July 31, 2008

Exxon Mobil Sets Record $11.68 Billion Profit In 2nd Quarter

Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported on Thursday its best quarterly profit in history, but investors sold off shares in morning trading after expecting even higher earnings because of soaring oil and natural gas prices.

Record earnings for the world’s largest publicly traded oil company have become almost as predictable as the surge of gasoline prices at the pump in recent years, and for the second quarter income rose 14 percent, to $11.68 billion.

It is the highest quarterly profit ever for any American company, as Exxon made nearly $90,000 a minute.

Such profits have made Exxon Mobil a target of politicians in recent years, propelling calls for windfall profits taxes to finance research and development for renewable fuels to replace oil.

The principal reason for the company’s banquet of riches is rising fuel prices. Crude oil prices in the second quarter averaged more than $124 a barrel, 91 percent higher than the same quarter in 2007, according to Oppenheimer & Company. Natural gas prices averaged $10.80 per thousand cubic feet, up 43 percent from the quarter a year ago.

While high energy prices brought Exxon $10 billion in earnings from selling oil in the quarter, up about $4.1 billion or nearly 70 percent, not everything in its earnings report heartened investors. The company reported that its oil production decreased 8 percent from the second quarter of 2007, largely because of an expropriation of Exxon assets by the Venezuelan government and labor strife in Nigeria.

The company spent $7 billion, or nearly 40 percent more than the same quarter last year, to find and produce oil from new fields.

The company’s $1.6 billion in profits from refining was less than half than those in last year’s quarter because of lower worldwide refining margins. Earnings from its chemical business of $687 million were $326 million down from last year.

“Record crude oil and natural gas realizations were partly offset by lower refining and chemical margins, lower production volumes and higher operating costs,” Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon’s chairman, said in a statement.

Net income of $2.22 a share compared with $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, in the quarter a year ago. Revenue rose 40 percent, to $138.1 billion, from $98.4 billion in the quarter a year ago.

Excluding an after-tax charge of $290 million tied to an Exxon Valdez court settlement, earnings were $11.97 billion, or $2.27 a share.

Excluding one-time charges, analysts had expected Exxon Mobil to earn $2.52 a share on revenue of $144 billion, according to Thomson Financial.

With this quarter’s result, Exxon topped its own record of $11.66 billion in the fourth quarter of last year.

Wall Street did not respond positively to the results. Exxon shares sold off in mid-morning trading by more than 3 percent. Oil and natural gas prices continued their recent slide, as investors viewed the slowing economy increasing the probability that energy demand would slip over the next several months.

Earlier, in London, Royal Dutch Shell, Europe’s largest oil company, reported a 33 percent increase in second-quarter profit on Thursday, helped by a higher oil price even as production declined.

Like a smaller rival BP earlier this week, Shell profited from higher oil prices, , but a 13 percent drop from a record on July 11 raised some concern among investors about whether oil companies can keep up the pace of earnings growth. BP said earlier this week that higher oil prices have started to affect consumer demand for gasoline.

Shell’s profit rose to $11.56 billion from $8.67 billion in the period a year ago. BP reported a 28 percent increase in profit earlier this week and the Italian oil company Eni said on Thursday that profit in the second quarter rose 52 percent.

Oil companies are under pressure to find new reserves as their traditional fields age and are face increasing competition from state-run oil companies in Russia and the Middle East. Shell is also looking to make up for production lost in Nigeria, where militants attacked an offshore production vessel in June, and in Russia, where it had to sell its share in the Sakhalin Island oil and natural gas project to state-controlled energy company OAO Gazprom last year.

Oil and gas production fell to 3,126 thousand barrels of oil equivalent a day from 3,178 thousand barrels.

Shell’s chief executive Jeroen van der Veer pledged to continue investing to spur growth. “Shell is making substantial, targeted investments to grow the company for shareholders and help ensure that energy markets remain well supplied,” van der Veer said in a statement Thursday.

The company agreed two weeks ago to spend about $5.9 billion to buy Duvernay Oil Corporation of Canada to increase its gas production from tough rock formations and is in talks with Iraq about some service contracts.

Intellpuke: You can read this article by New York Times writer Clifford Krauss, reporting from Houston, Texas, and Julia Werdigier, reporting from London, England, in context here:
" target="_blank">www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/business/01oil.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Federal Judge Rules White House Aides Can Be Subpoenaed

Published: July 31, 2008

Filed at 6:26 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Thursday rejected President Bush's contention that senior White House advisers are immune from subpoenas, siding with Congress' power to investigate the executive branch and handing a victory to Democrats probing the dismissal of nine federal prosecutors.

The unprecedented ruling undercut three presidential confidants who have defied congressional subpoenas for information that Bush says is protected by executive privilege. Democrats swiftly announced they would schedule hearings in September, at the height of election season.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House could soon vote on a contempt citation against one of the three officials, Karl Rove, formerly Bush's top adviser.

''It certainly strengthens our hand,'' she said of the ruling. ''This decision should send a clear signal to the Bush administration that it must cooperate fully with Congress and that former administration officials Harriet Miers and Karl Rove must testify before Congress.''

That wasn't clear at all to the White House or Rove's attorney. Bush administration lawyers were reviewing the ruling and were widely expected to appeal. They also could seek a stay that would suspend any further congressional proceedings.

''We disagree with the district court's decision,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

With only a few months left in Bush's presidency, there appeared to be no sense of urgency to make the next move.

''I have not yet talked with anyone at the White House ... and don't expect that this matter will be finally resolved in the very near future,'' Rove attorney Robert Luskin said in an e-mail.

The case marked the first time Congress ever has gone to court to demand the testimony of White House aides.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal basis for Bush's argument that his former legal counsel, Miers, must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person. The committee also has sought to force White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to release documents on any role the White House may have played in the prosecutor firings.

''Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena,'' Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all nonprivileged documents related to the firings.

Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion that strongly rejected the administration's legal arguments. He said the executive branch could not point to a single case in which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional subpoenas.

''That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: The asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law,'' Bates wrote.

The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.

That remains a risk, one Republican said.

''Unfortunately, today's victory may be short-lived,'' said Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee. ''If the administration appeals the ruling, our congressional prerogatives will once again be put at risk.''

Congressional Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law. Shortly after the ruling, the chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees quickly demanded that the White House officials subpoenaed appear before their panels.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House panel, signaled that hearings would commence in September on the controversy that scandalized the Justice Department and led to the resignation of a longtime presidential confidant, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

''We look forward to the White House complying with this ruling and to scheduling future hearings with Ms. Miers and other witnesses who have relied on such claims,'' Conyers said in a statement. ''We hope that the defendants will accept this decision and expect that we will receive relevant documents and call Ms. Miers to testify in September.''

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, ''I look forward to working with the White House and the Justice Department to coordinate the long overdue appearances.''

Between now and September, Congress will recess for five weeks of summer vacation. Bates scheduled a conference between the litigants on Aug. 23 to take stock of whether negotiations had moved forward, as he urged in his ruling. Congress then returns to a brief, three-week session before scattering to the campaign trail. All 435 House seats and a third of the Senate are up for grabs, as well as the presidency.

Republicans said there was little reason to rush to an accommodation, noting that subpoenas will expire at the end of the 110th Congress in January.

''I'm sure it will be appealed and it will go on into next year, and it will become a moot issue,'' said House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Several Democratic officials said they expected the subpoenas to be reissued in January if their party retains control of Congress in the November elections.

Mexican Voters Reject increasing Role of Private Oil companies

Disaster Capitalism in Action

Mexican Voters Reject Increasing the Role of Private Oil Companies

Marla Dickerson, Los Angeles Times, July 29, 2008

"Turnout was light, but voters in a nonbinding referendum gave an overwhelming "no" to President Felipe Calderon's proposal to give private firms a bigger role in Mexico's government-controlled petroleum industry.... Mexico is the world's sixth-largest petroleum producer, and the industry is the nation's largest taxpayer....

"Calderon in April sent legislation to Congress that would loosen some restrictions on Pemex, enabling it to team up with foreign oil companies to extract the nation's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage. Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies."

Rove Confronted With Second Attempted Citizen's Arrest

Rove Confronted With Second Attempted Citizen's Arrest

Karl Rove, allegedly a traitor and complicit with war crimes planning and election fraud, was the target of another citizen's arrest in Iowa. Rove is alleged to have been complicit with Nuremberg-like war crimes planning, illegal retaliation against prosecutors, and illegal domestic propaganda.

In written responses to the House Judiciary Committee, Rove provided incomplete denials to questions about his alleged complicity with illegal prosecutions. Rove's legal counsel are members of the President's domestic military analyst program.

DOJ OLC memos reminded civilian policy makers and advisors they could be subject to war crimes indictments. If convicted of these alleged war crimes, Rove could be sentenced to the death penalty.

In Rife, he Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the applicable Iowa statute:
"Iowa Code section 804.9 governs the arrest of persons by private individuals. . . .A citizen may make an arrest for any public offense if the offense is "committed or attempted in the [citizen's] presence." . . .

However, if the public offense is a felony, a less stringent standard
is imposed
. If the offense constitutes a felony, the citizen must only
possess reasonable grounds to believe the person to be arrested
committed the felony." (Rife v. Corner,641 N.W.2d 761, Iowa Supreme Court, Filed 2002)
Earlier, in March 2008, Rove's arrest warrant was referred to as a "Citizen's Arrest Complaint" and specifically mentioned allegations of treason, fraud, and conspiracy. The written complaint had a typographical error, citing the US Code, calling it 19.371, instead of 18 USC 371.


Oh brother. Be careful what you ask for.

The Clintonistas invented extraordinary rendition (torture), declared war and bombed Iraq, and indulged in domestic wiretapping via Carnivore. Whatever crimes you come up with can likely be followed back to them. Is that what you had in mind?


Yes, it doesn't matter in the slightest which administration breaks the law and ignores the constitution. Whether it be democrat or republican, they should be prosecuted.

That's a lovely sentiment and all, but politics is the art of the possible. "Should" is not equivalent to "could." In a fantasy world all the men are handsome, the women strong, and the children, above average. It's nice to fantasize but don't confuse it with reality.

As for "breaks the law," you mean ALLEGEDLY breaks the law. Moreover, since the basis for Bush's alleged wrong doing is Article 2 of said Constitution - you are pretty much out of luck trying to wave the Constitution around as an indictment.

Like it or not, no future President is going to criminalize a prior President for doing what they thought best for the country, no matter whether you agree with it or not. Why? Because it is entirely possible for the future President to find himself in exactly the same position when a new regime steps forward.

Politics is irrelevant, art of the possible or not. It doesn't take politicians to successfully prosecute a malfeasor.

Forget this faux realism you are waving as if it were an all-powerful solvent for the criminal difficulties the administration is in.

Nothing is required of the next administration other than allowing the courts to do their work.

Just sit back and watch what happens.

jimmie dean,
maybe what you do not choose to understand is that there actually will not be a polarized GOP base that will spring to the defense of turdblossom in the context of this upcoming general election . There are many ,many former gwb43 supporters who are now openly calling for criminal indictments for the Bushies. Witness the Ron Paul Revolution in the GOP primary - and now see Bob Barr appearing in Congressial Hearings calling out the gwb43 ongoing criminal conspiracy . Liberterian Presidential Nominee Barr is polling consistently in the 8% range for those who are disaffected with gwb43.
This is not about revenge jimmie this is about holding Rover and the rest of the criminals accountable-and yes we can - in the context of the general election . Go google what Bruce Fein has to say about impeaching gwb 43 - there will be no polarized base of the gop to save turdblossom et al ...
jimmie rant away your still stuck at the five & dime soda stool ...

Wow... This post hit the Tollfecta.

Bulldog, your continued persistence here at TPMCafe belies your flippant remark and shows just how serious you and the rest of your Republican gang take this site and its "nutjobs". Must be tough for you to keep coming back. But hey, a job is a job.

I also find it amusing that one would admonish the asking of a legitimate question by basically saying, shush... or you'll wake the sleeping Republican base and sweep McCain into power.

Bull shit... Some of our current and former "Public Servants" should be prosecuted and shown to be the miscreates I believe they are. And now is the time, not later. The greater public knows the distinction between a witch-hunt and true pursuit of justice. Though, I guess, the blurring of the line seems to be the role of some of the local trolls.

The pursuit of Rove and others isn’t about getting the Democratic Party into the White House. (Though that is an end that I will work my best to assists, because I believe in the social, economic and civil government that I think Obama and the Democratic Party BEST represents.)

No, this is about efforts greater than one party or the other. Not to put too fine of a point on it, but it seems that testing’s continued posts are about the rule of law and the Constitution over partisanship.

Dave Kahn ,
You are correct , testing seems to be getting "TROLLVILLE " riled up -especially the one troll that keeps saying don't wake up the scary Republican base ( jimmie dean are you reading this buddy ?) - . I agree with you - Dave - this is about defending the country and its values -we must have accountabilty for this lawlessness , we cannot let war crimes -such as starting illegal wars go unpunished .

Testing -please keep bringing these excellent post -maybe we can arrest turdblossom in some state jurisdiction soon ,,,

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?

National Guard Must Enforce Arrest Warrants Against Elected Officials Who Refuse To Enforce Laws of War


American elected officials have refused to investigate, much less
consider evidence of war crimes. This inaction has put the American
elected officials at the state, local, and federal levels in
opposition to the Constitution and their legal obligations. Most, if not
all, elected officials to believe there will be no lawful consequences if they do nothing; or consequences will evaporate after the election. This is an excuse for malfeasance not legitimate government.

This absurd "hearing" before the House Judiciary Committee restricted
private citizens from exercising their First Amendment Right: To openly
call the President what he is -- A criminal. This President is not a
king. The House and Senate cannot reasonably expect the public to dance
around these felonies, avoid calling the President what he is, and not
lawfully confront the elected officials who are in collusion with his illegal activity.

Members of Congress need a lawful wakeup call. They must face the lawful threat of arrest for complicity with war crimes. The Constitution does not make Members of Congress immune to arrest. They can be arrested for treason:

Article I, Section 6: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason,
and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they
shall not be questioned in any other Place."
Yet, the possibility that they might be arrested or prosecuted
-- for treason, the felony of conspiracy with war crimes or refusing to fulfill their oath of office -- is meaningless to them and they refuse to investigate. There is only one reasonable conclusion: They are domestic enemies of the Supreme Law.

Let's consider the other view: That any effort to organize the National Guard to arrest members of Congress is an act of treason. Treason requires warfare from an external force, and there is no "foreign" enemy the defenders of the Constitution are aiding. Those involved with the civil war were not engaged in treason.
"To levy war there must be an assemblage of men in a condition and with an intention to [unlawfully] employ force." (Opinion on introducing evidence to Burr Trial on Treason, 8 U.S. 470, 1807)
National Guard units, by their definition, are domestic militia, under control of the governors, and charged to use force to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies. The question turns on whether the President, to thwart enforcement of the Constitution, illegally federalizes these national guard units.

Here, the issue isn't whether there is force to overthrow the government, but whether the force is lawful to enforce the law and defend the Constitution. Treason cannot possibly mean the use of the national guard to enforce arrest warrants against domestic enemies of the Constitution. Such a charge would absurdly have outlawed the use of national guard units to to enforce the Supreme Court orders banning state-level school segregation.

et's turn our attention to Congress. The question is whether this President and elected officials have or have not waged war against the United States. Treason is

"only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort."

One question is whether he refusal to enforce the laws of war,
FISA, or breaches of the FISA statute, or complicity with war crimes
amounts to a felony. Arguably yes, satisfying the requirement in the
Constitution permitting arrests of Members of Congress.

Treason does not require an overt act of supporting hostile military forces against the United States. Treason and misprison of treason relate to efforts to subvert the government:
"The person who procures treason
to be committed, who plots some project to subvert the government, who
advises, who hires, who counsels, who commands, or who abets a project
to subvert the government, is a traitor
according to that common law." (US v. Burr,25 F. Cas. 55, 1807)
A failure to investigate the President for war crimes could be be misprison of treason; or an agreement to not disclose evidence of treason. The President has illegally used military force to subvert the United States government:
A. Used active duty combat forces, civilians, and government resources
to disseminate unlawful propaganda to mobilize the nation for illegal
warfare, absent the required imminent threat;

B. Illegally used military force to detain civilians in violation of habeas to intimidate a civilian population from confronting his illegal activity;

C. Illegally using the NSA to violate FISA and violate our rights and the Constitution during wartime, despite FISA applicability during wartime;

D. Domestically used military forces to intimidate the public and elected officials and thwart enforcement of the laws of war through investigations;

E. Deployed CIFA personnel to thwart oversight of the United State government, and

F. Domestically used military forces, NSA, and combat forces to collect intelligence to support an illegal policy of intimidation and induce Members of Congress not to enforce the laws of war.

tate governors require compelling evidence to arrest Members of Congress for treason, waging war against the United States, and felonies For example, one extreme example -- to avoid any action -- is the claim that any confrontation with Congress is laughable. Those justifying inaction might suggest it is "laughable" the Congress "knew "the President and others waged war against the United States in the attacks of 9-11, but have aided him in thwarting complete investigations into these attacks against the United States.
Something must remedy this lawlessness, and continued spiral into
illegitimacy: Where written law is no longer universally enforced.
Regardless the legal theory used to justify the lawful arrest of Members of Congress for collusion with the President on war crimes, FISA violations, and violations of the Supreme Law, the current condition is unacceptable:
A. Illegal activity is not getting investigated;

B. The President faces no prospect of an impeachment investigation, as the Framers promised in Federalist 77 ["his being at all times liable to impeachment"]

C. The Members of Congress have not timely conduct an investigation of war crimes or impeachable offenses;

D. The Supreme Law has not been enforced; and

E. The Constitution, with Member of Congress agreement, is seen as inapplicable to the United States Government and this President.
This is unacceptable. Other than hoping Congress cooperates with their legal obligations -- which they show they are not willing to do -- there is no credible plan to defend the Constitution with credible legal consequences.
Lawful arrest warrants for Members of Congress felonies must be on the table.
State Governors have the lawful authority to declare a state of emergency; work with the courts to secure arrest warrants; and use lawful force to detain, arrest, and deliver to a magistrate Members of Congress.
State Governors, national guard units, and judicial officers must work
together, process arrest warrants, and have them lawfully served on
Members of Congress.
The allegations for the arrest warrants for members of Congress link with their oath of office, and include:
1. Collusion with the President in unlawful warfare, a war crime;

2. Conduct breaching their legal duty to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies;

3. Active cooperation with efforts to thwart investigations by members of Congress into Presidential war crimes;

4. Treason, fraud, and malfeasance in aiding domestic enemies of the Constitution; and

5. Unlawful assent to illegal executive and legislative orders to not investigate violations the Constitution, oath of office, Geneva conventions, and Supreme Law.

he American public must support their national guard units in lawfully
enforcing arrest warrants against elected officials who refuse to
support, defend, and protect the Constitution against these domestic
enemies in Washington, DC.

It is not a lawful order for the President to direct anyone in the
National Guard to refuse to enforce the Constitution, or avoid lawful
state governor orders requesting lawful assistance to process arrest
warrants against Members of Congress.

The National Guard oath of office does not permit following illegal orders of the President:
"I, (Name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of (State Name)
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith
and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the
President of the United States and the Governor of (State Name) and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."
The National Guard has the lawful authority to suppress domestic rebellions, and enforce the orders of the Governors against domestic enemies and traitors.

The American government refuses to enforce the laws of war. Arguably, these are act of treason. National Guard members take an oath to the United States Constitution to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies.

State governors are lawfully permitted to organize with other state governors to jointly apprehend, seize, detain, arrest, and deliver to the courts Members of Congress, and other state-connected officials. The Supreme Court has decided this issue, and well provides a wealth of guidance for your state attorney general, national guard unit JAGs, and Governor legal counsel:
"In view of these provisions of the Code of Georgia, we hold that the
notary public before whom the affidavit in that state was made may be
regarded as a magistrate within the meaning of 5278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Such, it must be assumed, was the view of the governor of Alabama when issuing his warrant of arrest under the authority of that statute." Compton v. State of Alabama, 214 U.S. 1 (1909)
Once arrested, and not available for service in government, the State legislatures and governors may lawfully declare that seat vacant in the Congress, and appoint a new Member of Congress.

There is no excuse for inaction. There should be no debate to consider what the Members of Congress might not support. They've had their chance to dabate. Their decision is to support, with inaction, war crimes and violations of the Supreme Law.

No American should come to the defense of the traitors in Congress. Rather, Members of Congress, having been lawfully detained and arrest for alleged treason, must make their case.
A. Why is their detention unreasonable?

B. Why is their arrest unlawful?

C. Why is their replacement illegal or in violation of the law?

D. What evidence do they have to refute the charges against them?

D. What is their plan to show they have fully asserted their oath of office to enforce the laws of war?
Senators Obama and McCain -- one of them -- are the most likely next President. Imagine on their inauguration day one of them is sitting in jail because they've been charged with treason, and not demanding investigations of the United States' Government war crimes.

The governors must prepare transition plans, and identify replacements
for Members of Congress lawfully arrested, detained, and brought to

What You Can Do

The American public must rise to the defense of this Constitution, and lawfully work with available national guard units to enforce arrest warrants against Members of Congress and other state and local officials:

1. Contact your State Attorney General, and State Governors to seek their comment on discussions of using the National Guard to arrest Members of Congress who are in collusion with the President.

2. Contact your National Guard units in your local districts, cities, and municipalities. Ask them what their commanders and legal advisers with the Judge Advocate General have said regarding the use of their units to enforce arrest warrants against your state's elected officials at the local, state, and federal level.

3. Identify nominees for your state governors to consider to replace the alleged traitors in Congress.

4. Work with your friends in your communities to remind your local elected officials they must take their oath of office seriously, support investigations, or they could be lawfully charged with complicity with war crimes and treason.


Strategically, it might be more effective if all those interested in seeing this through begin by focusing on one state, contacting that state's AG, Governor, State House and local national guard.

This is just to get the ball rolling. A collective focus on one state or one politician, John Conyers for example, to create the initial spark.

Power is often the result of well-organized momentum.

Some Legal Counsel Appear To Have Prematurely Decided To Take Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstoetter Off the Table

Someone left a very thought provoking comment which prompts a special discussion. Before we directly discuss the comment, let's outline some assumptions which others may or may not agree.

The American people deserve to see the American government held to the
legal standards imposed at Nuremberg. Then we will know whether people
are serious about "never forgetting" something.
The following is presented not as a statement of policy or law, but as a starting point for this discussion about the comment. Others are most likely approaching these issues from different assumptions and premises.

Simplistically, the laws of war are part of the Geneva Conventions, and enforceable through the oath of office as the Supreme Law through the US treaty obligation. Let's talk about the Constitution, oath of office, and Federalist Papers which support this assertion.

Let's review some important parts of the Constitution under the "plain meaning rule," and merely discuss what a casual observer might say about Geneva, the duty of elected officials to enforce the laws of war, and how the oath of office minds local officials to enforce the same.

Let's start with the oath of office requirement in the US Constitution, and put aside the specific language of the oath of office. Article VI, (arguably) shows the Supreme Law includes treaty obligations, the laws of the US:
Article VI: "This Constitution,
and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
Others may have the view the oath of office does not include, as the Supreme Law, the Geneva Conventions. We view this position as illegal and outside what Nuremberg established.

Let's quickly discuss our reasoning. Here's the rest of the Constitutional language showing the oath of office binds the elected officials:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of
the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial
officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be
bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"

Implicit within that promise -- to be "bound by oath" to support "this" Constitution -- is the the clause of the Supreme Law. The Constitution is the collective document which includes the language of the Constitution itself, the laws made under the Constitution, and the Supreme Law attached through the oath to that Constitution.

Others in DOJ may have the view that the oath does not expressly include all treaties; and that the President, by his determination, can decide that the oath of office does not relate to a treaty because the Preident can "determine" a treaty is not applicable. This is a legal position for the DOJ and US Attorneys to argue explicitly, not for us to speculate about as a reason to explain away an effort to fully enforce Geneva against the US Attorneys.

We do not support this view that treaty obligations are discretionary items; nor do we view Members of Congress as having discretion whether to take action because of the oath of office requirement.

Let's consider the oath office for Members of Congress, which is slightly different than that for the President, judicial officers, and US Attorneys. 5 USC 3331
5 USC 3331: "An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office
of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall
take the following oath: 'I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I
will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic
; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion
; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to
enter. So help me God.' This section does not affect other oaths
required by law."
Above, we've established the Constitutional oath of office requirement in Article VI includes the oath to the Supreme Law, not just the Constitution itself. It is an error to pretend the Constitutional language only includes the Constitution, but does not include either the US laws or the treaty obligations.

Here's the interesting problem: If you review the case law for the terms. there's nothing that obviously jumps out:
(1) "Treaty" and

(2) "shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution"
This suggests that it's untested whether the oath of office does or does not include treaty obligations. We view that conclusion as absurd, but expect the DOJ to fully argue this point, regardless the Nuremberg precedents.

Federalist 44 sheds light on what "Supreme" means: It distinguishes the Constitution of the Federal Government from the State government. Federalist 44 shows us the Framers intended for the State officials to be bound to the Federal Constitution, and have the duty to enforce the US Constitution within the State:
Fed44: "The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary,
will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal
This cannot mean that the State officials, upon seeing the US government ignoring the US Constitution, are obliged to also ignore the Supreme Law. Judge Vaughn Walker stated as such in one of his FISA-related orders:
Walker wrote that while states are barred from “meddling” with federal government activities “this rule does not, however, oblige special treatment"
This suggests the Framers intended for the oath of office to include the treaty obligations under the Supreme Law, and not as a discretionary, optional, or urnelated to their legal duties.

et's consider this language from the Nuremberg case, expreslly stating that there is a linkage between prosecution-impeachment decisions; and the civilized status of society. Inaction on both would suggest a failed state:
US v. Alstötter: "Under any civilized judicial system he could have been impeached and removed from office or convicted of malfeasance"
Notice the title of the case, and the prosecution is the United States, decided 1948:
The Nuremberg Trials: The Justice Trial
United States of America v. Alstötter et al. ("The Justice Case") 3 T.W.C. 1 (1948), 6 L.R.T.W.C. 1 (1948), 14 Ann. Dig. 278 (1948)
This suggests the United States, as the prosecuting power, has established a link with Nuremberg; and that all oaths and comments about the Supreme Law must attach to the United States actions at Nuremberg. Conversely, this could not mean that the United States statutes which ignore Geneva requirements are inadequate, and fall short of the Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstötter requirements.

If these requirements are not met, arguably the American leadership could be subjected to subsequent charges for failing to fully enforce Geneva; not investigating violations of Geneva; and not fully codifying, as required, all war crimes requirements appliable to the United Staates.

Whether the enemy is or isn't a signatory to Geneva is irrelevant. The legal obligations attach to the United States, as a leash, as a signatory power; wehther the US recognizes a combatant-prisoner-enemy does or does not have a shield is secondary, and urelated to the legal requirements attached to the leadership.

There should have been an oversight mechanism, auditing, and timely reviews to Congress on whether US combat operations were or were not fully complying with Geneva. This was not prospectively done, but appears to have only occurred because of disclosures about video tapes and POW mistreatment. Without prospective or retroactive oversight of all Geneva-Nuremberg issues, Members of Congress have a problem, especially in removing impeachment from the table.

Part II: Considering the Comment

Here is the comment which warrants this special attention, and multiple links above:

Lux Umbra Dei (not well supported) "can I recommend for you the Balkinization site (where I hale from)? These issues are talked of there at length."

"I think you should reflect on the advisability of using Nuremberg, Alstoetter, or GC3 or for that matter any CIL for the bringing to trial of the main actors."

"There are formidable legal barriers that pretty much nullify any of those approaches."

After careful review, we're not convinced about anything in the comment. We discuss the reasons for not narrowing the legal analysis to only US statutes; and why, in our view, other factors have not been adequately nullified.
Regardless the US position on the ICC, DOJ OLC memos well state the risk of prosecutions against US persons in victim's courts.

If there are gaps in the legislation, those need to be fixed, but that is not a bar to enforcing Geneva.
Let's break the comment down and examine the issues raised. First, this comment is very vague, and doesn't adequately address anything specific, nor does it point to specific comment threads or content on the recommended site:
Lux Umbra Dei (vague): "can I recommend for you the Balkinization site (where I hale from)? These issues are talked of there at length."
The vague comment prompts the following response:
You may be correct that the site referenced discusses the issues, but that's not an argument. Specifically, the comment "should reflect on the advisability" implies that someone else -- unknown -- has raised these issues, and has a reasonable argument, discussion, or comment. That may exist, but the "advisability" of doing or not doing something isn't linked with a specific discussion, comment, or argument. It may be there, but it would have been preferable to construct the argument with specifics, than vaguely point to a site withut providing specifics.
The next part of the comment says [added]:
Lux Umbra Dei (no basis): "I think you should reflect on the advisability of using Nuremberg, Alstoetter, or GC3 or for that matter any CIL for the bringing to trial [any ] of the main actors."
The basis for this assertion is unclear. The above information about the oath of office, Supreme Law, and Federalist 44, suggests there are some compelling reasons to attach Geneva, as part of the Supreme law, to the legal requirements attached to members of Congress and their oath of office. This implicates the US Statute; and is the bridge between the US Statute and the larger war crimes enforcement requirements springing from the Justice Trial: Prosecuting Judges and lawyers who refuse to enforce the laws of war.

Arguably, because the US Republic separtes power, the duty to enforce the laws of war is jointly shared by the judges, executive officers, and Members of Congress. Just as Nuremberg retroactively explained standards -- new laws -- which people "should" have known they should have complied, so too should we in 2008 discuss the inherent standards of Geneva Members of Congress should have known would attach to them if they refused to investigate, impeach, or call for investigations.

Assuming these cases are prosecuted in US courts, let's consider who would have the responsibility to prosecute these cases againt American officials: DOJ-connected US Attorneys. This is the inherent problem connected with this comment:
Lux Umbra Dei (vague, inexplicable): "There are formidable legal barriers that pretty much nullify any of those approaches"

We're asked to believe that there are "formidable" barriers that "nullify" "any" of these approaches. That doesn't make sense.
1. We've got nothing specific to justify believing that there is anything specific that would or would "nullify" anything;

2. The people who are (apparently) arguing for inaction are there very people who would have the responsibility to prosecute the cases: GOP-connected US Attorneys;

3. We have nothing to show us why the factors -- Geneva, CAT, CIL, Geneva Conventions Article III (GC3), Nuremberg, Alstoetter -- have or haven't been addressed;

4. There's no basis to argue that these factors would or would not be nullified. Who says and why?
These sounds like sweeping assertions the DOJ Staff might have made about FISA violations. Let's consider why:

First, Alstoetter is merely the name of the defendant, but the United States as the prosecutor means the United States established through Nuremberg prosecutions the connection between Nuremberg defendants, judicial officer legal requirements to enforce the laws of war, and the oath of office.

Second, the Justice Trial attached to legal counsel and judges penalties for refusing to enforce the laws of war. The US Constitution expressly attached to judicial officers an oath of office linking them to the Supreme Law:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Based on the above, the response to this:
Lux Umbra Dei "can I recommend for you the Balkinization site (where I hale from)? These issues are talked of there at length. I think you should reflect on the advisability of using Nuremberg, Alstoetter, or GC3 or for that matter any CIL for the bringing to trial of the main actors. There are formidable legal barriers that pretty much nullify any of those approaches. Start with american statutory law and end there also."

A. It's not obvious what you're talking about.

B. There's no reasonable basis to ignore Alstoetter, Nuremberg, or GC3 because the United States enforced the laws of war.
This comment is a problem:
Lux Umbra Dei (narrow): "Start with american statutory law and end there also."
This may be the problem: That the US Statute, despite Geneva and Nuremberg, is too narrow. That is irrelevant. The treaty obligation attached through the oath was known and should have been known as the guiding standard. The US prevailed in this argument against the Nazis. Who is asking for an exception?

That assertion needs to be argued, not asserted as an unchallengeable premise for these reasons, among others:
A. The problem is that American statutory law, in the DOJ view, only defines illegal treatment outside the Geneva Conventions. Yet, Geneva bars all abuse. The Convention Against Torture only punishes people for serious abuses, as opposed to "all abuses".

The DOJ OLC memos were explicit in "authorizing" some abuses, which Geneva otherwise expressly prohibits in all cases, regardless the level of abuse.

US laws do not adequately punish for some abuses. Arguing over

(1) whether CAT applies or does not apply is misidirection/a red herring from

(2) whether or not US military and CIA personnel knew or should have known Geneva and Nuremberg expressly prohibit all abuse.

. There's no basis to say that US prosecutions at Nuremberg are not precedent. Whether Congress has or hasn't updated the statutes is a separate issue. Arguably, teh failure of the Congress to ensure the US Codes fully enforced Geneva could be construed as a subsequent war crime. Congress, in refusing to fully codify Geneva, isn't a defense, but subsequent evidence of wider US government malfeasance.

C. Even if we reject any assertion that Congress is complicit, all DoD officials are trained on the laws of war and Geneva. That DOJ OLC "legalized" some abuse isn't a credible defense. It appears teh DOJ OLC 'legalization" of some abuse is a retroactive, not prospective, opinion.
If DOJ Staff Attorneys and US Attorneys, responsible for prosecuting these cases against Members of Congress, are "not interested" in using Geneva, and "only" want to stick with US Statutes, that is something they need to fully explain, not assert with the presumption it will not be challenged. At the heart of our dispute with the US government approach to war crimes is the failure of the US government prospecitvely going forward from 2001 to adequately ensure Geneva was fully incorporated. The DOJ OLC memos appear more like retroactive afterthoughts to legalizae by using sophistry about CAT as a deliberate smokescreen from whether Geneva does or doesn't apply.

Indeed, their refusal to enforce the laws of war, and not go beyond US Statutes, and failure to fully enforce Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstoetter as required as an attorney requirement under Geneva, could be construed as a subsequent offense, enforceable through the Justice Trial precedent.

In our view, DoJ Staff and US Attorneys are not adequately embracing, as required, the broader legal requirements beyond US Statute in Geneva and the Nuremberg precedents.

Perhaps the above discussion points have been raised on the referenced site. They may be, but there not obvious; nor is it the reader's job to put together the argument of those who are arguing against enforcing Geneva and Nuremberg precedents.

Conversely, if this view is public, then an argument could be made that the DOJ Staff and US Attorneys -- who might prosecute these war crimes cases against Members of Congress in US Courts -- are making public statements about internal deliberations on litigation strategy. If that is the case, then we need to consider whether that internal deliberation has been compromised; and whether Members of Congress are going to get an adequate defense.

Whether the United States does or does not prosecute Members of Congress is, in our view, a separate question than whether Members of Congress are responsible, through the oath of office to the US treaty obligations of the Supreme Law, for enforcing the laws of war.

Please provide specific discussion points from the recommended site when discussing these issues. If they are talked at length, then others might review them in light of the above. If someone has the view that it is or is "not" advisable to use Nuremberg, Alstoetter, or GC3, please discuss:

1. Why are we ignoring the fact that the United States prosecuted the case at Nuremberg;

2. How can we pretend that we can only stay with US Statutes, and ignore Geneva

3. Why are we proposing to exclude from prosecution any charges that are outside the US Statute

4. What is the basis, despite Nuremberg and the US role in prosecuting those cases, for excluding Geneva, Nuremberg, or international law from the prosecution decision.

5. Is there not an inherent conflict in saying there are "formidable" barriers, when those making that argument might be connected with DOJ, and have an interest in inaction?

6. What is the basis to say that the the non-US Statute issues -- Nuremberg, Geneva, CIL, Alstoetter -- should be excluded; and/or that prosecutions against US government officials should only be confined to US Statute?
In our view, the DOJ Staff should not be given a green light to argue, "We don't want to prosecute outside US Statutes," when they have a legal duty to enforce Geneva, Nuremberg, and the precedents connected with the United States war crimes litigation after WWII. This says nothing of the Tokyo War Crimes trials against the Japanese Cabinet.

The possibilty that there might be barriers is the reason to celebrate: We'll have a case in hand to say, "This is what the United States is or is not willing to do despite Geneva." That case -- or inaction -- would be the basis to review the US Prosecutors actions in light of the Justice Trial. The decision to not prosecute is, within Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstoetter, is reviewable as a subsequent violation under the laws of war. DOJ OLC and the President view each standard as discretionary. That is not a credible defense or premise, but evidence of recklessness.

It appears to be circular and premature to narrowly argue that Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstoetter should be removed as legal benchmarks. Rather, as with impeachment, the decision to remove that legal standard could be construed as a subsequent offense. In the case of impeachment, it is arguably a violation of the oath of office to remove impeachment as an option when the Framers in Federalist 77 expreslly said impeachment would be "at all times" an option.

Similarly, we cannot -- now, before an investigation or prosecution -- credibly argue or believe that Geneva-Nuremberg-Alstoetter should be removed out of a speculative fear; or that there might be "formidable" barriers. That is an argument the DOJ Staff and US Attorneys need to make, not others blindly accept as a possibility. If that's their position, then we need to use that decision as a basis for a subsequent charge against them under the Justice Trial precedent.

Your Bank Helped President Violate FISA

Most of the attention on the President's illegal FISA violations has been on the telecoms. There's apparently no discussion on how the President provided the telecoms with the information they used to assist the President. One answer are the illegal Presidential orders to financial institutions to turn over without a warrant your personal contact information including your non-public emails and phone numbers. FISA expressly addresses these financial institution issues during wartime:

"A person who, in good faith, produces tangible things under an order
pursuant to this section shall not be liable to any other person for
The intelligence committees whitewashed the WMD investigations. There's been no adequate public discussion of what records the intelligence committee has or has not reviewed related to the financial institution's collusion with the President on FISA violations:
"the Attorney General shall fully inform the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of
and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate
concerning all requests for the production of tangible things"
Someone right now knows whether the AG and/or Members of Congress have or haven't done their job. We need to publicly examine and discuss these aspects of the declassified versions of these AG reports to Congress. The right answer is not to grant immunity to sweep the following issues under the rug:
A. Either the AG complied with this requirement, or he did not;

B. Either the Congress received this information, or it did not; and

C. Either the AG and Congress did or did not meet their legal obligations under the Constitution.
We're still not clear what the Congress and President hoped to shield with this grant of immunity. The grant of telecom community implicitly means there was no adequate or lawful order for either the telecoms or the financial institutions. It defies reason to believe the President and Congress granted immunity only to the telecoms because the financial institutions had "fully complied" with FISA. NSLs have been abused, but we haven't had accountability within the financial services:
A full account and public discussion over the financial institutions conduct when they knew or should have known about the illegal FISA activity.

A. When did the banking institutions discuss their concerns with legal counsel;

B. How do these discussion timelines in the banking sector compare to DOJ OLC discussions with telecoms; and

C. Did the banking board of directors raise issues which, on the telecom side, the Qwest CEO raised?
Investigations are needed outside Congress. The public should broaden it's view of the FISA violations from what the telecoms did or didn't do; and ask who helped the banks, President, and telecoms to:
A. Transfer this information;

B. Bypass the warrant requirements; and

C. Agree to share your personal information outside your financial institution with the President and telecoms, in violation of your privacy rights and agreements with your financial institution.
Your State Attorney Generals may have reviewed the narrow question of telecom collusion with the President. Vermont, Deleware, and New Jersey are only some that are taking the telecoms to court. The State AGs in Federal court are alleging your right to privacy was violated.

The Department of Justice failed to convince Judge Vaughn Walker to dismiss the cases. The litigation against the telecoms continues, and the EFF plans to challenge the recent bill granting immunity to the telecoms. Arguably, the grant of immunity to the telecoms is illegal: The President and Congress unlawfully exercised judicial power in affecting the outcome of pending cases.

he broader questions include:
A. How the President acquired this information;
B. Which financial institutions and other entities had access to your phone numbers and emails, and provided these illegally to the President, telecoms, or others;

C. How did the President convince financial institutions you trust to breach their agreements with you;

D. Which overseas entities and intermediaries did the President use to bypass the FISA requirements, and unlawfully coordinate the transfer of information from your financial institution, through intermediaries, to the President and telecoms to support the NSA's illegal activity;

E. How was a DoD military analyst-like propaganda program developed with Presidential approval and review to distract attention from these legal compliance issues; and

F. How did the President and Congress use the illegal NSA monitoring to craft media messages designed to ensure toleration for this illegal activity?
There should have been warrants to access, use, and transfer this information, especially this many years after 9-11. Telecom immunity means Congress has not adequately conducted oversight. Without this information, there is inadequate public attention to review the compliance programs.

The FISA violations and AG comments indicate the US government still is not securing warrants. This suggests despite the United States President well passing the 15-day window authorizing warrantless surveillance, something else is convincing the financial institutions and others to provide your personal information to the President without a warrant.

FISA Violation Conspiracy Between President, Members of Congress, Financial Institutions, Telecoms

One argument is "the FISA statute does not expressly prohibit" the transfer of information from the banks to the President; nor does it relate to the transfer of information which does not relate to electronic surveillance.

This misses the point. Once the President openly admits he's violating FISA, the question turns on who knew or should have known their assistance to the President was and remains material in his FISA violations. Arguably, the banking system has well known, or should know, the illegal FISA violations were only possible if the banks provided this information to the President and telecoms.

When you open an account at a financial institution, you and the bank agree to terms and conditions. Those are not unilateral conditions the bank only imposes on you. Rather, when you open your account you should reasonably expect the bank internal controls to only disclose your personal information when there are lawful requirements. Arguably, when the President's agents appears at your bank demanding information, your banks should do what the telecoms refused to do: Demand warrants.

It appears the President is not, in all cases, securing the required warrants to access your banking information; and not adequately justifying to the court why, on his assertion alone, he needs your email and private contact information. The President said he wasn't trolling your emails. He didn't rule out the possibility that he was trolling non-public databases to get email accounts and other private information.

The integrity of the financial reporting system appears to have been compromised. The issue isn't merely which bank boards have colluded with the President, but which bank auditors and examiners have ignored this illegal cooperation; and have not ensured there are strict controls on how the information in your accounts is transferred.

he public needs to have a discussion about the lessons we've learned from the telecom support of FISA violations. Granting immunity to the telecoms is one way the Congress and President can squash any broader examination. Note the similarity in the questions to issues raised with the telecoms and DOJ OLC memos on POW abuse in violation of Geneva:
A. Members of Congress refused to investigate war crimes.

How long have the Members of Congress on the banking committees known about the illegal transfer of your private contact information to the President, but did not investigate this material support required to support FISA violations?

B. The Qwest CEO was investigated.

How many bank board of directors were threatened or fired because they refused to cooperate with this illegal data transfer from your financial institution to the President and telecoms?

. Congress granted the telecoms immunity, despite having no judicial power to affect ongoing litigation.

As with the telecoms, which bank directors have lobbied the President to thwarte FISA enforcement, get immunity, or other retroactive protections?

D. The President legalized unlawful activity against POWs.

As with the POW abuse memos, where are the copies of the DOJ OLC memos which retroactively "legalized" this unlawful transfer of information, without a warrant, from your bank to the President and telecoms?

E. Congress Has Been Intimidated Not to Investigate the President For Impeachable Offenses

What are the details of the plans to dissuade the public from conducting investigations against bank officials for their unlawful cooperation with the President, and failure to secure warrants before data was transferred to the telecoms?
The banks are only part of the problem. Other data warehouses include the internet websites, the email accounts, and other data-mining operations which gather emails. The questions include:
A. How the President acquired these emails and telephone numbers;

B. Did the President bypass the FISA warrant requirements to secure some non-telecom records;

C. What are the names of the intermediaries and overseas entities helping the President violate FISA;

D. Who in Congress knows about this, but has done nothing.
One issue to consider is the "backlog" of NSA intercepts. Once the President and others use this massive vacuum cleaner to troll through email accounts and phone numbers, the President and others need to explain what they're doing with this information, how it is safeguarded, and how the private contact information is adequately safeguarded so that it is not exploited, misused.

For example, once the President and law enforcement illegally acquire your email or telephone number -- and know that that information relates to you -- without a warrant, they could troll through anything waiting for you to "possibly" be involved with something questionable.

Arguably, the President and others are doing things which even the State AGs don't know about. This may be behind how Governor Spitzer was caught. When he was AG he knew or should have known about the emails and NSA; but it appears the President and others are doing things and accessing private information without a warrant using methods the leading prosecutors may not want to openly discuss, much less admit.

he Framers intended for warrants to regulate how the executive conducted searches. The idea was to have a magistrate review the facts and ensure the search is reasonable, not arbitrary, as the Red Coats were doing. This President appears to have too much information, not enough justification, and an inadequate legal compliance program.

It appears Members of Congress have secretly endorsed these methods, including the roving teams conducting warrantless interrogations. Using information the President and others acquired from your bank, the IRS, and other sources, the President has questions about transactions. He's not arguing that you're engaged in criminal activity; he's only asserting -- because his databases are incomplete -- that he needs to interrogate you, without a lawyer, because your job is to explain the gaps in his database.

FISA expressly prohibits the President and others from -- as it appears he is doing -- punishing people for engaging in Constitutionally protected activity, and targeting them for surveillance:
FISA: "(B)
not be conducted of a United States person solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the
Constitution of the United States."
Consider the still secret DOJ OLC opinions. The President's legal counsel likely uses unconvincing criteria to argue something is "not substantially" linked with protected rights.

That's not a reasonable search. It's the President using his incompetence and ignorance as the pre-text to put the attention on you.
Illegal presumption of guilt: The President, using your financial data, is starting with the incorrect presumption: "All inexplicable gaps are possible evidence; and that you, as the target, must explain away his ignorance."
The correct approach is for the President and others to develop a case using evidence, and for the government to prove the case.

We must examine the broader scope of these FISA violations; and ask who else must have helped the President violate FISA. The answer isn't to grant immunity for FISA violations; but to broaden the legal restrictions against the illegal support of FISA violations. FISA needs to be strengthened, not explained away as trivial.

What You Can Do

1. Contact your state AGs and ask them whether they have or have not discussed the broader illegal support for the President's unlawful FISA violations. Ask them whether they plan to work with the other State AGs reviewing telecom violations of State privacy statutes, and broaden the investigation from telecoms to including other illegal support for these privacy violations.

2. Raise this issue with your financial institution board of directors. Ask them whether they've been threatened if they discuss the ongoing illegal transfer of information outside the warrant requirements.

3. Contact Members of Congress on the House and Senate banking Committees. Ask for the Congressional correspondence logs showing who members of Congress on the banking committee were talking to to grant immunity to the bank board of directors for their assistance to the President and telecoms.

4. Ask through FOIAs to see the DOJ OLC opinions related to the banking institutions cooperation with the President on these FISA violations;

5. Secure copies of the concerns banks' legal counsel raised with DOJ staff counsel on the liability financial institutions would have when this illegal support was disclosed?