July 31, 2008

Incredible DOJ IG Testimony Does Not Reconcile With Evidence

The DOJ IG's statements do not reconcile with the record.

TPMM reprts: Fine said, "From the evidence that we had, both emails and discussions, we did not
that others were involved in this process,
and we questioned the
person who was involved"
This is absurd. DoJ IG would have us believe there was no US Attorney firing email. The evidence of communication between the White House, DoJ and others using emails is stunning. Here's only a sample:
The Vice President's legal counsel is on a list of emails which the DOJ IG appears to have ignored.

The DoD emails show the White House was communicating through Feith and former administration officials.

Rove's legal counsel is connected with the DoD military analysts.
The DOJ IG must provide some written responses to Congress about his competence and lack of imagination:
- What review did DOJ IG make of the military analyst program, or other information channels linked with the DoD propaganda program?

- Why weren't these communication channels considered?

- What is the DOJ IG's explanation for not reviewing the political connection between the DOD emails and the DOJ Staff counsel decision on US Attorneys?
TPMM summary of the DOJ investigation into Goodling is all we need to consider:
A. Goodling was the liasion between DOJ and the White House.

- Is it the DOJ IG's contention that Goodling wasn't talking to anyone in the White House, despite her "role" as a "liaison"?

- What is the DOJ IG "view" of what "liaison" means?

B. US Attorney firing emails show White House personnel were on the DOJ Staff emails and workflows, and how we learned about Harriet Miers' name on the Jan 9 email.

- Does DOJ IG know what JCON is?

- Is it the DOJ IG's contention that none of the DOJ workflows pointed to any White House staff?

- What review did DOJ IG do of Goodling's workflows and calendar of meetings with White House personnel?

- Were there "no" White House connected people on any workflow related to Goodling?

C. Congressman Waxman found evidence of RNC email accounts. The courts refused to release these through FOIAs. The President asserted these were protected presidential records.

- Is it the DOJ IG contention that he should not have reviewed any of the gwb.com email accounts?

- How does the DOJ IG justify doing nothing about emails using the RNC email accounts in reviewing the White House involvement?
We need to re-examine Fine's qualifications to conduct oversight as DOJ IG; and have an independent review of his audit working papers to find out:
1. What auditing standards was he using;

2. What were the specific reasons, despite the evidence of DOJ emails and gwb accounts, did Fine not review White House officials?

3. What review did Fine make of any of the findings about the White House emails from Congressman Waxman?

4. Does the audit engagement timeline and ground rules DOJ IG used make sense?

Comments (1)

Some of your questions are relevant, but the IG does not determine the "executive priveledge" assertion, the equal branches of government do.

The hesitancy to bring the issue before the courts is due to a finding that could in fact limit further investigations.

The time to take the issue to court also is problematic.

Essentially the other branches of government will erode and limit the executive role, as they have done after previous administrations.

Church act, post Vietnam as an example.

But no Fine is not the SCOTUS and congress doesn't want a showdown at OK coral.

Your other questions about immunity for those outside of the telco's is interesting, banking, local government, Maryland State Police, USPS, just to name a few will be interesting as time elapses.

What got me was the immunity with "good faith" provision that OLC handed down, and then a subsequent description by the Supt. of MSP stating it was "poor judgement" in the COINTEL of Maryland state citizens.

The point here is that traditionally government was not liable for "poor judgement" as in the context of financial agreements, farm aid, etc.. but now, now we get the "good faith and poor judgement" excuse wrapped up all in one.

I don't think a jury will buy it.

Patience and history right these wrongs, there is a book "the true believers" by eric hoffer that describes when the zealots movement is subsequently rejected.. as all mass movements do.

You see the smarter ones getting closer to the door, press secretary and others..

But no Glen Fine is not the SCOTUS and since the congress did not pursue that showdown in the courts, the emails are priviledged information until the courts state otherwise.

But did the telcos immunize banks? zoning boards, airports, contracts for detaining people, etc.. no.. and "good faith and poor judgement" will lead to an eventual showdown.

No comments: