July 31, 2008

Why George W. BuZh needs prosecution JUST for Wecht trial

Evidence Supporting Conviction of President For Unlawful Retaliatory Wecht Prosecution, Illegal Jury Tampering

The first comment below summarizes the evidence linking the President to the retaliatory Wecht prosecution, and illegal Wecht Jury tampering.

The House Judiciary Committee has not adequately explained why it imposed conditions on witnesses at a recent hearing restricting them from fully exercising their First Amendment right to speak freely about public corruption; and facts linking the President to this illegal activity.

It is a fair comment to impugn the integrity of the President when facts link him to illegal activity. The Congress should never have agreed to any terms or conditions which limited any witness from directly discussing the evidence below.

Comments (4)


1. The available public evidence overwhelmingly supports a conviction of the President for war crimes, illegal prosecutions, and unlawful violations of Judicial Rules. MajGen Teguba concludes the administration has been complicit with war crimes.

2. Dr. Wecht remains a legal threat, as a potential witness, to the President for war crimes. MajGen Teguba found the Administration officials were linked with unlawful POW abuse. Dr. Wecht’s review of the Abu Ghraib autopsy report shows important evidence was missing. One witness of the crime scene reports bandages were added to a deceased prisoner, then forensic photographs were taken.

3. The POW abuse reports started before the DOJ OLC memos “authorized” harsh interrogations tactics. This shows us the DOJ OLC memos were written retroactively, after the illegal abuse. Tellingly, the President would have us believe that he ordered permissible interrogations under the Convention Against Torture, but fails to explain why he authorized any treatment or interrogations using any Abuse. The President knew that Geneva, barring all abuse, was the relevant standard.

4. The President’s motive in directing the Wecht prosecution over $5,000 is not consistent with earlier settlements over $200,000.

Circumstantial Evidence May Convict The President and Others of War Crimes

5. In Holland v. US 348 US 121 (1954), the Supreme Court established “circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different” than direct evidence. The facts before us warrant a reasonable presumption the President is a dishonorable criminal. He has no integrity, especially when connected with the expansive list of facts showing he is the President, in charge of all Executive branch operations; was involved with illegal conversations; and was part of criminal activity directing others to engage in war crimes, illegal prosecutions, and FISA violations. FISA was designed to be used during wartime, but this President ignored FISA. These are crimes. Congressional inaction on criminal activity does not “legalize” the President’s crimes.

The First Amendment Establishes the Public May Impugn the Integrity of the President When He Is Linked With War Crimes and Other Facts Related To His Illegal Activity

6. There was no imminent threat from Iraq as required under the laws of war. The President working with Doug Feith and others would have us believe that they provided no propaganda. However, the DOD emails establish Mr. Feith worked with military analysts to provide media messages to public. Rather than focus on the imminent threat – required for a lawful invasion – the President and others used propaganda to focus on the speculative threat of mushroom clouds. Despite Israel having weapons of mass destruction, the President has not invaded Israel. Even if Iraq had WMD, it was not an imminent threat. The President’s NIE established there was no imminent threat. The AUMF only authorized reasonable and appropriate force, not illegal force.

7. We need not consider any defenses suggesting the President is “above” having his integrity questioned, especially by any House Judiciary Staff, counsel, or Committee Member. The First Amendment expressly protects the right to free speech. Fair comments include attacks on the integrity of the President when the facts well support a reasonable conclusion that he is a criminal, has no integrity, and is a war criminal.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows Buchanan Is Not Being Candid in Her Statements

8. The US Attorney has no authority to “direct” FBI agents. FBI agents do not work for the US Attorneys office. They are a separate functional area, outside the Executive Office of US Attorneys. Even if Buchanan was exercising any residual authority she might be using as Director, EOUSA, she still had no authority to compel FBI agents, on her own, to conduct illegal home visits to the Wecht Jury members.

9. Buchanan knew the court sealed the jury member names. We cannot accept her assertion that, despite knowing this, she ordered the FBI to do something the court never intended. Buchanan is taking the fall for the President. Her efforts to mislead the public does not insulate the President, nor adequately defend her actions. It shows she is speaking for an improper purpose: To explain away an infraction she had no authority to authorize, permit, or achieve. It is reasonable to question her integrity, and assign to her a reasonable question whether she can be trusted; or whether she is obstructing justice.

10. Buchanan cannot explain why she spent time prosecuting a case over $5,000; but cannot point to any public prosecutions of US officials per the DOJ OLC memos. The DOJ OLC memos well establish US prosecutors had the legal obligation to secure war crimes evidence, investigate criminal activity, and prosecute war criminals. Mary Beth Buchanan has not done this, despite the overwhelming evidence behind MajGen Teguba’s conclusions.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows the Explanation For Acquiring Sealed Jurors Names Is A Ruse Designed To Obstruct Justice

11. State case law establishes jury tampering is not permitted, even after a trial is over. The Department of Justice claims they derived the names of seated jurors from the prospective juror list. Yet, the DOJ admits-asserts they “only” interviewed a handful of people. It defies reason, on chance alone, from a list of 100 prospective jurors, the FBI agents would randomly pick only seated jurors. We have no reports of non-seated jurors being contacted.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows Only The President Could Direct and Organize This Illegal Activity Against Dr. Wecht and the Wecht Jury

12. McClellan’s testimony and book show the President has a tight control on information, agendas. The DoJ emails show the President coordinates with the legal office, public affairs, and political office. Mary Beth Buchanan and the Attorney General do not have any authority to direct, order, or authorize any information transfers from the Judicial Branch to the Executive Branch. Only the President would have unilaterally, illegally exercised this non-delegated judicial power in transferring to the Executive Branch information sealed within the Judicial Branch.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows Only the White House Staff, not the US Attorneys Office or the DOJ Staff Had the Time and Resources To Manage the Wecht Jury Tampering

13. Assigned to the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania, US Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan was too busy to manage her many duties, and tightly control the Wecht Jury tampering. She was traveling between two jobs in DC and Pennsylvania. The DOJ Staff changed their position on whether they would comment on the Wecht Jury Tampering issues.

14. Mary Beth Buchanan did not have enough time to mange the FBI agents, conduct trial preparation, and monitor the incoming information from the FBI agents: The US Attorneys office got the Wecht Jury conclusions wrong. Had Buchanan had time, she would have ensured the FBI interviews and the US Attorney statements about the Wecht Jury conclusions were correct. The errors in the report show Buchanan did not review the activity, nor the media messages from the US Attorneys Office.

15. Buchanan also did not have enough time to develop for the FBI agents an interview plan. She fully expected a conviction. There are not enough resources within DOJ to first issue a public report, then retract their statements on whether they could or could not comment on the Wecht Case. This direction and FBI interview plan, and media messages could only come from outside the Department of Justice, in concert with the President, GOP political office, public affairs, and White House legal. Had Buchanan been involved, there would have been no errors in the public comments on what the Wecht Jury was discussing.

16. The DOJ Staff was not operating independently. They first issued public comments, then changed their position to no comment. The Attorney General must have been involved with the permitted release; but did not explain who in the White House directed him to change the DOJ Staff public affairs comment policy in re Wecht.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows This President Does Support Improper Transfers Of Information

17. Valarie Plame’s name was leaked, but those convicted of perjury were commuted.

18. FISA during wartime requires warrants. The President ignored this requirement well after the 15-day window.

19. Legal counsel representing clients connected with rendition and war crimes have incorrectly stated the information related to this disclosed criminal activity was illegally acquired. The President and others fail to understand that legal counsel disclosed the information connecting the President and others with war crimes and FISA violations.

20. The President uses the “investigative lead” pretext to provide illegally acquired information to law enforcement to engage in pretextual stops and breach attorney-client communication privileges.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows The President Has Not Well Managed His War Crimes Public Relations Defense

21. The President has not been able to discredit Dr. Wecht or the analysis showing photographs of war crimes was tampered. The President failed to explain why CIA videos were destroyed despite DOJ OLC memos reminding the President of the foreseeable requirement to preserve this evidence for future trials.

22. The Department of Justice has inconsistently commented on the issues related to the Wecht Jury tampering. After the jury failed to reach a verdict, the Asst US Attorney said the US government was ready to proceed to a second attempt. The Asst US Attorney reported information inconsistent with the jury conclusions and outside what was permitted in the attorney standards of conduct permissible statements to the medial. The Asst US Attorney resigned saying he had been “long” considering leaving.

23. Mary Beth Buchanan took responsibility for “decisions” she has no authority to make. She has no power to direct FBI agents. She is a US Attorney, not the director of the FBI. Mary Beth0 Buchanan has no power to acquire information the court said she was not permitted to record.

24. The President has not been able to confuse “jury poll” with “jury tampering” or “jury interview”. Jury tampering is something which could occur after trial, and is not permitted. Jury Polls are conduct during trial to review how the jury members are progressing on their deliberations. A jury interview is after the trial is over.

25. The President has not been successful in confusing the Convention Against Torture with the Geneva Conventions. The only relevant standard is Geneva, which bars all abuse.

26. The President has failed to dissuade the public from discussing FISA as a wartime legal requirement on the President.

27. The President failed to convince the public the DOJ OLC memos were written prospectively to legalize future abuse. The memos were retroactively written to explain away Geneva violations which bars all abuse, but pretend the only standard was the convention against Torture.

28. The President failed to convince American citizens that they had no power to challenge Congressional inaction on impeachment. House Rule 603 is a rule the President has no power to thwart. The Vermont State legislature defied the President and passed a proclamation under House Rule 603.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows The President Was Involved With Wecht Jury Tampering, Illegally Retaliating Against Wecht Through Prosecutions

29. DOJ OLC retroactively wrote memoranda “authorizing” violations of Geneva and illegal POW abuse. Dr. Wecht analyzed the autopsy report of an Abu Ghraib prisoner showing the forensic evidence had been tampered with to hide war crimes. FBI efforts to secure war crimes evidence at Guantanamo were thwarted, yet the US Attorneys were not authorized to conduct war crimes prosecutions. The President thwarted DOJ OPR from reviewing illegal activity on NSA violations. Mary Beth Buchanan has not led efforts to enforce the laws through prosecutions. The US government settled with Dr. Wecht over $200,000, but prosecuted him over $5,000.

30. The DoD emails show the President worked with the GOP political, public affairs, and legal office to organize information warfare campaigns. Karl Rove’s incomplete denials are consistent with GOP legal counsel affidavits showing the President was involved with conversations to abuse prosecutions.

Circumstantial Evidence Warrants Convicting the President For War Crimes, Illegal FISA Violations, Malicious Prosecution and Jury Tampering

31. The facts support the reasonable conclusion the President has little respect for the courts. He has ignored the FISA Court, agreeing illegally in secret with Members of Congress to bypass the FISA Court and FISA requirements applicable during wartime. The President and others obtained the list of seated jurors using methods which fall outside what the court intended. The President and others knew, or should have know, the court did not intend for the President or anyone to contact the jurors.

Circumstantial Evidence Shows The President Will Tamper With Evidence, Not Seriously Open All Doors To Law Enforcement, and Retaliate Against Witnesses

32. The President claimed he would get to the “bottom” of who leaked the name of Valarie Plame (Valarie Wilson), a covert CIA agent. Patrick Fitzgerald reports he never got to the bottom of anything, only finding a dark cloud. Circumstantial evidence shows Valarie Wilson was compromised as a CIA agents as retaliation for her husband’s evidence showing the President violated the laws of war: There was no imminent threat from Iraq, and Iraq did not have an imminent capability to harm the United States.

33. The President attempted to dissuade the NYT from reporting on illegal FISA violations. He claimed there would be grave consequences if the truth were known. The NYT discloses the illegal activity. After the NYT disclosures of the illegal FISA violations, the United States has not been invaded, nor has the government been overthrown. The President uses the speculative risk of adverse consequences to dissuade others from investigating, reporting facts, and enforcing the law.

34. The President blocked DOJ OPR from reviewing the NSA violations. FISA is a legal standard applicable during wartime. The President and legal counsel claimed the AUMF trumped FISA. A generalized permission to use appropriate force does not trump a specific statute requiring the President to follow specific rules. By abusing prisoners in violation of Geneva and unlawfully invading Iraq without an imminent threat, the President did not use lawful, appropriate force. Congress had no power to “authorize” Geneva or FISA violations. The President illegally and unreasonably “relied on” this “authorization” to violate the law, engage in jury tampering, and engage in malicious prosecutions.

35. Harriet Miers owns a home in Texas. She bought this home from someone connected indirectly with her law firm. The relationship is through public organizations and service groups. White House counsel, Miers had an ongoing connection and relationship with her Texas law firm, but failed to use the law firms electronic data preservation expertise to secure, retain, and safeguard information and evidence on the White House IT servers.

36. DOJ OLC reasonably reminded the President and others that civilian policy makers could be extradicted to appear overseas in criminal trials. Despite this foreseeable requirement to provide evidence and respond to subpoenas, this President did not adequately ensure the required records, evidence, video tapes, emails and other documents were retained throughout the departments under his exclusive control.

Circumstantial Evidence Supports Reasonable Conclusions This President Abused Power Because He Fears Dr. Wecht

37. The facts support the reasonable conclusion the President abused executive power by spreading propaganda. The DoD emails show the President was involved with information warfare. The DoD planning guidance shows DOJ and DoD assets are used to wage information warfare. The Asst US Attorney prosecuting the Wecht Case provided misleading information about the jury conclusions. These disclosures did not fall within permissible exceptions to what prosecutors are allowed to make to the media. The President and others spread propaganda to sew confusion, blurring the differences between an in-trial jury poll, and a post-trial jury interview. The President and others knew, or should have known, the court never intended for these seated jury members to be interviewed at home. Whether the court did or didn’t “poll” the jury during or after trial does not create any right or power for the President to exercise judicial power, or engage in activity the Judiciary and We the People never delegated: The Power to Tamper with Juries after trial, or hold juries accountable for their verdict during FBI interrogations in jury member homes.

38. The facts support the reasonable conclusion the President will use FBI agents to harass, intimidate, and unlawfully violate the Supreme Law. The President working illegally in concert with Members of Congress denied Habeas to prisoners, without an imminent threat. FBI agents using NSLs did confront, unlawfully gather information, and engage in illegal surveillance of American citizens. The Department of Justice Inspector General reports the President refused to permit any independent review of the illegal activity within the Department of Justice. The DOD emails show DoD through CIFA did engage in domestic intelligence gathering to support information warfare. The President’s use of FBI agents to interview Wecht Jury Members is illegal jury tampering and consistent with the President’s perverse information warfare objectives: Prevail over everything to secure partisan goals regardless legal constraints on that power.

39. The facts support the reasonable conclusion the President abused executive power to intimidate prosecutors and abuse American citizens through malicious prosecutions. Karl Rove has offered incomplete denials in written responses to the House Judiciary Committee whether he did or did not have conversations with the President related to prosecutions. Republican party-connected legal counsel affidavits establish the President was involved with conversations organizing efforts to target Americans through prosecutions. The DoJ emails and former US Attorney statements establish the President and others fired prosecutors who were not supportive of GOP political agendas.

40. The facts support the reasonable conclusion the President and others looked at the GOP agenda as transcending the Constitution. The GOP agenda included targeting for prosecution Democrats to bolster the GOP Permanent Majority. Dr. Wecht is connected indirectly through the DNC through his government position. The DNC maintains information relationships with all local government officials.

41. The circumstantial evidence shows President’s improper motive in prosecuting Dr. Wecht over $5,000 was brazen, illegal retaliation for Dr. Wechts expert testimony related to this President’s war crimes. The denials offered have been incomplete, ultimately, contradictory. The explanations for the tampering defy reason, are contrary to court procedure, and outside what reasonable government officials would support. Other theories to explain the prosecutions are invalid, and do not adequately incorporate the long history of hatred many prosecutors have for Dr. Wecht because of his accurate, professional forensic analysis which showed many prosecutors poorly managed cases.

42. The President views himself above the law. The GOP political, public affairs, and legal arms support this illegal agenda, in concert with the Democrat Party. The President viewed the Wecht Jury as a valuable source of intelligence to support a second attempt to discredit an expert witness to the President’s war crimes at Abu Ghraib. The President does not view the Constitution as a binding legal constraint. He has no respect for juries. He ignores them, and spreads propaganda to induce prosecutors and Members of Congress never to convene a jury of the Senate to review the evidence of his crimes.

Circumstantial Evidence Supports The Conclusion The President Is Behind Propaganda Efforts To Intimidate The House Democrats From Conducting An Impeachment Investigation of the Above, Or Unilaterally Charging the President With the Above Crimes

43. Ambassador Wilson’s findings in Nigheria -- in conjunction with MajGen Teguba and Dr. Wecht conclusions -- provide important benchmarks to conduct a war crimes trial. Congress refuses to act.

44. There is no prospect of a backlash against Members of Congress if they reasonably conduct an investigation, review evidence, and fulfill their legal obligations.

45. The House Judiciary Committee and others suspect (some of) the above. The House Judiciary Committee has asked the Department of Justice and President for White House communications related to the Wecht Prosecution and Jury tampering.

46. The House Judiciary Committee is not serious about timely enforcing the Constitution with an impeachment investigation. An inquiry would invariably raise questions of Member of Congress complicit with war crimes, illegal POW abuse, FISA violations, and other illegal activity.

No American Is Required To Tolerate Any of the Above Questionable Conduct

47. The American public is not required to support this illegitimate ruse of governance. The United States government can be lawfully changed. The abused powers may be lawfully revoked. Both leading parties can be lawfully denied the discretion to abuse power.



How about a Readers Digest Condensed Version for those TPM readers with ADD?


Anonymous said...

This is the biggest piece of horseshit I have ever read. You should have brought over the other comment from TPM that pretty much decimates the freak who posted this comment.

Seriously, you are a fucking idiot if you believe what you posted here.

Anonymous said...

Here is the comment from another TPM individual that basically puts this ridiculous allegation that lady wants to repost to shame. Seriously, the conspiracy prone idiots need to stop pushing bullshit such as this.

I have reviewed the comment and analysis provided by Testing. As what is common in his/her other postings, Testing fails to grasp the facts of the case which causing him/her to pt forth conspiracy driven conclusions that are baseless and laughable. Additionally, Testing references other alleged controversies of the Bush White House that are not even related to the discussion at hand.

I have stated and will state again. It is absurd and disgraceful that Testing is attempting to derail the review of the Wecht case through this type of misinformation and it is even more absurd and disgraceful that Testing is clearly attempting to utilize the poor plight of Dr. Wecht to further Testing’s personal ambitions of having his or her notoriety increase.

Simply put, the individual known as Testing should cease and desist these actions.

The Wecht case is under review by competent, rationale, and sane individuals. It does not need the assistance of the vain leader of the lollipop bunch, Testing, interfering within it through spreading false rumors, allegations, and other fictional statements that are easily disproved by a simple review of the facts.

The saddest thing about situations such as Dr. Wecht is that it brings out the loons such as Testing, Ladybroak, Albie, and Bushicide.

Point 1 – 3:

These are opinions that offer no actual evidence related to the so called direct involvement of the White House in the prosecution.

Point 4:

Testing misconstrues and misrepresents a previous legal proceeding from a state issue from the early 1980’s to the current indictment concerning the 2000’s. These items are unrelated.

Point 5:

These statements are meaningless dribble/rants.

Point 6 – 7:

Unrelated to the topic at hand. Testing employs this tactic throughout the comment.

Point 8:

Is just plain wrong. Buchanan was exercising her authority as the US Attorney for the Western District of the United States. As head of the district, the FBI in the district act as the investigative arm.

The writer also confuses the title of Executive Office of US Attorneys as being relevant here. It is not. Additionally, Buchanan was not acting director of the EOUSA at the time of the Wecht trial. She had stepped down in January 2005.

Point 9:

Is an inaccurate depiction of what occurred. The juror names were concealed from the press in an order that they would be released at a later point in time. The jurors’ names were disclosed to the prosecution and the defense team prior to trial; however both sides were not allowed to record the names and take the recordings out of the court room. Per the ruling in US vs. Wecht, the appeals court turned down the request by Judge Schwabb for a seating of an anonymous jury.

Point 10:

Testing raises a point that is the crux of why the Wecht case is viewed as selective in nature. Although Testing writes Buchanan has not prosecuted OLC members and what not, most individuals see the selective nature of the case by the fact Buchanan’s Office has not prosecuted or investigated Rick Santorum or Scott Habig for similar allegations of misuse of taxpayers resources. The fact Republicans in Buchanan’s district with similar allegations against than as Dr. Wecht were given a pass and Wecht was not is the issue. The fact Buchanan did not prosecute individuals outside of the Western PA district is not even a register complaint.

Point 11:

Is inaccurate for reasons stated above. Additionally, the governing standard here is federal law and post trial juror interviews are allowed and encouraged as a means of furthering resolutions.

Point 12:

Once again, Testing demonstrates he has not reviewed the ruling of the appeals court denying the seating of an anonymous jury and the order of the district judge putting a mechanism in place to carry out the appeals’ court ruling.

Point 13:

Testing is incorrect here. At the time of the Wecht Trial and post aftermath of said trial, Buchanan was only acting as the US Attorney for Western PA. She stepped down from the Office of Domestic Abuse in December of 2007 and since than has only held the Western PA position.

Additionally, Testing demonstrates a lack of understanding on how workloads are separated between the Assistant US Attorneys handling the day to day aspects of a case and the executive oversight the US Attorney of a district has in such cases.

Point 14 - 16:

Once again, Testing clearly does not understand the workings of a US Attorneys Office. As such, Testing’s lack of understanding leads him/her to conspiracy prone conclusions that are not based in reality.

Point 17-20:

Unrelated to the topic at hand. Testing enters this information as a means of either shielding the lack of evidence presented and/or as a means of biasing the reader with allegations of malfeasance by the president and his staff that are substantiated with evidence.

Point 21:

No one has demonstrated that president or his staff attempted to discredit Wecht or his findings through a smear campaign associated with the criminal indictment rendered against Dr. Wecht.

Additionally, such allegations discredit the fact a grand jury of impartial individuals indicted Dr. Wecht on evidence provided.

Point 22:

The Western PA Office released one release on the issue and than refused to comment further. In light of the fact that the decision was put under review by the congress and probably the internal DOJ oversight, it would make sense to stop comments.

The Assistant US Attorney moved into private practice within a good local firm. It is common for these people to leave especially after both a failed prosecution such as Wecht’s and the changing of the guard in relation to a coming election.

Point 23:

Flat out wrong. See previous discussions.

Point 24:

The president has never commented on the topic discussed to my knowledge. It appears the reader’s delusions are taking hold here.

Point 25 – 28:

Unrelated to topic.

Point 29:

A collection of many points that were stated before and have wrong. The final comment on the 200,000 vs. 5,000 shows the lack of knowledge Testing has of the case. The 200,000 was a settlement between the state of Pennsylvania and Dr. Wecht concerning charges from early 1980. The alleged 5,000 is related to the current indictment and the number, 5,000, was released by the Wecht defense team, not the US Attorney’s Office. To date, it is unknown what the alleged cost to taxpayers is concerning the current federal allegations.

Point 30:

Unrelated to topic.

Point 31:

Reader construes unrelated events to form ludicrous conclusions.

Point 32 – 36:

Unrelated events.

Point 37 -47:

Findings and conclusions not substantiated