The Department of Justice provides legal advice to the President. When Juster Department Staff write memos to Congress, they are speaking on behalf of the Department, the Attorney General, and the President of the United States.

The Department of Justice responded to Congress after the Russians invaded Georgia. The timing of that Russian action is critical in understanding the DOJ letter.

White House, DOJ Fails To Address FBI Improper Conduct

Look at the parsing on this, which does not address the conduct, only the policies:

TPMM: "Attorney Gen. Michael Mukasey has agreed to postpone new FBI guidelines that would relax conduct of national security investigations."

The parsing is no different than the Russians and President have done on legal agreements. The DoJ letter is misdirection, and highlights the problem Russia is exploiting: The American government's hypocrisy on written laws. DoJ isn't serious about anything but delaying, defending the President, and creating more excuses to slow-roll Congress.

Congress Fails to Immediately Challenge DOJ's Disingenuous Response

The letter curiously focuses on hearings and more delays in addressing the FBI misconduct:

To that end, please consider us at your disposal prior to the hearing and the implementation date to provide additional briefings.

More paperwork on top of the Constitution for Congress to ignore! The letter is a delaying tactic and signed by one person, yet refers to "We".

Who is Nelson specifically claiming to represent other than herself and the Department of Justice?

Should the Congress conclude Nelson is speaking on behalf of the attorney General; if so, why didn't the Attorney General sign the letter?

The reasonable conclusion is the letter refers to the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, not just the President and DOJ OLC.

DoJ Letter Similar To Meaningless Russian Agreements

Look at the language which contradicts the DOJ OLC custom of ignoring information requests from Congress:

"Although we have not traditionally worked with Congress in developing Attorney General guidelines, and as you note in your letter, we are not obligated to do so, we appreciate the laudable and thoughtful suggestions we have already received, and we believe that the final guidelines will be a better product as a result of our discussions."

This is complete non-sense. The real problem is DOJ OLC's arrogance is giving Russia a green light to similarly not respond to the White House.

DoJ must publicly change its tune, otherwise the President looks more foolish. However, the underlying message remains the same:

The President has no plans to force FBI agents to remain accountable to the law; and has no plans to fully cooperate with any investigation by Congress into the FBI's ongoing improper conduct.

Disingenuous DoJ Eagerness

The DOJ response cannot be taken seriously. It is part of another agenda of misdirection. There are many reasons to support this conclusion:

1. WMD

We've recently learned that the Administration prospectively wrote a summary of a document which had not yet been created. This suggests the Administration has a peculiar view of timelines. They've taken years to turn over evidence or cooperate with the court on White House emails.

2. FISA During Wartime

Despite clear FISA requirements during wartime, the President in secret approved illegal FISA violations, but asks that we believe the Government complied with the law; then absurdly contradicted himself be demanded immunity (Constitutional challenge pending) for something he says was lawful.

3. DOJ OLC Ignores Geneva

Despite clear legal requirements in Geneva, the President had DOJ OLC craft secret memoranda saying those requirements were not applicable; and the AG says he will not enforce violations of activity which complied with this illegal memoranda, but violated the law.

It seems reasonable to conclude the following:

1. The issue of whether the AG has or hasn't approved guidelines has no relationship to what the FBI agents are really doing or has been doing;

2. It is a red herring to argue over whether the AG has or hasn't changed guidelines;

3. What the FBI agents may or may not be doing has no strong relationship to what the (secret) written procedures might prevent;

4. Even if the President and AG approved illegal activity which did not comply with the Constitution or the existing guidelines, the Congress is not interested in enforcing written law.

Let's put the issue back on the table:

A. How long have Members of Congress known that the FBI agents were not complying with the existing and proposed changes to the guidelines?

B. When did Members of Congress first learn the FBI agents were not complying with the existing guidelines, not to mention the proposed changes?

C. What was the Member of Congress plan to blame the Administration for something the Congress has long known was happening?

D. When did the AG provide approval to the FBI to ignore the current guidelines?

E. How long has the AG known the FBI agents were not complying with the guidelines?

The Congress has the power now to enforce the existing standards against the AG, President, and FBI agents. Whether there are or are not guidlines has no relationship to the Congressional power to decertify the FBI and DOJ; and immediately pass a new appropriations bill which would zero-out all funds for the questionable entity.

Article I Section 8 gives the Congress the power to make rules. We've seen this congress (illegally) retroactively make rules to change whether FISA will or will not be enforced. If this Congress was serious about finding answers and enforcing the Constitution, it could (in theory) make other retroactive rules to show the public that Congress intends to get to the bottom of this.

Congress is making excuses. It is not a credible entity to conduct rigorous oversight. The public must discuss an independent system that will effectively challenge the US government when all three branches -- as has been the case since 2001 -- refuse to timely defend the Constitution, Supreme Law, and reasonable standards of conduct governing civility.

The public voted for Change. This Congress and President refuse to change.

America is a failed state.