atty Manual (USAM), as investigated by DOJ OPR

- Prosecutor Standards of Conduct

- Nuremberg precedents at the Justice Trial

- Obligations of US government offiicals to enforce the laws of war, secure war crimes eivdence, and fully assert their oath of office to enforce the Supreme Law which includes the Geneva Conventions.

- Member of Congress Harmon's inconsistent statements on FISA activities [Despite being a lawyer, first she knew, but did nothing; then later said she was shocked about the activity.]

- Italian court re-stating the war crimes trials against US government officials including CIA agents and DoD personnel

Fatal Assertions Contrary To Interest

One exception to the hearsay rule is a statement made contrary to interests. TPMM and/or posters of TPMM has posted information which may be of interest to war crimes prosecutors. These alleged fatal assertions relate to issues of war crimes. Until this investigation ends, we presume the former US Attys' statements are made to TPMM with the knowledge that they could be entered into evidence before a war crimes tribunal.

Internal Deliberations

Internal deliberations are protected by an attorney-client privilege; however, under the laws of war, when legal counsel make frivolous legal arguments, those attorneys' statements can attach to them the original war crimes.

It appears something has breached this privilege. Once disclosed, the information cannot be put back into the burning barn. Here are revelations of disagreement within the DoJ on US government policies, which appears related to the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) exception as a statement contrary to interest: It is most likely true because the statement, if true, is contrary to their interests; and they would not have made the statement unless it was true, even though the statement undermines their legal position or defense:

"And yes, I felt real apprehension working for an administration whose policies I strongly disagreed with. And many of my colleagues felt the same."

- What was the nature of the disagreement?

- Why are you disclosing details of internal deliberations?

- Who else was concerned about war crimes, but that nothing was being done?
- Did the formerly assigned US Atty exhaust all legal options?

- Can they demonstrate they've fully asserted their responsibilities to enforce the laws of war?

- Have they agreed to not prosecute alleged war crimes for improper purposes?

Assertion of Professional Understanding of Legal Issues, Professional Standards, Legal Obligations

This is a free admission that they have a DoJ connection; knew, or should have known, various standards above in re Geneva/USAM/prosecutor standards; and that they knew they had a duty to act.

"former federal prosecutor" From

This statement implicitly suggests that "M" has been in receipt of classified information; and allegedly does not have an ongoing, lawful basis to receive that information; but would ask us to believe that they should be trusted.

I've followed the recent events in the office closely and talked to several folks who were at the meeting in question.

- What was the substance of that conversation?

- What information did any of those at this meeting disclose to outside personnel?

- Was this disclosure not authorized, prohibited, or contrary to any DoJ guideline or standard?

- Did the personnel at the meeting disclose information; and did someone not authorized to receive this information retransmit it to third parties, despite them knowing that the retransmission of that information may be a subsequent illegal act in violation of DOJ classification guidelines?

- Why should we have confidence in a former US Atty who should now the attorney standards of conduct; is aware of classification guidelines; continues to apparently still have access to classified information

Curiously, they've anonymously provided the information to TPMM; but would ask us to believe they "know" something which could implicate them in sharing classified information with the public. We can only speculate why they would do this, despite knowing the serious legal consequences of receiving and retransmitting this alleged classified information. Yet, despite this alleged fatal admission that they've received and retransmitted classified information, they've posted this information through an email, and given consent to have that email displayed. Yet, we have no information about an ongoing DOJ OPR investigation into this alleged illegal disclosure and retransmission of classified information.

If there is no prosecution or DoJ OPR investigation, then one adverse inference: The information is not classified, was designed to be disclosed, and was disclosed to mislead the public and investigators about other, real reasons behind the disbandment decision.

- Is this former US Atty/Asst US Atty who is making these comments on and through TPMM not being prosecuted for receiving and reporting classified information because the information is incorrect, designed to help the President, and create a smokescreen to hide the real reasons for the disbandment?

Disclosures About Geneva Standards

A. Quote on TPMM

This quote links DoD with DoJ. This is very important.

"In a sense, my protest against the administration's practices was to do prosecutions in the right way, to show that we could build good cases without resort to the kind of extreme tactics applied in Gitmo and elsewhere." From

Once DoD-related issues surface within DoJ, the US Attys do not have to rely only on the FBI for information. The US Attys can also go to the criminal investigators within the DoD to find evidence. Personnel in DoD who are aware of war crimes, as they should have been aware, have a duty to report this illegal activity to their commanders.

- Did the US Attys request of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NAVY NCIS), Criminal Investigative Division (ARMY CID), and Office of Special Investigations (AIR FORCE OSI) evidence DoD personnel may have provided to DoD related to these alleged war crimes? [Alleged war crimes evidence under DoD control, which US Attys should have reviewed, and presented to US Courts.]

B. DoD Rendition Related Evidence Available to DoJ US Attys

There is also another connection to DoD, which the US Attys should have known. This is important because it establishes as separate reporting channel outside DoJ within DoD of alleged war crimes evidence. This is the rendition-related allegations and arrest warrants issued against DoD officials.

Here is a key name that I would like you to keep in mind: Lt. Colonel Joseph L. Romano III . This is only an allegation. This person has been issued an arrest warrant for their alleged complicity with the CIA rendition in Italy. The Italian case has restarted. The Italians were investigating rendition. The Italian high court put the case on hold until they could review the legal issues. Last week, the Italians stated they were going to restart the investigation, prosecution, and war crimes indictment.

Lt. Colonel Joseph L. Romano III is alleged to have been involved with the security arrangements in Italy, and alleged to have assisted the CIA agents in conducting alleged war crimes rendition against an Italian national. Lt. Colonel Joseph L. Romano III is reported to be in the United States Air Force, and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As a military officer, their oath is to the US Constitution. Military officers have an oath to enforce the laws of war, and report violations of the laws of war to their commanders. Those in DoD who know of Lt. Colonel Joseph L. Romano III and his alleged actions have either:

A. Reported information about him as required under Geneva, and this information is available to US prosecutors; or

B. They know about his alleged activity, but have not provided that information, as required.

- What effort have the US Attys, who openly assert on TPMM that they were aware of the Geneva standards, made to secure this alleged war crimes evidence from DoD?

- Why are the US Attys not prosecuting DoD officials for their alleged complicity with the CIA in implementing the alleged unlawful kidnapping, torture, and war crimes against POWs?

- Do the former US Attys commenting on TPMM have a statement as to their knowledge of alleged war crimes evidence which they have not used in any court against US government officials, CIA personnel, DoD officers, or US government contractors or intermediaries?

- When former US Attys commenting on TPMM implicitly state that they were concerned that there were Geneva violations in re POW trials, can they point to anything that would show they attempted to prosecute these alleged war crimes?

We've seen with the NSA issues that the President and DOJ AG would agree to block the DOJ OPR review of that alleged illegal activity: FISA violations. The same must be asked of the alleged war crimes evidence: Whether the President and others agreed to block reviews of US Attys malfeasance and decisions to not prosecute violations of the laws of war?

- What effort, if any, did the DOJ AG and President make to block DOJ OPR review of alleged US Atty misconduct in their decision to not enforce the laws of war; refuse to prosecute; assent to direction not to enforce the laws of war; or not inquire into DoD-CIA-NSA evidence supporting charges against US government officials, employees, officers, agents, contractors or others?

Fatal Assertion Connecting US Attys To Geneva and Knowledge of Alleged Geneva Violations

The problem is the US Atty's alleged inaction: No US prosecutions against US personnel for war crimes against POWs; or charges by US Attys against US military personnel allegedly complicit with rendition-related war crimes.

The legal issue is whether they knew of the alleged war crimes, but did not fully enforce Geneva. This could be a charge of malfeasance before a war crimes tribunal.

These assertions state that they knew there was a "right" and "wrong" way to do prosecutions under the laws of war and Geneva Conventions; that they were aware of "extreme tactics" which may have violated Geneva; and they were aware of specific legal requirements which appear to have not been fully met by the United States officials as detaining officials and powers:

- What effort did the US Attys make to gather this information outside the DoD channels, and secure it within DoJ?

- Did the US Attys direct the FBI, to review these issues?

The media may have disclosed things related to the laws of war; and provided some in the DOJ concerns about the treatment of POWs under Geneva. The US Atty oath doesn't say, "Best effort," but to fully defend the Constitution against all domestic enemies. Geneva, as a treaty obligation, is part of the Supreme Law, which the US Attys have an obligation to enforce.

- Once this US Atty knew, or should have known, they were aware of information that POWs were not being treated as they should under Geneva, did they make all efforts to launch an investigation to secure that evidence for prosecution against US persons?

- What coordination did the US Attys have with the JAGs on issues of Geneva requirements?

- Did the US Attys do more than discuss concerns with POW abuse at the POW working group meetings?

US Atty Action in Re SCOTUS

At the Justice Trail, Nuremberg established the precedent that justices may be prosecuted for not enforcing the laws of war. Arguably, once the Supreme Court ruled the rendition-related issues a "state secret," that legal conclusion becomes the subject of a US Atty review: Have the justices made a subsequent violation of Geneva by not enforcing the legal requirements of Geneva, and impermissibly refusing to review the alleged war crimes?

Going back to the DoD connection to the rendition effort, and the mandatory DoD-reporting requirements, the question becomes: Have the US Attys reviewed the FBI and DoD criminal investigators' reports related to rendition, POW abuse, and other alleged war crimes for purposes of prosecuting US government officials? This may be something that the President and DOJ AG, as was done with the FISA violations/DOJ OPR review, have blocked.

The questions back to the US Attys become: What standards are the US Attys using to investigate, not investigate, prosecute or not prosecute the Supreme Court justice in re war crimes?

Also, with alleged inaction by the US Attys in re war crimes, where is the DOJ OPR investigation against the prosecutors; or has this DoJ OPR investigation, as happened with the FISA violations, shut down by the President and DOJ AG?

Let's turn back to Congress. Suppose DoJ and the US Attys have, by default or decision, chosen to do nothing. The question goes back to the issues raised in the Harmon inconsistent statements: Is Congress doing nothing about [a] the aleged war crimes; [b] the alleged US Atty inaction; and [c] alleged violation of Geneva by the Supreme Court because the Members of Congress knew about the illegal activity, approved of it, and did not timely act on it?

Going back to the Harmon statements on FISA, it appears that Members of Congress knew or should have known about the Geneva violations; and knew or should have known that US attys were not enforcing the laws of war; and knew of should have known that an impeachment investigation was not happening as it should have.

Further, it also appears Congress and former WH Counsel are abusing the subpoena process to identify and intimidate witnesses to dissuade discussion, identify personnel with knowledge of the illegal activity, silence discussion about Member of Congress malfeasance about FISA-NSA violations and warrantless interrogations.

We've also learned from CREW that the WH email destruction appears to be linked with specific war crimes related issues.

As a side note, for any of the leading Presidential candidates [McCain, Clinton, Obama, all Senators] to claim they are about "change," but not implement that change as Senators today in 2008, we have a problem:

- Are those advocating for change going to ensure the wall between DoJ/US Attys/DoD and the justice system in re Geneva is torn down; and that US Attys and Members of Congress and the Supreme Court are brought before a war crimes tribunal?

Real change would mean these three candidates would discuss supporting Italian war crimes prosecutors to find the CIA and DoD personnel allegedly complicit with these war crimes. Silence. They have the power in the Senate to investigate. We have no investigations. Why aren't they changing now in the Senate, as opposed to promising to change in the future as President? Let's see them lead in the Senate to investigate these alleged war crimes attached to the US Attys office. Until then, the voters should not take seriously any of the three Senators. Lead now, not promise something later.

Review Questions

The above issues are simple, but they are not yet organized. We don't know the details.

Former US Attys commenting on the US Atty decision to disband the ethics unit. These comments appear to be important in terms of rules of evidence, fatal admissions, and US prosecutors' duties under Geneva to enforce the laws of war. It does not appear all that could have been done was; or that something that should have happened did not. We've seen with the NSA issues, the President and DOJ AG blocked DOJ OPR.

- What information from the Italian war crimes prosecutions, arrest warrants, and notices sent to all EU countries about DoD and CIA officials have US Attys known about, not acted on, or been thwarted from supporting with other investigations?

- Have any DoD personnel been threatened if they reported war crimes related evidence about their leadership to criminal investigators?

- Has the US Attys office requested of DoD evidence about US DoD personnel knowledge of DoD personnel support for war crimes in re rendition?

- Which legal obligations under Geneva have US Attys, DoD officials, or other legal counsel violated by not providing war crimes evidence to the Italians?

- Who within DoD knows about specific war crimes evidence allegedly linked with DoD officials in Italy; but have threatened others in DoD to be quiet about this war crimes evidence, allegedly committing a subsequent violation of Geneva under the laws of war [witness tampering, witness intimidation]?

- What review has DoJ OPR made of the prosecutor standards of conduct, DoJ's USAM manual, and examined whether current/formerly assigned US Attys have not fully asserted their oath and not prosecuted US government officials for war crimes?

- Where are the FBI and DoD criminal investigator reports related to these alleged war crimes at GTMO and Italy; and when did the US Atty's Office review and decide not to enforce the laws of war using this evidence; or where they blocked by DoJ AG and the President from prosecuting these cases?

- What is the status of the US Attys legal action against the Justices on the Supreme Court for their alleged refusal to enforce the laws of war, and not review evidence in open trial of the alleged war crimes US government officials committed?

- What standards are the US Attys ignoring in not brining a legal action against the Supreme Court justice as was done at the Justice Trial, for their alleged refusal not to enforce the laws of war in re rendition?

- What is the status of the DOJ OPR investigation into the alleged malfeasance/inaction by US Attys, as commented here on TPMM?

- What is really stopping the US Attys prosecutions against DoJ, CIA, DoD, and White House officials?

- Why is there no Congressional action; are they aware of the illegal activity, and fear that their action today would implicate them for not having acted earlier?

- Is there no plan by anyone to prosecute any of the US Attys for alleged malfeasance in re the Geneva Conventions?

- How many emails does CREW think WH-GOP deleted related to war crimes evidence?

- Why didn't the US Atty capture policy makers and CIA officials complicit with war crimes, and order FBI or US Marshalls to detain for trial personnel implicated with the rendition efforts in Italy?

- How does the apparent US Attys' inaction in re war crimes compare with their attorney standards of conduct, prosecutor standards of conduct, and standards DOJ OPR investigates?

- Why has there been no action against the US Attys for their alleged inaction in re war crimes by US government officials?

- Why were there no Asst US Atty action to secure FBI, DoD criminal investigators to secure evidence of war crimes in re rendition?

- Is someone formerly assigned to the LA office saying they have no duty under Geneva to investigate; why are they publicly commenting now that they were aware of Geneva violations, but apparently didn't take action to prosecute?

- Who threatened DoJ officials, US Attys, or other former Asst US Attys in DoJ to not enforce the laws of war, or not secure this evidence from DoD in re rendition?

- What lessons about the President/DoJ AG blocking DoJ OPR in re FISA violations should we apply to the apparent decision within DoJ to block US Attys from prosecuting violations of the laws of war: Which WH counsel, DOJ staff have coordinated efforts to block war crimes investigations or retaliate against US Attys/Former Asst US Attys for their efforts to enforce the laws of war: Which nominations were rejected because of substantial concerns these prosecutors attempted to investigate Geneva violations but were not cooperative with WH-led efforts to stile Geneva enforcement?

- Which internal deliberations have posters at TPMM disclosed, thereby breaching the "internal deliberation" privilege; and substantially disclosed details supporting a FOIA related to those internal DoJ discussions? [These are post-decisional discussions, not protected, outside DOJ]

- What specific war crimes allegations did the former Asst US Attys say were supported by probable cause, but they did not investigate and/or prosecute?

- What were the disagreements within DoJ, that the former Asst US Attys have publicly commented on, related to these Geneva provisions which they knew, or should have known were contrary to the laws of war; and they had a duty to investigate, enforce, prosecute, and present to a grand jury to secure war crimes convictions against US government officials, officers, agents, contractors, or employees?

- Where were these US Attys/former Asst US attys when they were aware of JAG concerns raised at the POW working group meetings; do these former US Attys/Asst US Attys have any comments about the Reyes memos disclosed raising concerns that world knowledge of these war cries would result in a backlash?

- Did the President and DOJ AG encourage any US prosecute to not enforce Geneva because of the pretext that law enforcement in re Geneva would result in a backlash; or that public knowledge of these war crimes would undermine an already flawed effort in Iraq and Afghanistan?

- What are the specific plans of the tree leading Presidential candidates [McCain, Clinton, Obama] to identify the problems related to the above, and change them; why are they not starting this effort now in the Senate?

The US Attys are supposed to be independent; why will a "new" President mean anything to the same US Attys who have allegedly agreed to do nothing about Geneva violations: Changing would mean they would contradict their previous decision to do nothing, and could be entered into evidence.

- Even with a new President, why should we believe the US Attys or FBI investigators will change or respond to leadership to enforce the laws of war?

- How much are the entire pool of US prosecutors and FBI-CID-NCIS-OSI personnel tainted, and cannot be relied upon?

- To what extent were federal officials using NSLs to retaliate against others commenting on problems US government investigator had in being tainted, and have not properly done what they should have done in re Geneva-related investigations, prosecutions, and evidence protection?

The benefit of impeachment proceedings, regardless the outcome of the Senate trial, is that it would trump the President's pardon.

- Given all the above, what again is the reason the House leadership refuses to impeach?

- Is the decision to "not impeach" and "not investigate" linked with Member of Congress knowledge and inaction about war crimes?

- What lessons can we glean from the Harmon statements on FISA violations: TO what extent are Members of Congress also tainted in that they've known about Geneva violations, have not acted, and assented to "secrecy agreements" to remain silent about war crimes?

- Which media personnel have Members of Congress, the President, and US prosecutors/investigators retaliated against for discussing these issues?

- Why is a former US prosecutor discussing things which someone in the media has been prosecuted for reporting? It appears the prosecutions are not to enforce the law, but to retaliate; this is supported by the alleged reckless conduct by a former US Atty to do exactly what the media reported on: Allegedly disclose classified information related to internal DoJ discussions.

The public has a reasonable basis to question the statements of the former US Attys; and question the prosecutions of media personnel who report on the very conduct these former DoJ personnel appear to have repeated: Alleged disclosure of classified information. This information needs to be provided to the Italian war crimes prosecutor, and form the basis of a wider legal review of US Atty's alleged complicity with decisions to not enforce Geneva requirements against DoD and CIA personnel. This could be a subsequent war crime under the laws of war, and there is no statute of limitations. Fatal disclosures by formerly assigned DOJ Staff counsel and former US attys/Asst US Attys on TPMM may be entered into evidence before war crimes tribunals.

- Which specific emails does CREW alleged are linked with war crimes; but the WH-GOP has deleted?

- How many subpoenas have outside counsel issued not to enforce any secret, but to identify those who have evidence of war crimes allegedly linked with frivolous legal arguments by legal counsel?

- To what extent are current/formerly assigned US government counsel/outside counsel improperly using the legal process to stifle discussion of public concerns with war crimes, POW abuse, rendition, and other alleged violations of the laws of war?

- Which improperly obtained evidence [through FISA violations, or POW abuse] was subsequently impermissibly used to justify other illegal activity, NSA violations, or war crimes against POWs and American citizens?

- Why isn't the Senate, with three of its Senators leading the way to become President, acting now?

-