Comments (42)

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 5:24 PM:

Inslee intends to submit the resolution after the August holiday...

I hope he doesn't spend too much time on it. By then Gonzo will have resigned and been replaced by a recess appointment. This will be followed by much wailing and gnashing of teeth, but no action.

Shane wrote on July 31, 2007 5:29 PM:

I heard they can avoid a recess appointment by just having one representative there each day. Why don't they do that?

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 5:37 PM:

Please assist:

"Project for Constitutional Compliance"

Learn how audits are required by law, can pinpoint the kinds of problems in DoJ and everywhere else, and can ultimately prevent further malfeasance by gonzo-lies, bush, cheney, and their minions.

Oversight is required but has missing in action. Audits are another form of oversight.

Congress can cut off funding, just as a farmer closes an irrigation ditch to a field where nothing is growing - if the administration fails to provide all information needed for compliance with their congressional duty of oversight.

Click on my name for further info and to help.

Assist in adding to the growing catalog of information related to this project - begun by an anonymous poster at tpm.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 5:43 PM:

LEADERHIP PROBLEM: HOUSE TYING ITS OWN HANDS AGAIN

This is messed up: "The resolution would require the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether the Attorney General committed high crimes or misdemeanors." The error is to focus on whether there have been high crimes or misdemeanors. No, the proper focus is to find out what happened; let the _House_ decide, not the Judiciary Committee, whether the evidence does or does not support impeachment.

Again, the _Senate_ decides if the defendants is guilty. Whether the crime is a "high crime" or not is meaningless: It's only relevant when there is a question of removal. The Senate may convict someone of _anything_; it's only when the crime is a "high crime" that the Conviction translates into _removal_.

The House should stop trying to do the job of the Senate: Just find out the facts; and then let the House decide whether to charge. Stop trying to get a resolution that decides something the Constitution has decided: If convicted of anything, Gonzalez will be removed _if_ that conviction is for a "high crime". Don't precondition the investigation on a standard that may circularly argue "do nothing."

No, find facts: The leverage to get the facts is though the budget: Use the budget power -- and threat to shut off funds -- to compel witnesses to appear. The refusal to cooperate isn't a subsequent offense, it's _evidence_ that the President is outside the law.

REVIEW

1. Find facts
2. Charge what you want
3. Let the GOP Senators choose to convict or not convict
4. If convicted of a "high crime", he's removed
5. If the GOP Senators, despite overwhelming evidence of _any_ offenses, refuses to convict, then the voters have evidence of malfeasance; and the Grand Juries may review this subsequent GOP action in re 5 USC 3331 -- "Did the Senators, despite overwhelming evidence of guilt make a clearly erroneous decision?" If yes, then the Grand Jury may convict the GOP Senators of 5 USC 3331 violations.

6. Let the _Constitution_ decide whether the Senate conviction is a removal; do not start the House investigation with the decision the _Constitution_ has made: Removal _if_ the Senate Convicts for a _high crime_. This does not mean that "only" high crimes can be investigated; or that impeachment is only linked with "high crimes." Just because something is "not a high crime" doesn't mean the House should "not impeach" or that the Senate should "not convict" or that the investigation should "not review" that.

The only standard is whether a Senate conviction is one for that is a high crime. The House is foolish to narrowly look at "only high crimes"; while it should broadly look at _all the conduct_ and let the evidence lead the _Senate_ where the _House_ presents it.

Jane wrote on July 31, 2007 5:44 PM:

Headed in the correct direction.

Even if Gonzales leaves office there is not reason that he should ever hold a Federal office again and impeaching him after he left this office would ensure that.

Hanging Judge wrote on July 31, 2007 5:45 PM:

"By then Gonzo will have resigned and replaced by a recess appointment." I see comments about leaving a "skeleton crew" in the Senate to block such an action. Is the Senate pondering this or is this just a bunch of wishful thinking?

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 6:05 PM:

They can't very well draw up articles of impeachment for "doing bad stuff".

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Note it's Impeachment for and Conviction of--not "let the House charge 'em with whatever and then the Senate will determine what they really did." That would be like the police arresting someone for looking suspicious and hoping the prosecutor is able to make a case.

The Senate has to convict on the charges brought by the House. So, obviously, the House needs to get the charges right.

I've read a lot of comments about THE AWESOME POWER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL PURSE, but it's not so simple as that. Given the current state of the mainstream media, Democrats trying to cut funding are going to be painted as traitors and obstructionists and anti-troops and pro-terrorism and clueless about defense and so on and so forth. They can get away with threatening to defund Cheney's office, but threatening to defund the NSA? Not going to happen.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 6:23 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 31, 2007 5:37 PM
[ http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/7/30/192529/959 ]

There is a discussion of another type of budget tool. Murtha used the Zero-out option in markups. Another tool is the "sit on the bill" option: Rather than mark up the bill with zeroes, the Congress refuses to forward the appropriations bill for any consideration. That is leverage.

If the President and AG refuse to cooperate with the House impeachment investigation into Gonzalez; RNC e-mails; or the US Atty firing issues; or FISA, then [a] budgets can be frozen; [b] contracts can be cancelled; [d] bills can be blocked . . . .and the GOP, President, and Senate is powerless to _make_ the House do this.

Again, there is _one_ person who can do this: The Speaker. She can refuse anything. She will not. We can only conclude one thing: Despite "the mandate" she's not serious about asserting _power_, and this has nothing to do with _impeachment_. It's absurd for the Speaker to say that there is an "important" agenda: The GOP is _blocking_ this by refusing to permit votes on this "agenda". We don't need new laws that the President will ignore; we need new incentives for the President and AG to wake up and pay attention: Budget cuts. However, if impeachment and budget cuts are off the table, ten there is _no difference_ between the DNC and GOP rubber stamping.

So, on the table:
A. If she is serious about 'the mandate" why is she not using _non impeachment tools_ to leverage her power against the AG and President to compel answers?
B. Why does the Speaker credibly believe that anyone will buy the "oh, we have more important things to do and bills to pass" when _this_ President and AG [a] will not enforce or follow the _existing_ bills; and [b] they write "new rules" to ignore the _existing laws"?

Members of Congress: Either impeach, prosecute, cut the budget as a catalyst for AG responses, or face prosecution: For failing to assert _all_ lawful options to defend the Constitution from _domestic_ enemies. A decision to take an option off the table, or precondition an investigation is a _mental reservation_ which the Grand Jury may conclude is a violation of 5 USC 3331. A decision of Members of Congress to block proclamations calling for impeachment; or to "only investigate" "high crimes" can also be entered into evidence as not having fully used _all_ options to defend _this_ Constitution. Narrow language, when linked with a decision to not do something, is not a lawful intent of Congress, but evidence of _malfeasance_ and a _mental reservation_ from keeping all options on the table.

If Congress is "only" going to investigate "high crimes," don't bother: That's a sham investigation, which will bury "all other evidence" that the Senate needs to be compelled to confront. Again, it is meaningless to talk "only" of forcing the senate to review "high crimes"; the Senate can convict for anything. Whether that conviction is a removal or not depends on what the House finds; the House, when it says "only look at high crimes" is taking all the other stuff off the table. Again! Outrageous. The House has _no idea_ what else is going on that is "not a high crime" but is something that the House should charge the defendants with. Again, the House is _in the vacuum of ignorance_ saying, '''We have no clue what is going on; but we will "only" investigate what is "high" cries; and all the other stuff we're not going to look at.'''

That's absurd. You look at it all; then let the House _after_ the investigation decide what to _Charge_; don't narrowly confine the investigation to only things that may warrant removal. The gaol of the House is to assert its power -- through impeachment and budget authority -- to compel the AG and President to cooperate, provide information, and assist Congress.

REVIEW

1. Start with budget cuts to awaken the AG and President.
2. Compel cooperation with fact finding.
3. Keep all options on the table: Impeachment, budget cuts, and subpoenas; then make referrals to the US Atty; and seek State AG assistance if the US Atty will not cooperate.
4. Take an expansive view of the situation; do not narrowly only look at "high crimes"
5. let the House, after the investigation, decide what to charge. The charges do not have to be "high crimes", but anything.
6. Let the Senate decide to convict or not convict based on the evidence.
7. Let the Grand Jury review the House and Senate Members: Did they ignore obvious evidence; and did they erroneously not convict Gonzalez for a lesser crime; or did the House and Senate properly assert their 5 USC 3331 requirements?

Voters are not the primary oversight,not the exclusive means to discipline Members of Congress at the ballot box. Rather, the Grand Jury -- unrelated to an election -- has the final say on criminal punishments for Members of Congress in re their oath of office. This is the power We the People through the 10th Amendment have retained. The voters in 2008 are a secondary issue.

Being "opposed to this bill calling for an impeachment investigation" is not a bad thing: It is proper in that _this_ bill, as it is worded be rejected, appears to narrowly tie the House's hands. That is improper. As with the Foley investigation, the one thing hat is worse than misconduct by Members of Congress and not action, is a cursory investigation that doesn't change behavior. This DNC Congress, with this Gonzalez impeachment bill, appear to be going down the "we want to tie our hands before we get the facts"-approach that Conyers and Pelosi have chosen; and the GOP did since 2001. The mandate was for change, not new flavors to sour milk.

If the Bill _broadly_ permits the House Judiciary to look at _all_ facts, that is proper. Let the _Senate_ decide whether to convict; and let the _House_ decide what to charge _after_ the Committee completes its investigation. It is an error to narrowly look at "high crimes" without using the impeachment investigation in concert with budget tools and all options for an expansive inquiry: Unless the AG cooperates with the inquiry, his money is cut; and the Congress will not forward appropriations bills. Unless that happens, don't do what was done with the Foley investigation: A sham oversight process.

SUMMARY

The bill's language needs to be changed to direct the House Judiciary Cmte to review a broad view of all conduct, not just "high crimes".

MARKUP:

"That the Committee on the Judiciary shall investigate fully [strike "whether sufficent grounds exist for the House of Repenstives to impeach"] Alberto R. Gonzalez, Attorney General of the Untied States. [Period]

Strike: "for high crimes and misdemeansors"

Add: "Upon conclusion of the Investigation, the House shall review whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach."

Add: "Upon a vote to impeach, the House shall forward that evidence to the Senate who shall decide whether the Atty General is innocent or guity of those charges."

Add: "If the charges are related to High Crimes, and the Senate convicts the Attorney General for those high crimes, then the Senate convition shall result in the AG's removal from office."

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 6:25 PM:

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 6:05 PM

"Given the current state of the mainstream media, Democrats trying to cut funding are going to be painted as traitors and obstructionists and anti-troops and pro-terrorism and clueless about defense and so on and so forth."

Where's the call for "Mutha Geing a traitor" for cutting the DOD Congressional liasion budget?

Zip. Your argument fails. Sounds like more of the GOP's "ooh, better watch out. . . " Why would the GOP give anyone "good advice?" If it was a "gotcha" the GOP would be _silent_ and let the DNC make an error.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 6:32 PM:

Impeachment is not the same as conviction; and conviction for _any_ crimes is possible. The _only_ issue is: Whether the Senate convicts for _high crimes_.
The House can charge him with anything; and the Senate can convict him of anything. The only issue is whether the _conviction- is or is not for a high crime.

----------

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 6:05 PM

This is a meaningless argument: "They can't very well draw up articles of impeachment for "doing bad stuff". Sure they can. The _house_ can decide -- on its own -- what it wants to do. President ignores precedent on commutation; House isn't bound by anything _unless_ the House chooses to be bound. Judge Roberts says that precedent doesn't apply. Why should the House follow precedent on anything? No answer.

Interesting: But not relevant _to the question of charges_: [ Article II, Section 4 The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."] Constitution does _not_ say that the House can _only_ impeach for "high crimes"; it _only_ says what the _removal_ is; but this does _not_ mean that the House can _only_ charge/impeach for "only high crimes"; it can charge for _any crime_, including maladministration, or _anything_.

It is up to the _House_ to decide what to charge. It can be _anything_: "We don't like his hair". The issue turns on whether the _voters_ believe that that charge was improper. But its perfectly acceptable, _before_ the issue of _charges_ comes up to say, "We want to keep our options open: We're going to look at everything."

The current resolution is too narrow. Your argument fails.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 6:38 PM:

NARROW BUDGET CUTS CAN EXPAND TO LARGER CONTRACT EFFORTS

Congress can selectively target for program termination contract efforts at the budget-line level. This means that not all of The President's budget is zero, but that contracted efforts, and line items in a given office can be zeroed out.

------------------
This misses the point, and overstates what can happen: ["They can get away with threatening to defund Cheney's office, but threatening to defund the NSA? Not going to happen." ]

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 6:05 PM
---------------------

Again, if some want to believe that the argument in favor of budget cuts is "cut everything" you're missing the point: line items target narrow functions; if the AG will not respond to _narrow_ budget cuts, then the NSA could be broadly targeted for shut down.

But again: this kind of broad assertion of "what can be cut" broadly misses the point: ["They can get away with threatening to defund Cheney's office, but threatening to defund the NSA? Not going to happen." ] The contractors _within_ the NSA budget get get issued _today_ cease work orders on the non-mission critical areas. Don't overstate what's being suggested.

It's possible that budgets can be shut down, blocked, and zeroed out. Contractors funding lines are not secure. If the NSA contractors would like to get paid, then they need to cooperate with Congressional oversight; without cooperation, those contracts can be terminated. _Today_. Yes, it can happen, especially when the President will not cooperate. The contractors have one person to blame: The President.

molly wrote on July 31, 2007 6:39 PM:

Anyone who says "Impeachment is off the table....We have important work to do. Impeachment proceedings would keep us from our important work ." WE should let these people know that WE will not vote for them. To me...The democrats making these statements are no better than republicans. If you are rich, white and powerful, you can do anything.

Troll Patrol wrote on July 31, 2007 6:40 PM:

"fuzz" seems to be here to disrupt things.

I was hoping to retire.... but....

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 6:44 PM:

Anonymous:

Your persistence is paying off! Now you've got your very own troll.

AND YOUR MESSAGE IS ON THE FRONT PAGE OF TPMCafe!

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 6:49 PM:

Posted by: TheraP
Date: July 31, 2007 6:44 PM

You did the work!

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 6:56 PM:

Anon, No... you did the work... I'm just cheer-leading. And rolling the ball a bit further.

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 7:09 PM:

Oh, it is the same Anon! Hi Anon! Keeping the shiny side of the foil on the outside today, are we?

For those just joining us, in my last encounter with Anon he (or she) claimed to have knowledge of secret eavesdropping techniques not known to the NSA that are going to blow the lid off of the missing emails situation.

If you were really refuting my arguments you wouldn't need to announce "Your argument fails."

I am most assuredly not a troll. I am registered on TPM, have made blog entries, given TPM story tips and participate in this community in a respectful manner. Your troll is Anonymous with his ridiculous stories about the President of the United States having some auditing team that's being suckered by Congress. Did no one bother to look that up? There is no presidential auditing team. Someone is having a big laugh at your expense. I asked Anon for references half a dozen times the last time I encountered him. He never provided a single one. I'll provide references to back up anything and everything I say.

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

Oh, it is the same Anon! Hi Anon! Keeping the shiny side of the foil on the outside today, are we?

For those just joining us, in my last encounter with Anon he (or she) claimed to have knowledge of secret eavesdropping techniques not known to the NSA that are going to blow the lid off of the missing emails situation.

If you were really refuting my arguments you wouldn't need to announce "Your argument fails."

I am most assuredly not a troll. I am registered on TPM, have made blog entries, given TPM story tips and participate in this community in a respectful manner. Your troll is Anonymous with his ridiculous stories about the President of the United States having some auditing team that's being suckered by Congress. Did no one bother to look that up? There is no presidential auditing team. Someone is having a big laugh at your expense. I asked Anon for references half a dozen times the last time I encountered him. He never provided a single one. I'll provide references to back up anything and everything I say.

mutt wrote on July 31, 2007 7:12 PM:

TheraP: you roll like a roller derby queen! Thx for all the grunt work. Well said, & well reasoned.
Review: However, all this perfectly reasonable sensible practicle planning has to go thru the likes of Pelosi, Conyers, et al. Damn.
New sub head: Turd In The Punchbowl?
Im with you. Thanks again.
security code: Knot. As in Pelosi et al are voluntarily tied up in a.....

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 7:16 PM:

anyone can post anonymously - but we know "our anon"

ricey1 wrote on July 31, 2007 7:18 PM:

More good info on grand juries: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/24/203943/002

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 7:22 PM:

mutt:

If you go back and look at all the information our "Mystery Poster" is providing, you will see that we do not need to rely only on our elected representatives, because We the People are the 4th Branch.

Thus we have powers, through State Attorneys General and the convening of Grand Juries to compel the Congress to do its oversight job, which will compel the executive to provide sufficient information so that a complete picture of their perfidy becomes available. And prosecutable.

IANAL - but "Anon" seems very knowledgeable about auditing. And the Constitution. Our rights under the 10th Amendment. And Congress' power of the purse.

We need to do something. I'm doing what I can. And thanks for all you can do!

TheraP wrote on July 31, 2007 7:34 PM:

ricey1:

Just added your contribution. Thanks!

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 8:01 PM:

If the President of the United States doesn't really have a team of auditors for Congress to foil, wouldn't that, perhaps, strike at Anon's credibility?

Anon seems bright enough, but he completely blew it when he started talking out of his behind about secret technology that will amaze the experts and the NSA with its ability to glean the complete text of every email and instant message sent in the entire world and do it in such a way that the information is admissible in court. He would have done much better (with his trolling) to back off of that particular point.

His arguments are spurious; he refuses to cite sources. Does he have good information to share? Maybe. But you better double-check his facts. Starting with the Presidential Auditing League, or whatever that's supposed to be.

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 8:18 PM:

It took some digging, but here is the thread from the last time I engaged Anon:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003235.php

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 8:27 PM:

Troll Patrol, please regale us with other instances of my trollmanship. Or did you just start attacking and rating my comments 0 because I engaged in debate with someone you agree with?

Fascist Patrol is more like it.

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 8:34 PM:

Oops, I didn't intend to post that anonymously.

"Troll Patrol, please regale us with other instances of my trollmanship. Or did you just start attacking and rating my comments 0 because I engaged in debate with someone you agree with?

Fascist Patrol is more like it."

was me, fuzz.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 9:40 PM:

You're not making sense: [ "If the President of the United States doesn't really have a team of auditors for Congress to foil, wouldn't that, perhaps, strike at Anon's credibility?" ]

How do you explain the third party data captures: ["technology that will amaze the experts and the NSA with its ability to glean the complete text of every email and instant message sent in the entire world" ]

Can't help you if you haven't read the samples.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 9:42 PM:

"President of the United States having some auditing team that's being suckered by Congress."

_entities_ can be audited by the President. Congress can review _how_ the auditors reviewed that entity.

Can't help you if you're not understanding.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 9:44 PM:

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 8:01 PM

Already posted the CFR. Can't help you if you can't read.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 9:45 PM:

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 8:18 PM

How many more examples of third party data capture do you want? ALready been posted.

Can't help you if you can't/won't read.

fuzz wrote on July 31, 2007 10:06 PM:

Anonymous: There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job.

Can't help you if you can't back up your own statements.

Please, give us a link to a single example of mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job.--you don't even have to provide the results of an audit, just any indication, whatsoever, that "the _president's auditors_" actually exist.

Note to "Troll Patrol" (as if he's actually a different person)--Anonymous has claimed his earlier conversation with me:

How do you explain the third party data captures: ["technology that will amaze the experts and the NSA with its ability to glean the complete text of every email and instant message sent in the entire world" ]

So there is no need to claim elsewhere that I am misattributing earlier conversations.

Anonymous, you are a troll.
You have been exposed as a troll.
Again.
The End.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 10:13 PM:

The stripping of HTML tags made my last post difficult to parse, so I'll try again:

Anonymous stated elsewhere on TPM: "There's also problem the President has: There are mandatory audits which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job."

Can't help you if you can't back up your own statements.

Please, give us a link to a single example of mandatory audits "which _he_ has to oversee, but the audit target is _outside his control_ This means, that we can test whether the _president's auditors_ were or were not doing their job."--you don't even have to provide the results of an audit, just any indication, whatsoever, that "the _president's auditors_" actually exist.

This should be an easy way to prove me wrong! Go for it!

Note to "Troll Patrol" (as if he's actually a different person)--Anonymous has claimed his earlier conversation with me:

"How do you explain the third party data captures: ["technology that will amaze the experts and the NSA with its ability to glean the complete text of every email and instant message sent in the entire world" ]"

So there is no need to claim elsewhere that I am misattributing earlier conversations.

Anonymous, you are a troll.
You have been exposed as a troll.
Again.
The End.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 11:15 PM:

[ "secret technology that will amaze the experts and the NSA with its ability to glean the complete text of every email and instant message sent in the entire world and do it in such a way that the information is admissible in court." ]
Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 8:18 PM
- - - - - -

Here's your problem, Fuzz: If you go to the link _you_ provided, _you_ didn't followup to the information provided. Your name isn't at the end. There's a two month gap. You have no explanation: _Why_ if you "were confused" or "not clear" why didn't you post something _then_ or _there_?

The short version: You're not engaging in dialogue, but misrepresentations. The link you cited isn't what you say it is. You're not helpful. When you respond to the following questions, maybe I'll think about your questions:

1. Feel free to point to where this was claimed.
2. What evidence do you have that this hasn't been done?
3. How many examples do you want?
4. Give one reason why anyone should provide you _again_ with information already presented?
5. Given you want to misrepresent what a "dialogue" is, why would anyone bother to respond to your questions?
6. If the "source" is "the Internet" will you be satisfied with that; or do you want something else?
7. How many examples do you want; how old does the data have to be; what is your definition of what a "successful demonstration of a third party data capture system" is?
8. What kind of answers will satisfy you on your requirements?

You apparently want to know something. How badly do you really want it? If you show _by example_ what you expect of others, maybe people will take you seriously. Your link doesn't show you're serious. _Your_ problem.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 11:32 PM:

"give us a link to a single example of mandatory audits"

Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 10:06 PM

- - - - -

You asked for one [1] link. Here it is:

Google [ PART 266 AUDITS OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION, AND OTHER NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS ]

1. President oversees these audits.

2. CFR applies to non-Federal entities.

3. Congress provides funding indirectly or directly.

4. Funds may or may not be related to the official task assigned.

5. Investigators can establish entities as covers during investigations.

6. Audit targets at the state level are outside his control; the Federal Audits done are done under his ultimate review.

7. GAGAS procedures apply to Federal Auditors; President oversees the Executive Branch. "President's auditors" are those who work for the President: In the Exeuctive Branch.

8. All procedures which the auditors follow either follow GAGAS; or, by inference, "otehr direction" out of OMB, EOP, OVP, or WH -- which do not comply with GAGAS -- are up to the Congress to decide: Has the President given direction which does not comply with GAGAS.

- - - - -

When these enties are established, the President has the power and responsibilty to direct these aaudit, as called for in the CFR. That burden is one for him to enforce.

- - - -

"So there is no need to claim elsewhere that I am misattributing earlier conversations."

Your problem, Fuzz, is that the linke you've provided doesn't include a follow-up question. In the meantime, after your posting in May 2007 -- two months ago -- the information's been posted; but you didn't, until now, ask for any details.

Explain: You want an answer to a question you didn't post in May 2007 at the link; or are you saying you're not satisifed with the lins and information provided on how this third party data capture works?

- - - - - - -

"How do you explain the third party data captures:"

Are you asking this question; or are you asking for a link?

- Are you asking for a demonstration?
- Do you want a sample?
- Do you want to see how its done?
- Do you want to have "proof" that third party data captures are real?
- You want a copy of the software sent to you?

Not clear what you're asking for.

Anonymous wrote on July 31, 2007 11:55 PM:

[ "It took some digging, but here is the thread from the last time I engaged Anon:"]
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003235.php
Posted by: fuzz
Date: July 31, 2007 8:18 PM
- - - - -
All,
Take a look at the link Fuzz provided you. Notice the "last time" [ Date: June 6, 2007 3:38 AM ]
This means that since Jun 2007, until now, almost _two_ [2] full months, Fuzz didn't provide a followup; nor ask for additional information.
The last response Fuzz "got" was [ May 20, 2007 3:59 PM ] -- Which may or may not have addressed his concerns (whatever that means).
What's up with that, Fuzz:
I don't mean to be rude here, but is there a problem with you?
If you expect someone else to do something, why are you pointing to a link that does _not_ support a reasonable conclusion that you are communicating? That May-Jul 2007 isn't in your favor. There's nothing from _you_. That's not a conversation; that's mind-talk. I can't read your mind. Again, not trying to be rude here: But are you expecting me to "know" what you're thinking, even though you didn't post anything since May; and you were concerned about something and didn't' followup? Again, not trying to be rude, but you appear to be delusional.
Why are you providing a link to something that you haven't posted a follow-up question to? Again, if you do not want to post your concern, can't help you. Not clear what you want _two_ months after silence. _If_ you had a question, why not post it there, with a link saying, "I have some follow-up questions." OR "I want this" or "Can you show me . . ."
As far as a demonstration goes, here we are, July 2007, half way past _this_ year, and one _full_ year after the original data set was posted somewhere else -- which you would've looked at, but didn't -- and what do we say? Apparently you missed the links elsewhere. Is that _my_ problem?
NO, I think it's _your_ problem: You still have a question -- that you didn't post -- and can't find the information that _has_ shown (apparently) what a third party data capture systems does. Are you saying that you missed it? It's been two months; been alot of typing; maybe too much typing and not enough reading for the information you asked for, but didn't post after May2007?
I can't help you. Nothing provided. What have you been doing for the last two months? Or are we "not allowed" to ask you that question; but you get to "expect" others to respond to questions that you haven't posted _there_ at the _link_ you provided.
Your link proves only one thing: The last _responses_ to _you_, from someone else, did not get a follow-up from _you_. What's your point:
A. You can provide a link to content that doesn't prove anything [That the last response to you in May didn't get a followup question for additional information _there_]
B. You can show the world that you are pointing to content that _contradicts_ your claim that you were engaging in dialogue [No follow-up from you]
C. That you can claim that you were asking a question, but when you were given a response, you did not follow _there_; but waited _two_ months to point to it? [Still not being clear with what you want]
What do _you_ want; and what is going to satisfy you; and given you (apparent) convoluted link which doesn't support anything you're saying. . . what do you hope to accomplish?
You're not making sense. I don't think you believe you're serious. If you were serious, you'd have followed up _there_ and been specific. _What_ do you want?
Again, you're not making sense.

Troll Patrol wrote on August 1, 2007 12:08 AM:

Oy Vey!!!

Patience is a virtue.

Yossarian wrote on August 1, 2007 12:22 AM:

They should impeach not only this dud (not dude) and also "the evil one" Dick "f" Cheney.

slb wrote on August 1, 2007 1:15 AM:

Fuzz,

All this business about auditors providing the infallible link to uncover the content of missing e-mails has made no sense to me at all, but for all I knew, it was because my eyes were glazing over before I got to the end of all those long posts. Thanks for having the courage to suggest that the emperor has no clothes.

Salmo wrote on August 1, 2007 7:02 AM:

There is a lot of future tense in this story. It's past time for the verb tense to change.

davidwparker wrote on August 1, 2007 7:14 PM:

>Posted by: TheraP
>You did the work!
>
>Posted by:
>Date: July 31, 2007 6:49 PM
>Anon, No... you did the work... I'm just cheer-leading. And rolling >the ball a bit further.

>Posted by: TheraP
>Date: July 31, 2007 6:56 PM

You both are doing an excellent job. I've been reading Anon's posts and checking it out since kpete first posted a link to them on Democratic Underground and has since been picked up by DailyKos.

Thanks for your exchanges. I may pose a question to Anon myself after I've finished looking at the material.

siri wrote on August 1, 2007 8:15 PM:

This is most excellent news. The impeachment of any one of Bu$h's thugs may very well loosen the wheels, polish up the process and make it an easier move for the House to proceed to impeachment of the "head thugs", Bu$h and his boss Cheney. Let us move forward here. CALL AND WRITE your reps urging them to support Congressman Inslee. And a HUGE SALUTE to him for having the necessary integrity and cojones to DO THE PEOPLES BIDDING, DO THE RIGHT THING.

Begin with Gonzo, and move on to his bosses! And continue on until OUR WHITE HOUSE is totally and completely purged of the vermin that has taken over and hijacked our government and our Great Nation!

IMPEACH
INVESTIGATE
INDICT
IMPRISON THE ENTIRE BU$H CABAL!

siri@legitgov.org
www.legitgov.org