Mueller didn't answer this:

Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

The US Attorney Manual has no control over whether the FBI does or does not investigate.

This shows FBI director is being deceptive:

Matters involving torture (18 U.S.C. §§ 2340- 2340B), war crimes (18 U.S.C. § 2441), and genocide (18 U.S.C. §§ 1091-1093) raise issues of national and international concern. Successful prosecution of these matters requires both careful coordination within the Department of Justice and careful coordination between the Department and senior officials in the foreign affairs and military communities.

The USAM assigns broad, standing authority to the US prosecutors. The US Prosecutors are expected to act independently, and have a legal obligation per their oath of office to act. As with the US Attorney firings, we learned even when that independence is violated, the Congress is not willing to aggressively challenge the White House corruption of the US Attorneys.

Permissive Standard For US Attorneys

Here is the standard, which is not narrowly permissive, but the opposite, puts a burden on the US Attorney to merely notify when there is an investigation:

When the USAO opens any torture, war crimes, or genocide matter, the USAO shall promptly notify the Domestic Security Section (DSS) of the Criminal Division.

- Where was the US Attorney's office notification to the DSS?

- Why was this notification not provided?

- Who refused to accept this notification?

- Who reversed the USAM standard from one of USAO notification to DSS, to the opposite: DSS direction to USAO not to provide notifications to DSS?

Look at the evidence that should be there, which White House counsle and outside contractors would know to delete from the RNC and White House emails:

Notification may be made by email or telephone (or by secured means where necessary), and may utilize the standard Case Notification Form available from DSS if preferred.

Recall, we've learned through the US Attorney firings, that when the DOJ moves on something, this White House would have to approve, or be involved with that prosecution decision.

- When these war crimes notification surfaced, how did the White House counsel coordinate with software auditors to destroy those emails from DoJ to the White House; did they destroy all DoD notifications to the White House of these war crimes investigations?

- Who provided direction not to use this case notification form?

- What other methods of notification were used?

- How was the "case notification form" changed, under whose direction, to change procedures, and lengthen the review times to infinity?

Here are the subsequent consultations that should have happened:

If after notification, DSS determines that there are related matters pending in another district that could be affected by the new matter, DSS will so inform the USAO and will advise the other district of the new matter

- How were DSS determinations managed?

- When did DSS inform USAO of its determination not to allow a war crimes investigation into US DoD or CIA abuses of POWs?

- How were other districts involved with the notification?

Posse Comitatus does not apply to the NAVY; only the DOD directives prohibit the NAVY from being used against civilians. To get this waiver in how US civilians were detained by the NAVY, someone in DoD would have had to coordinate with the DOJ OLC to ensure the DoD restrictions against Navy abuse against US citizens would not be enforced.

- Which war crimes issues related to POW abuse at Guantanamo should have been handled by districts where US Naval units were ordered to ignore DoD Directives, and agree to their unlawful use against American citizens?

- How were DoD directives "not applicable to the NAVY under the DOJ OLC memo" then used to tell the US Attorneys not to prosecute these war crimes against POWs?

DSS shall immediately notify CTS of all notifications made by a USAO under this paragraph.

Once the order was given not to permit any investigations, what questions did DSS receive -- in re this mandatory notification; and how were these "non notification decisions" handled and documented by DSS?

Nothing in the DOJ, FBI, USAM "legalizes" any order to not investigate war crimes. Rather, the oppoiste is the case: Where there are war crimes, but no investigation or prosecution, that malfeasance is a subsequent offense under Geneva.

- Who, in violatino of Geneva, directed the FBI not to enforce the laws of war against US DoD and CIA personnel by blocking FBI investigations?

Going back to the original question:

Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

It appears the answer, as was the case with the FISA violations, is the President: The President directed DOJ OPR not to review the DoJ activit which violated FISA. The Headline should read, as with the FBI interviews of the Wecht Grand jury, "White House implicated in blocking FBI investigation of war crimes".

The President has been implicated in the illegal destruction of war crimes evidence:

- CIA tape destruction

- Blocking FBI investigations

- The RNC and White House email destruction timelines.

It was clearly established that civilian policy makers, legal counsel, and outside contractors may be prosecuted for war crimes. Legal counsel in DOJ, currently and formerly assigned, could be adjudicated with war crimes.

The 7,000 pages of CIA notes on rendition were fair notice through DOJ OLC that there were war crimes issues and concerns in re rendition. Nobody at the CIA or outside counsel could credibly argue that these issues were correctly "classified." War crimes evidence cannot be lawfully suppressed, hidden, or classified.

The DOJ OLC memoranda on abuse and torture of POWs shows the CIA knew, well before the CIA tape destruction, that the DOJ OLC was concerned that there were war crimes issues, and that US government personnel might be prosecuted. No one can credibly argue the DoJ OLC memo given to the CIA after 2001 on rendition was not fair notice that the 7,000-pages of CIA rendition notes trumped any claim that the CIA might make that they had "no idea" there were war crimes issues.

FBI agents needs to explain why they have not reviewed civilian legal counsel's alleged complicity with rendition; and why the FBI has not ignored the President's illegal orders to classify evidence of war crimes. There is no legal basis for the rendition memos to have been suppressed, nor for the CIA tapes of POW abuse to have been destroyed.

The issue of the FBI role is a partial misdirection. The US Attorneys have a role, outside the FBI, to independently act. We've learned with the US Attorney firings, the DOJ OLC and White House counsel are on the same page. Only the President has the power to block both the FBI and the US Attorney. His orders were illegal.

Unlike Watergate with illegal surveillance, the current President is using the FBI to block war crimes investigations. Nixon was domestic illegal activity; Bush is international war crimes. Congress refuses to confront the President's war crimes, and illegal orders because Members of Congress are complicit, know about the malfeasance, and refuse to fully do their jobs, as required under the laws of war. War crimes could attach to Member of Congress' legal counsel for legal memoranda encouraging inaction against the President's war crimes. Congress likes the Presidential election because it shifts attention away from their complicity with war crimes. As long as the US government refuses to respect the laws of war by failing to fully support needed Congressional investigations, this US government remains illegitimate and does not deserve support.

The FBI director's problem is that he, as the Chief Law enforcement officer in the FBI, has a double standard on procedures and protocols. On one hand, he says that his "protocols" required him to do things; but he's not pointing to anything specific as to what he did or didn't do. Indeed, it's illegal to classify evidence of war crimes.

The FBI director needs to explain whose orders he illegally followed permitting him to have his hands tied. There is never a "legal basis" for the FBI to not investigate war crimes. The FBI can do anything it wants, even get an illegal NSL. But in this case, suddenly, the FBI says, "We can't do that."

The DOJ does not "give" the FBI a legal basis on each situation. It's up to the US Attorneys, outside the FBI, to direct prosecutions. The White House needs to explain its role in thwarting the US Attorneys prosecution efforts; and whether the FBI director should be prosecuted for complicity with blocking war crimes investigations.

Legal memoranda are not defenses to blocking war crimes investigations, but they are evidence explaining the link between malfeasance and the original illegal activity and unlawful orders.

FBI director needs to point to the specific memoranda he has documenting his concerns with the DOJ OLC memoranda. To date, the FBI director has not been responsive. It's illegal to classify evidence of war crimes; or DoD-Presidential decisions to block war crimes investigations.

We need some answers why the FBI, supposedly "shocked" by the POW abuse, did not, in fact, arrest the DoD and CIA personnel and contractors engaged in this abuse; and what linkage these FBI concerns had with the rendition program. FBI agents can arrest anyone. DoJ has to do two things: First say that arrests in re war crimes will not occur; and that there will be consequences on FBI agents who attempt to arrest CIA and DOD officials.

- What were the Presidential orders to DoJ officials to threaten FBI agents if they did attempt to arrest CIA or DoD officials complicit with war crimes?

FBI director needs to provide some evidence of when he was "suspicious" of the DOJ OLC memos; and what actions he took. It's absurd for Mukasey as DOJ AG to say the DOJ OLC memos were not relied on: If not, then what were DoD and CIA personnel relying on: Direct Presidential orders?

Recall, the US position on court access, was the terrorists had no power to compel any court review. FBI needs to explain which US citizens the FBI thought in 2002 would trigger a court case against the US government for abuses against prisoners.

Should the opinions be overturned, what plan did the FBI have to then investigate? FBI should not have waited to safeguard evidence. FBI needs to explain why it did not get concerned when the FBI learned of White House email destruction; and how the WH email destruction timeline squared with the disclosures about CIA-DoD abuses. FBI cannot justify waiting until after the opinions are overturned to then safeguard war crimes evidence. FBI needs to explain to Congress and the public why it has not safeguarded evidence since 2001; and why, on top of these war crimes concerns, it did not swiftly move to safeguard the White House emails.

- Why did the FBI agree not to safeguard the White House emails?

- Which Presidential order to the DOJ AG Gonzalez directed the FBI not to investigate White House email destruction?

- How was the CIA 'determination' to torture people documented;

- How did this documentation square with the DOJ OLC memoranda;

- Why was the CIA destroying tapes after the DOJ OLC memoranda outlined legal implications?

CIA personnel have been lying about whether they thought the tapes had "no connection" with any litigation.

FBI director needs to show, in writing, which documents he has that show what was decided (investigate, gather evidence); and how the President overruled this decision.

- When did the FBI notify DoD and CIA of evidence that war crimes had occurred; why did the President direct suppression of this war crimes evidence after 2001?

Notice FBI director has not mentioned specific names, he only mentioned the agency designation/letters. Rather than answering who in DoJ the FBI worked with, he vaguely mentions coordination. He's not answering whether he has fully met the FBI requirements under Geneva to investigate the President.

- Where are the DOJ workflows documenting the DOJ Staff activity in response to these FBI notifications in re war crimes?

The FBI director did nto agree to give anything; only that he would respond later. The FBI director cannot credibly claims war crimes evidence is classified, especially when DoJ AG says he won't enforce the laws of war. The DOJ AG Mukasey has publicly stated he will not comply with Geneva. His reasons for that illegal activity are irrelevant; but all memoranda related to that illegal activity -- both before, during and after that decision -- cannot be shielded by privilege. See Nixon.

Congress cannot credibly call itself a separate branch of government when it listens to this non-sense from the FBI. Once the FBI director invokes "protocols" he's opened himself up to a a FOIA: To provide copies of those protocols on FBI notifications, standards, and other things related to war crimes. As lead agency investigating war crimes, the FBI doesn't comply with DoD directives: It investigates to gather evidence. FBI should not be dancing around worried about CIA or DoD protocols, but whether that war crimes evidence is or isn't safeguarded outside DoD-CIA ability to destroy.

Once the FBI learned of the CIA decision to violate Geneva, commit torture, and abuse POWs, they had a duty to gather than evidence. They knew the opinions might have been turned over. That foreseeable reversal meant the FBI had a duty to safeguard that likely material war crimes evidence. FBI needs to explain why all evidence of use to the US government defendants -- those in the White House -- was not provided to the President's legal counsel. The President in ordering a shut down of this FBI investigation can now claim that the FBI bungled the investigation because the FBI failed to retain material information to defend the President. Never mind it was the President who ordered the White House email destruction.

There are letters with the FBI directors' name on it: When the FBI director "determined" that he would not investigate nor provide evidence to the US Attorney in re war crimes by US government officials.

Once the FBI knew there were illegal interrogations, they should have kept their agents in place to gather evidence of those US war crimes against POWs. FBI needs to explain why no US government officials, as part of the informant program, did not coordinate with the FBI to continue with illegal activity in exchange for immunity.

FBI director is asserting he followed procedures, but not answering:

But why did you not take more substantial steps to stop the interrogation techniques that your own FBI agents were telling you were illegal?

Why did you not initiate criminal investigations when your agents told you the CIA and the Department of Defense were engaging in illegal interrogation techniques?

And rather than just simply pulling your agents out of these interrogations, shouldn't you have directed them to prevent any illegal interrogations from taking place?

He's not answering about the FBI investigation of that illegal activity, only focusing on the FBI role in interrogations:

our protocol in the FBI is not to have been -- not to use coercion in any of our interrogations or our questioning, and we have abided by our protocol.

Wexler attempts to refocus on the questions related to FBI duties to investigate war crimes:

What does the protocol say when the FBI knows that the CIA is engaging or the Department of Defense is engaging in an illegal technique?

What does the protocol say in that circumstance?

This is incorrect: The FBI isn't in the position to "determine" anything; that's the job of the court.

MUELLER: We would bring it up to appropriate authorities and determine whether the techniques were legal or illegal.

- Why wasn't this evidence brought to a court?

Congress took the bait, and has ignored the court, and is focusing on the President's orders:

WEXLER: Did you bring it up to appropriate authorities?

By repeating this, the President's illegal order get sidelined; distraction away from court secured; and the FBI says, "Our protocols say we are not to do something out of nationals security interests when the President, alone, determines that blocking an FBI investigation is in the interests of national security":

MUELLER: All I can tell you is that we followed our own protocols.

No national strategy on terrorism, but the FBI wants us to believe they were following protocols. That defies reason.

MUELLER: I'll tell you that we followed our own protocols.

There were no protocols on this, otherwise the FBI director would not have been faced with this unusual situation: DoJ OLC memoranda giving a green light, but the FBI looking at it as a red light.

The FBI director continues his repetition, without explaining how his "protocols" were or were not lawful given the failure of the nation to develop a national strategy after 9-11:

MUELLER: We followed our own protocols. We followed our protocols. We did not use coercion. We did not participate in any instance where coercion was used, to my knowledge.

No one ever accused the FBI of using coercion against POWs or civilians or investigators. "To my knowledge" is an after thought, "We were using coercion against jury members with NSLs, but I'm in the dark about that because I refused to ask questions."

Once the FBI sees a red light, the FBI should have investigated, and given the evidence to the court, which did not happen:

WEXLER: Did the CIA use techniques that were illegal?

Continues with this misdirection from the court, and focuses on the agency:

MUELLER: I can't comment on what has been done by another agency and under what authorities the other agency may have taken actions.

They didn't do anything, as required. The FBI director has fatally admitted that there was no investigation, as required. If there was an investigation, he should have said, "I cannot comment because of an investigation."

WEXLER: Why can't you comment on the actions of another agency?

MUELLER: I leave that up to the other agency to answer questions with regard to the actions taken by that agency and the legal authorities that may apply to them.

WEXLER: Are you the chief legal law enforcement agency in the United States?

MUELLER: I am head of the -- I am the director of the FBI.

Head of FBI agents is different than "director".

WEXLER: And you do not have authority with respect to any other governmental agency in the United States? Is that what you're saying?

MUELLER: When the authority is given to me to investigate, yes, we do.

FBI isn't given "authority" on a case by case basis to do anything. FBI agents, on their own, can investigate.

WEXLER: Did somebody take away that authority with respect to the CIA?

Who blocked him from exercising that authority?

He's changing the subject from whether his authority was blocked, to whether -- when blocked -- he was following the rules of "what to do" when someone blocks you from doing your job under the "national security" excuse:

MUELLER: Nobody has taken away the authority. I can tell you what our protocol was and how we followed that protocol.

WEXLER: Did anybody take away the authority with respect to the Department of Defense?

Mueller is playing stupid:

MUELLER: I'm not certain what you mean.

Congress buys into the feigned stupidity:

WEXLER: Your authority to investigate an illegal torture...

This is non-sense: FBI agents, on their own, can investigate. Remember wiretaps: They can get retroactive warrants. Same applies here. Things can be done after the fact to legalize something. Mueller wont' consider that, but says there has to be something that "legalizes" the FBI review of the DOD-CIA POW abuse. Non-sense. They could have done this on their own. Someone had to know what was going on, and then order the FBI to stand down. Look at this: Spike Bowman.

MUELLER: There has to be a legal basis for us to investigate, and generally that legal basis is given to us by the Department of Justice. Any interpretations of law is given to us by the Department of Justice, generally the OLC.

Notice the FBI agents "can" notice things; but the FBI director asks that we believe absurdity: That that "FBI agent noticing things" isn't an investigation. There are certain things that are required once the FBI starts "investigating" as opposed to "noticing". FBI director can't explain his inconsistency: How the FBI agents 'determined' there was illegal activity, prompting a stand-down order; but no "determination" to use that "FBI determination" to start a war crimes investigation of the President, DoJ, CIA, and DoD.

WEXLER: But apparently your own agents made a determination that the actions by the CIA and the Department of Defense were illegal, so much so that you authorized -- ordered your agents not to participate. But that's it.

Rather than focusing on what was in the way of the FBI investigation, FBI focuses on the protocols, which is a legal requirement, but not an answer to got in the way. It defies reason to invoke a procedure or protocol as a standard, but then fail to put that standard into full effect through a formal war crimes investigation. FBI appears to have been coached to say, "We followed protocols" as a ruse to not specifically say, "We were following procedures."

- Is the FBI director willing to certify under oath and in writing that he was following all written procedures when he agreed to follow illegal orders not to investigate war crimes; or in agreeing to not fully use all his authority to investigate rendition and outside legal counsel use of subpoenas to intimidate CIA personnel who have evidence connecting the White House counsel to these war crimes:

MUELLER: I've told you what our protocol was. And I have indicated that we have adhered to our protocol throughout.

WEXLER: My time is up. Thank you very much, Mr. Director.

He didn't answer who blocked him, the US Attorney, and FBI agents from exercising their authority to investigate/prosecute war crimes by the President, and other civilian leaders in the legal community. One answer: the President through DoJ OLC and White House counsel.

GOP and DNC are acting as if the American public has no other option: Either support one party or the other. No, the public has another option: Start over with a new system of oversight, and put the US government on a tighter leash. The American public is not required to cooperate with the American government's arrogant abuse of power. This crew in DC has since 2001 had the chance to get things right. They've failed. In the time since 2001, we've seen the last seven [7] years frittered away. By analogy, after the Pearl Harbor attacks, in 1948, WWII had been over for three years.

This crew leading the GOP and DNC are reckless, incompetent, and cannot be trusted. There is no national strategy. The plans under that non-strategy were recklessly devoid of any clear goal. The telecoms have shown they cannot be trusted to defend the Constitution, only support those who abuse power. That cannot be rewarded. If the Congress attempts to reward that abuse of power, then Congress must be confronted. By refusing to let the courts review the facts, and granting immunity without getting facts, the Congress and President jointly are saying they want to sideline the proper adjudicators in the Judicial branch, do not want to find out what failed and why, and want to rubber stamp the absurd reckless, ineffectual abuse of power. It was the threat of defeat that inspired the nation to excel in WWII. Today, the certain prospect of incompetence is feeding incompetence.

Things must change, otherwise this unchecked incompetence puts our nation and liberties at risk. This is a spreading cancer of tyranny. Any Congressional decision to grant immunity is a Congressional vote for recklessness, failed oversight, and hasty decision making. The Congress needs to give way to the court, and let the court decide the facts. Once we know what happened, the public will decide whether we do or do not support granting immunity for that illegal activity. A Congressional vote to support immunity signals Members of Congress are not serious about fully asserting their oath.

This is is a potential solution: Restructuring the US government under a New Constitution, with one that will better separate power, assign authority to the states, and ensure the US Government is adequately checked. This government has exploited the power We the People delegated. Those powers can be revoked, and redelegated in new ways.

Where is the FBI Director on the investigation of the US war crimes in Iran? The planned attacks on Iran mean the FBI has information needed to start a war crimes investigation against the President in re Iran:

- No imminent threat;

- Attacks on non-military targets.