The DoD emails showed why the US government targeted Joshua M. Marshall's Talking Points Memo (TPM): The President was working with government lawyers to disseminate disinformation.

We've established a connection between the University of Chicago communication systems and the blog spam on TPM.

Action

DOJ OPR must examine which government legal counsel are directly or indirectly involved with the TPM blog spam funneled through the University of Chicago information systems.

Until investigated, it appears (1) conflicts of interest remain in the FOIA process; (2) some FOIA information has been withheld for improper reasons; and (3) some lawyers are (falsely) invoking "national security" as a pretext to suppress personally incriminating evidence.


DoJ staff counsel indirectly connected with the University of Chicago influence which government communications are released through FOIA requests. There is an apparent conflict of interest compromising this process and deliberatively muddying the public debate.

The public need to see, as with the DoD emails, the lines of communication between the DoD-DOJ-White House-CIA-NSA legal counsel. This information will help the public understand whether the existing oversight is adequate, or whether other options must be employed to effectively check legal counsel.

We need to know how the government staff was communicating, who they were talking to, and how their indirect assault against TPM through the University of Chicago was organized: Who was involved, what they agreed to, and their ultimate aims.

We need to see their letter heads, the dates/times, subjects on their emails, calendars, and all other written records.

Disclaimer

This information on this blog does not assert that the University of Chicago is involved in any improper or illegal activity.

Rather, staff counsel connected with the United States government appear to have directly or indirectly used the University of Chicago's communication systems to spam the TPM blog.

Until this information is provided, the public is reasonably left to make adverse inferences: Independent methods must be used to more effectively oversee American lawyers, and deny them independence to self-regulate as a profession.

Rather, there must be ongoing, systematic, and independent sampling of the government attorney work products, communications, and other meetings to ensure legal counsel are putting the law before their personal ambition.

FOIA Reviews: Department of Justice Counsel Using University of Chicago Communication Systems

This is an interest area for the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility (DOJ OPR), which has the duty to conduct investigations related to alleged staff counsel misconduct.

The Department of Justice handles FOIA requests. Among many, the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, National Security Archive Fund, and CREW are litigating to access information from the United States government, including the Department of Justice, the President, and Vice President.

Conflict

There is an inherent conflict of interest. One court order says the Department of Justice must provide the court copies of the withheld emails. The court does not have enough information to know whether the the documents are or are not "unresponsive" to the FOIA request.

However, some of the DOJ staff making decisions about whether to disclose or not disclose information are connected with the University of Chicago. It would be inappropriate for the government to side-step the potential conflict:

Details of the conflict in the FOIA Area

DoJ Staff counsel have the opportunity, motivation, and means to engage in a shell game during the FOIA process. On one hand claiming there is no evidence, thereby ensuring the court accepts the claim the information is related to national security; while at the same time suppressing the very information the court and public needs to make an informed decision about the appropriateness of the FOIA decisions.

A. Personal Motivation To Hide Misrepresentations Incriminating Communications

Government legal counsel have an interest in (1) suppressing information showing which DOJ Staff emails coordinated the effort to use the University of Chicago communication system to spam the TPM blog;

B. Affidavits Not Fully Disclosing the Illegal Conspiracy Conflict

While at the same time, (2) arguing publicly there is "no evidence" warranting disclosure of the emails related to University of Chicago-connected legal counsel allegedly complicit with war crimes, FISA violations, and the TPM blog spam.

C. FOIA, Attorney Standards of Conduct Violations Issues

Conclusion: The US government legal counsel connected directly and indirectly with the University of Chicago have a personal interest, unrelated to "national security" to hide staff communications indirectly linked with those who (a) spammed the TPM blog; but (b) are connected with the University of Chicago.

Litigation Risk: This connection creates a reasonable question whether legal counsel have improperly hid evidence from the court; and/or provided false affidavits to the court under penalty of perjury to hide the connection between (a) the US government, (b) the University of Chicago, (c) FISA-Geneva violations, and (d) the public disinformation efforts with TPM spam and the DoD military analysts.

Action

DOJ OPR must investigate whether these University of Chicago-connected DOJ Staff were the ones directly or indirectly linked with the TPM blog spam.

Senate documents indirectly show University of Chicago-connected legal counsel are connected with law firms whose staff counsel personally visited Guantanamo after meeting with Secretary of Rice. University of Chicago-connected legal counsel are associated with law firms providing financial attestations for firms related to the President's rendition.

This would not be the first time this Department of Justice staff has had a conflict.  The Western District appears to improperly disclosed information to the FBI while it was investigating the the DC office for similar prosecutorial misconduct.

Details of the Sample Conflict

The Wecht Prosecutor's office was tasked to "independently" review the DC office for misconduct the office was engaging: Inadequate control of court information.

A. What DOJ was "idependenty" investigating in DC: Improper disclosure of 9-11 witness transcripts

The Western District of Pennsylvania was tasked to review the DC Prosecutors's office for improper disclosures of witness transcripts during a 9-11 related prosecution.

B. What DOJ was really doing in Pennsylvania: Improperly disclosing Wecht Jury names

The FBI jury tampering after the Wecht trial suggests the FBI was provided the lists of jury members before the court authorized prosecutors to release that information. The court narrowly said the jury names would only be available to the legal counsel, not the FBI.

Rule: Those who are investigating misconduct must be free from bias, or have sufficient safeguards in place to mitigate the risk related to bias.

Problem: The US government's investigation into 9-11-related prosecutorial misconduct appears to have been compromised. An "independent" investigation is not credible when the office conducting that investigation is linked with substantially the same misconduct. The investigating legal counsel (apparently) didn't have the experience to recognize a problem in-house in PA; they cannot be expected to have adequately identified, much less challenged a similar problem in a different office in DC.

Conclusion:  There are ineffective, untimely checks on prosecutor and US government counsel misconduct. It is absurd to believe the Wecht proseutor's office was credibly conducting an "independent" investigation of the prosecutorial misconduct related to 9-11 while inadequately safeguarding Wecht Juror names.

There's been selective DOJ Staff counsel parsing on the law, raising the prospect of improper motives related to the FOIA responses, raising questions of conduct less than good faith.

DOJ Staff have an interest in suppressing emails linking University of Chicago-connected legal counsel on the DOJ Staff to memoranda authorizing violations of FISA and Geneva.

Nexus of Alleged DOJ Staff Conflicts / Misconduct Connected With Disinformation, Blog Spam, and University of Chicago Warranting Investigation

The nexus below attaches to the attorneys, the standards of conduct, and the duty to enforce applicable attorney standards of conduct at the state and federal level.

1. Misrepresentations, witness tampering, false recollections

DOJ Staff would have the public believe that they were unclear about FISA and Geneva. However, the internal DOJ OLC memos show this public propaganda is false, contrary to known legal requirements, and raise known legal liability issues for specific, by-name DoJ Staff counsel under FISA and the laws of war.

2. Reckless disregard for relevant, applicable legal standards

DOJ OLC Staff memos and the NAVY emails show after 2001 the President and other legal counsel well knew Geneva and FISA were applicable, but did not timely act to investigate or prosecutor American war crimes; nor preserve, as required, evidence foreseeably linked with litigation.

Self-evidently, rather than prosecute any American legal counsel for failure to enforce Geneva, the US government engaged in systematic propaganda efforts to shield complicit legal counsel.

3. Reckless failure to preserve evidence linked with foreseeable subpeonas, litigation

Legal counsel had a duty after 2001, when DOJ OLC memos show staff counsel well knew FISA and Geneva were applicable. to retain all evidence related to war crimes, prisoner abuse, and FISA violations.

Despite knowing this legal requirement, and the foreseeable litigation/prosecution risks, and knowing the precedents of Nuremberg, the American legal counsel working for the President and Congress refused to remove themselves, but rubber stamped FISA and Geneva violations and unenforceable immunity agreements.

Legal counsel, contractors, and others connected with this illegal activity knew or should hae known any promise to be immune to the Supreme Law or any treaty obligation were not enforceable nor lawful, but contrary to international law and public policy.

4. Public Disinformation Effort

DOJ Staff would have the public believe that the CIA was not aware of this foreseeable litigation -- discussed in the DOJ OLC memo -- but took no effort to retain the CIA videos.

There are pervasive connections between the University of Chicago and the US government legal team.  ACLU, EFF, EPIC, the National Security Archive Fund, and CREW have an interest in knowing which of the "unresponsive" emails and DOJ OLC memoranda were from legal counsel connected with the University of Chicago, but complicit with illegal memoranda and public disinformation.

Summary of Problems Requiring DOJ OPR Investigation

1. The conflict of interest

DOJ cannot credibly argue to any court that emails from University of Chicago-connected legal counsel are "unresponsive" when the University of Chicago communication hubs were used to post spam on TPM on topics related to Geneva, FISA, and the US Attorney firings.

2. The failure of investigators and supervisors to act

DOJ Staff connected with the University of Chicago cannot in responses to FOIAs credibly argue their email is unresponsive when the DOJ OLC opinions going forward from 2001 warn of war crimes prosecutions.

Supervisors within the US government knew or should haave known which legal counsel were or were not assigned associated with the University of Chicago; their computer use; and the standards of conduct applicable to appropriate use of government resources.

3. The disinformation

The people in the Department of Justice saying JCON information is "unresponsive" are indirectly linked with an apparent public relations effort to stifle questions about the emails subject of the FOIA.

4. The failure to enforce the laws of war

The above information connected with the University of Chicago is serious. If the United States refuses to investigate these alleged war crimes, foreign powers -- under Geneva -- are permitted to use deadly combat force to enforce the laws of war.

Rather than cooperate with efforts to secure information through the FOIA process, this reckless DOJ Staff would expose American citizens to Geneva-recognized options to enforce the laws of war: A direct attack against the United States. This nexus is not acceptable nor consistent with the staff counsel's oath of office nor in the interests of national security.

Summation: DOJ OLC affidavits withholding information for "national security reasons" marginalizes the risk to our national security.

We've also seen how the President through the DOD emails will work with the DOJ Staff counsel to provide propaganda. The NAVY emails show staff counsel well knew of war crimes reporting legal requirements, but we have no record of any prosecutions to enforce the laws of war against University of Chicago-connected legal counsel.

Improper Motives, State of Mind

It remains to be understood what US government communications were improperly withheld from Congress and the public to, inter alia:

1. Personal Agendas: Hide the government legal counsel, outside counsel, or contractor connection with the University of Chicago; or

2. Suppress Illegal Activity: Hide how University of Chicago-connected government-affiliated legal counsel and contractors were or were not involved with FISA and Geneva violations.

The public has an interest in viewing all DOJ-WH-CIA-DoD emails of University of Chicago-connected legal counsel and staff to the President. The attorney standards of conduct applicable to US government attorneys impose a supervisory duty on senrior legal counsel to know or should know what legal counsel are doing.

Either the US government supervisory attorneys knew what government staff -- connected with the University of Chicago -- were doing, or they did not.

DOJ OPR Investigation Priorities

DOJ has several attorney conduct issues to review and timely investigate, as required under the laws of war.

A. Staff Counsel Names

Fact: The TPM blog was spammed using the University of Chicago's communication systems

Government burden: Which DOJ Staff counsel connected with the University of Chicago are directly or indirectly involved with the TPM blog spam, and/or the effort to stifle war crimes adjudication?

B. Supervisory Responsibility

Fact: DOJ Staff has been linked with substantial, non-official use of government computer resources.

Government burden: Which US government legal counsel knows or should know which attorneys work for them who have a direct or indirect connection with the University of Chicago; but are not adequately supervising their use of electronic resources?

C. Appropriateness of FOIA Responses

Rule: The courts must have access to reliable affidavits.

Government burden: Why should the public believe the reasons DOJ Staff gave to the court in a affidavit -- that the FOIA-requested document was "unresponsive" -- when those staff counsel have a conflict:

(1) A private interest to suppress information linking their name to FISA-Geneva issues;
(2) Their connection with the University of Chicago; while
(3) Authoring internal emails of interest to EPIC, EFF, ACLU, CREW, and others?

It appears the United States government's legal counsel is (falsely) invoking "national security" not to protect a bonafide state secret, but to shield evidence needed to adjudicate FISA violations and war crimes against specific legal counsel, indirectly connected with the University of Chicago.

The American government's lawyers are putting their friends before the security of the United States. We saw this problem during the US Attorney firing hearings. Even when granted immunity from prosecution, DOJ Staff connected with the White House lied under oath.

That action turns their oath on its head: They're putting their loyalty to man above their duty to enforce the law. That is the definition of illegitimate government: One that moves without regard to written law.

Rather than have oversight, these lawyers appear interested in disseminating propaganda, making new excuses to stifle public discussion, and obfuscate with new, manufactured problems. These are convenient smokescreens over government legal counsel who know or should know who really placed the explosives inside WTC 1, 2, and 7.

The Justice Trial illustrates why the legal counsel connected indirectly with the University of Chicago have a personal interest to hide this information: They don't want to be held accountable. Either the United States justice system timely investigates this TPM blog spam indirectly related to the laws of war; or foreign powers might determine that their only option is to use deadly force to enforce Geneva.