We voted for change, not excuses for the status quo.

Uncooperative "career" staff can be impeached. The carry overs do not have unchecked power to homestead in the Executive Branch.

Either they perform along the agenda of change, or they must be removed.


Some were worried Bush Administration cronies were going to hide overseas. They've decided to make our jobs easier. They plan to stay in Washington DC inside President Obama's Executive Branch.

The carry overs cannot assist turning a blind eye to Bush Administration corruption linked with the carry overs.

By staying in government, the carry overs cannot enjoy the full benefits of private life. They remain subject to intrusive (?) standards of conduct requirements.

There's no reason to avoid a confrontation. We need to increase scrutiny of those who think they can hide in the legal offices. Supposedly the lawyers were involved with the FISA-Geneva violations. They can't be afforded the chance to institutionalize the policies turning a blind eye to legal counsel complicity with war crimes.

Eight years of reckless abuse of power.  The American public is ready to ensure justice is done on the abusive Bush Administration "carry overs".

Apparently someone in the Bush Administration believes that if they "burrow" themselves into the "career" tracks, they can continue the Bush policies or avoid consequences or impede the Obama Administration.

TPMM reports on Rove's relationship with the US Attorney firings. It must be presumed there is an important link between (a) Rove, (b) the Bush carry overs, and (c) the law firms connected with the DoD emails and Rove. 

We must develop a national strategy to identify those law firms linked with the telecom immunity and DoD emails, and understand their continuing relationship with the Bush carry overs in the Obama Administration.

TPM needs to understand the relationship between these carry overs and the University of Chicago -- the communication system used to spam the TPM blog.

This deserves a national policy:

To identify, track, monitor, and prosecute "carry over"-criminals in the Bush Administration who allegedly committed war crimes, breaches of Geneva, and violations of FISA.

We need to determine how the carry overs attempt to derail needed investigations to complete the 9-11 accountability. The carry overs may know who really placed the explosives inside WTC 1, 2, and 7.

It does not make sense to embrace a (false) notion of change when the carry overs have the power to thwart the needed changes: Challenges to flawed policies and unfounded assumptions.

The public needs to understand what role the carry overs have in the Obama Administration to thwart investigations into

A. What really happened during 9-11, and who really placed the explosives in WTC 1, 2, and 7;

B. The flawed assumptions behind the ongoing (arguably illegal) American military strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq;

C. What broke in the legal services community to permit violations of FISA and Geneva during wartime

D. How the American justice department was corrupted despite our system of written laws.

E. What were their reasons to support illegal policies: Domestically using (illegal) propaganda, fabricating WMD evidence, or  falsely reporting to Congress the situation in Iraq.

The lessons of Nuremberg apply to the GOP-personnel who are carryingn over. That structure which was instrumental in disseminating propaganda through the DOD emails must be challenged.

The Congress under Waxman shows that Congress will challenge Executive Branch personnel. The absurdity of the Congressional "investigations" was the Congress had to rely on photos to establish a link between lobbyists and the White House.

Rather than draw a line in the sand, the Congress has allowed carry overs to continue doing what Congress refused to impose consequences.

All US government "carry overs" are subject to impeachment and Congressional investigations. One solution is to resign so that your replacements can focus on change, not your needed legal defense.

House Rule 603 is the tool the State legislators can use to force the Congress to conduct  impeachment investigations of these carry overs.

Not to be missed are the existing relationships the Bush Administration cronies have with outside legal counsel. These relationships should be expected to continue.

We learned through the DoD emails that some of the President's senior advisers were linked with military analysts who were also working at law firms. We also learned DOJ OLC legal counsel and Bush Administration offices knew of the laws of war, but ignored them. DoD has a legal duty to preserve the emails which may help prosecute these Bush Administration carry overs.

There must be a strategy to ensure the Bush Administration "arry overs" are challenged for their apparent conflicts: They have existing relationships with law firms who have allegedly put their loyal to the President above the US Constitution, FISA, and Geneva Conventions.

Despite knowing in 2001 that the laws of war were applicable, it appears some of the Bush Administration carry overs may be aware of efforts to feign ignorance, not preserve evidence, and cooperate with illegal efforts to destroy evidence related to forseeable litigation.

Being a "carry over" is not a green light to carry on with war crimes.

Presidential pardons have no force on impeachment related investigations. The Congress must exercise its impeachment-investigation power to gather evidence against the carry-overs.

The Senate must take the lead. The House will likely use the "we'll be gone in two years" as a pretext to do nothing, as they did with the Bush impeachment.

We have a duty to find out which US Department of Justice personnel were aware or should have been aware of the prosecutorial misconduct and conflicts, but failed to ensure the "independent" investigations were credible.

Their decision to "stay" in the Obama administration means they remain subject to public review, and have foregone the chance to hide in private practice.

A. Recusal Monitoring

Does Congress adequately challenge the "carry overs" when they refuse to recuse themselves?

Will the "carry overs" properly recuse themselves on issues related to needed oversight of legal counsel?

B. Demonstrated Conflicts, Obstruction

What role will these "carry overs" have in thwarting needed Federal legislation to target the very abuses legal counsel are alleged to be complicit?

What did the "new" career personnel know about the conflicts of interest in the Department of Justice?

Does their conduct tend to suggest they put partisan loyalty above their legal obligations; and is there sufficient evidence to prosecute them as a carry over for ongoing breaches of their oath of office, 5 USC 3331?

C. Line of Duty Determination

To what extent have they feigned ignorance or "confusion" on things they were supposedly experts on; and their delaying appears related to efforts to distract attention from liability issues connected with their Bush Administration friends?

D. Continuing Abuse of Government Information to Thwart Oversight

How much information did they glean from the intelligence community to thwart Congressional efforts and domestic intelligence gathering likely used to collect evidence against them?

E. Challenging "Deliberative" Shields

Wll there be a system to oversee how they are working in the Administration to claim that issues are deliberative, but the ruses are designed more to thwart evidence collection on criminal activity going back to 2001?

What process will ensure the carry overs are not allowed to obstruct the FOIA process?

F. Basis for Confidence

Do they have an explanation to account for their inaction on these conflicts since 2001; or is there something else they can provide the public to justify belief they can be trusted to work for the public in the US government?

The telecom "immunity" is not a done deal. The judicial branch has yet to rule of whether the "immunity"-deal is or is not Constitutional. The American public should presume that the "immunity deal" is designed to thwart evidence collection agaisnt Bush Administration "carry overies."

These "carry over" positions are not ones that Congress or the Obama Administration are required to recognize. Those positions can be abolished. Once convicted of felonies, the Bush Administration "carry overs" can be revoked of their law licenses and forever banned from ever voting.

Congress no longer has the excuse of "we're not sure". It's the job of the US government to find out, not point to convenient excuses.

Nobody in the Bush Administration should miss the point: There are almost eight (8) years of alleged breaches of Geneva: There is no statute of limitations.

International war crimes prosecutors have a legal duty to adjudicate war crimes against those carry overs alleged to be complicit with war crimes. Any evidence against any of these "new career civil servants" can be brought before an international war crimes tribunal.

The evidence of this criminal activity is not within exclusive control of the "carry overs".  Newly assigned DOJ Staff under the Obama Administration will have the same legal duty to report to DOJ OPR any alleged breaches of the Attorney Standards of Conduct.

President-elect Obama now has a legal duty -- as a licensed attorney -- to ensure the laws of the United States and US Constitution are fully enforced.  His job as President will be to ensure that the Department of Justice and other departments enforce the law.

The American public should openly discuss the following:

A. Developing a national, independent strategy to identify the American government personnel who are complicit with war crimes;

B. Bringing this evidence to the table;

C. Challenging the "carry over" US government officials to resign

D. Working with Congress to decertify, abolish, and defund the positions.

E. In-House Monitoring of US Government Employees

Supporting Methods the Obama Administration will continue to surveill the Bush Administration "carry overs" to gather evidence of witness tampering, evidence destruction, and failures to fully retain evidence related to FISA-Geneva violations.

F. Inspector General: Focused Contract Oversight

Establishing an independent oversight program to screen the budget documents for contract "data preservation" efforts which are designed to thwart the Obama Administration from detecting how the Bush "carry overs" are suppressing or destroying evidence of FISA-Geneva violations.

Change means clearing the way for change. The Administration "carry overs" have decided to stay on the stage despite the dimming lights. Then let them endure the glare of oversight, scrutiny, and full wrath of TPM.

Here are some sample issues which warrant incrased oversight of the Bush Administration "carry overs":

Where were you during the discussions on FISA-Geneva violations?

Which specific meetings did you attend?

Have you properly complied with your applicable DOJ OPR reporting requirements to report peer misconduct?

The public is ready to see more of the Waxman-like hearings. We've seen emails from Abramoff and the US Attorneys. The carry overs can be challenged on their subsequent discussions with Obama-connected employees.

Those emails this President claims are "privileged" are subject to Senate review. The Senate unlike the House does not "start over," but is a continuing body.  The Senate needs to now start to conduct this expanded oversight of the Bush Administration "Carry overs".

There is no excuse for inaction or waiting until the "new" administration takes office. The Senate is in a different branch of government, and not beholden to the Presidential transition. The new Senators take office at the beginning of January, but there is still time in 2008 for the Senators to publicly discuss their plans to remind the Bush Administraiton "carry overs" that they have eight (8) years of reckless defiance of law to account for.

The President may pardon them, but they cannot claim immunity to oversight, nor are violations of their oath of office something they can hide. Once they breach the Congressional subpoeanas, the Congress can impose legislative punishments that no executive can pardon.

The public will be able to monitor whether the guise of "change" brings more feigned "concerns with the President's deliberative process" as a pretext to continue suppressing evidence of the carry over's continuing criminal activity.

What You Can Do

A. Develop local options

Work with your friends to discuss House Rule 603, and expand your independent reviews of the Bush carry overs.

B. Remind Federal Officials of Ongoing State Options

(1) Call your Senators and Representative at 800-473-6711 or 800-828-0498 and remind them you expect change and enforcement of the laws against the carry overs.

(2) Ensure the Senate leads the effort to safeguard evidence related to the Bush carry overs.

(3) Remind Congress we expect change. If they refuse, then we will (continue to) work with the fifty (50) state legislatures and assemblies to demand action. House Rule 603 trumps all other business. If the Congress refuses to challenge the carry overs, the proclamations can (temporarily) derail the Congressional-Obama agenda, and force the US Government to confront the carry overs.  If the Congress refuses to change on impeachment, the Congress cannot be afforded the deference to pursue a lesser agenda than the Constitution.

C. Remind your friends and elected officials these issues are serious, relate to breaches of Geneva, and require oversight.

(1)  Apply the lessons of Nuremberg to develop options to challenge the Bush Carry overs.

(2) Remind your friends that the failure of the world community after WWI to challenge the Nazis allowed them to remain on the stage and continue to abuse power. The GOP "carry overs" must be challenged, and not allowed to infect the Obama Administrations like the Nazis did in Germany.

D. Remind your friends the consequences for inaction are serious.

(1) If the American government refuses to challenge the alleged carryover-criminals, foreign powers are permitted under the laws of war to use deadly force to bring these carry overs to justice.

(2) Some of the carry overs appear to have said that "rendition" is OK. The same might be used against them. It would be better if the United States government effectively monitored the carry overs rather than require foreign military force.

E. Support impeachment investigations of carry overs

(1) Impeachment Remains on the Table

Remind  your elected officials there is no excuse not to consider investigating Bush Administration carry overs for impeachment.

(2) Pardons Are Irrelevant

President Bush might pardon some of the carry overs before he leaves office. If that happens, Members of Congress must be reminded that they can trump a pardon by starting an impeachment investigation against the carry over.

The president's pardon is only related to offenses against the United States. Congress may directly challenge the carry overs without prosecutions.  Congress must explain why, despite the power to impeach, it refuses to investigate the carry overs.

(3) Speaker Must Be Challenged

Speaker Pelosi cannot argue there is "no time"  to challenge the carry overs. Her job is to enforce the Constitution against the carry overs and ensure the carry overs, where appropriate, are prosecuted.

Pelosi must explain why, despite the Democrats winning the White House, she still will not put impeachment on the table against the carry overs. If the Speaker makes more excuses not to challenge the carry overs, then she must be removed as Speaker.