Gonzales has not investigated Cheney over ignoring classified info. order -- despite a complaint last January

Submitted by crew on 25 June 2007 - 8:56am. Alberto Gonzales Dick Cheney

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that, despite a request from the official in charge of Information Security Oversight at the National Archives, the Attorney General has never addressed Dick Cheney's failure to comply with the executive order on classified information. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter. There is something gravely wrong with this whole situation. Dick Cheney is not a fourth branch of government, but he's sure acting like one:

Cheney's hard-line chief of staff, David Addington, has made the novel argument that the veep doesn't have to comply on the ground that, because the vice president also serves as president of the Senate, his office is not really part of the executive branch.

Cheney's position so frustrated J. William Leonard, the chief of the Archives' Information Security Oversight Office, which enforces the order, that he complained in January to Gonzales. In a letter, Leonard wrote that Cheney's position was inconsistent with the "plain text reading" of the executive order and asked the attorney general for an official ruling. But Gonzales never responded, thereby permitting Cheney to continue blocking Leonard from conducting even a routine inspection of how the veep's office was handling classified documents, according to correspondence released by House Government Reform Committee chair Rep. Henry Waxman.

Why didn't Gonzales act on Leonard's request? His aides assured reporters that Leonard's letter has been "under review" for the past five months—by Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). But on June 4, an OLC lawyer denied a Freedom of Information Act request about the Cheney dispute asserting that OLC had "no documents" on the matter, according to a copy of the letter obtained by NEWSWEEK. Steve Aftergood, the Federation of American Scientists researcher who filed the request, said he found the denial letter "puzzling and inexplicable"—especially since Leonard had copied OLC chief Steve Bradbury on his original letter to Gonzales. The FOIA response has piqued the interest of congressional investigators, who note Bradbury is the same official in charge of vetting all document requests from Congress about the U.S. attorneys flap. Asked about the apparent discrepancy, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

» crew's blog add new comment printer friendly version send to friend

DoJ Looks At Wrong Time Frame For FOIA Documents

Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 6:35pm.

Please Remind DoJ About A Calendar; Retroactive, not Prosepctive Reviews for FOIA Documents

This is circular, and absurd for DOJ to use as an excuse to deny a FOIA request:

Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the OLC response "was and remains accurate" because Leonard's letter had generated no "substantive work product."

Once DOJ refuses to respond to a FOIA where there is known evidence, and there's no DoJ documentation related to the FOIA request, this is evidence of malfeasance.

Houston: "Earth to DoJ Staff, do you read us?"

FOIAs are not, repeat NOT self-contained to ask for "documents related to this FOIA-request created after the FOIA request," but they're designed to seek documents before the FOIA request was filed.

DoJ is responding as if the FOIA-reqeuest was the starting point for the review; while the FOIA process is the opposite, looking backwards for documents that have been created before the FOIA was filed. The appropriate review is to look backwards from the FOIA-request-date; not forwards, as DoJ Staff have done.

Using DoJ's "logic" there would never be anything to provide because DoJ would never do any paperwork on any FOIA request. Of course this should be appealed, as should the DoJ staff competence and their DC Bar Standing.

» reply

Missing OVP Evidence Admissible

Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 3:53pm.

No merit to Any Assertion there is "no" evidence

CREW reports,

A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for info. on this issue was denied on the ground there were "no documents" on this matter.

Mandatory Documents, 32 CFR 2800

Small problem: 32 CFR 2800 compels OVP legal counsel to create records, documents, and other management systems to meet the OVP security program requirements.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

There is no basis for the FOIA to have been denied. The OVP or DOJ assertion that there is "no evidence" or "no record" may be adversely entered into evidence for the Grand Jury to conclude, OVP and DOJ has not complied with all 32 CFR 2800 requirements, and violated the law.

Problem for OVP Auditors in re 32 CFR 2800

DoJ needs to discuss, as it failed to do with POTUS blocking DOJ OPR from reviewing FISA, what basis it has to not investigate 32 CFR 2800 violations; and why there has been no credible accounting of the OVP legal counsel documentation and tracking requirements 32 CFR 2800.

Here are the legal requirements showing there must be records, and OVP misleading, but response has been unresponsive as required:

(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service.

(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes.

(C) Notify the Staff Security Office as soon as he/she is aware that a staff member is planning to terminate his/her employment.

Ref:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

OVP has fatally asserted there are not records, yet 32 CFR 2800 shows us that there must be records.

FOIA, Grand Jury Subpoena, Discovery

1. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Compliance Records

- How does OVP or DOJ legal counsel explain "no records" when 32 CFR 2800 compels records by OVP legal counsel in re security compliance programs?

- Did OVP use "non records"-systems connected with Microsoft Outlook, and file sharing systems that are electornic and "non records"?

2. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Evidence of Notifications

- How did OVP or DOJ legal counsel "inform" others without creating any record of document that notification, as required by 32 CFR 2800?

- What "non document" methods does OVP legal counsel use to comply?

- When did DoJ Staf learn of these "non document" file sharing systems not provided in the FOIA request?

3. Missing, Not Provided OVP System to Manage Investigations

- How were the investigations managed and processed by OVP legal counsel if there were not records, plans, or any organizing or reviewing meetings to monitor status of these reviews?

- Did OVP legal counsel discuss, communicate, interfac,e or share data with anyone, any entity, or any contractor using Microsoft Outlook SharePoint, a file sharing system; or any other "non document" method of communication to comply with 32 CFR 2800?

4. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel System to Track Changes

- How are changes tracked and reported, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- Were these changes tracked in any "non document" medium, to include file sharing, electronic, or other "non paper" communication, storage, retrieval, or transfer system?

5. Missing, Not Provided OVP Legal Counsel Method to OVersee Investigations

- What method, if there is no record, does OVP legal counsel use to track, monitor, and oversee field investigations, as required 32 CFR 2800?

- When did DOJ staff learn 32 CFR 2800 was not being followed?

- Did DoJ Staff review "non document" evidence when responding to this FOIA request?

6. Missing, Not Provided OVP legal counsel Plan to Monitor Compliance With Atty Duties; no evidence of a Supervisory Plan of OVP Legal Counsel for Other OVP assigned Counsel

- How does OVP legal counsel show that it has complied with 32 CFR 2800 on issues of notification, oversight, tracking, and monitoring of its legal requirements under 32 CFR 2800?

- What evidence does DOJ Staff have that it reviewed 32 CFR 2800 relative to OVP counsel assertions?

- Has OVP legal counsel fully complied with all "non document"-related requirements of 32 CFR 2800 and the DC Bar Rules, compelling counsel to provide an oversight plan for subordinate attorneys?

- What "non document method" did OVP and DOJ staff consel use to track the status of training of subordinate attorneys on the 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

7. Missing, No Evidence of OVP Legal Counsel Change Tracking across all management systems

- What is the method by which OVP legal counsel tracks changes to personnel status and incorporates them as required 32 CFR 2800 into other system, paperwork, and management training plans?

- What did DOJ Staff do when it realized [a] OVP Counsel had not met all requirements of 32 CFR 2800; and [b] there were not records as would be expected of a competent OVP mangement oversight system in re 32 CFR 2800?

- DiD DOJ and OVP Staff review, in responding to this FOIA, the "non documents" in electronic format, on file sharing sytems, or sent via software sytsems like SharePoint in MicrosoftOutlook?

Other Research

For more information on what documentation and evidence should be there in OVP legal counsels office in re security compliance, but apparently has been illegally withheld, destroyed, or not created as required, 32 CFR 2800:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

» reply

OVP Legal Cousel Duties On OVP Security Requirements

Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 2:56pm.

This information is not from the House Oversight Committee

32 CFR 2800 has a connection with DoD; and clearly states the legal requirements on OVP legal counsel.

Citations below from 32 CFR 2800, incorporated by reference:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32-6.2.9.19.1.html

"(1) Security Clearance Procedures. (i) The Counsel to the Vice President will:
(A) Be responsible for the processing of full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice President's staff. Department of Defense detailees are processed by the Defense Investigative Service."

1. Does OVP counsel understand what the word, "responsible" means?

- The obligation to answer for actions;
- legally held liable or accountable for a particular action

If we do not have accountability for this reckless OVP conduct, we do not have 'responsible' people in OVP or the OVP legal counsel's office. They need to be fired by the President; prosecuted; or impeached.

2. Where are the OVP legal counsel memoranda showing that they have fully complied with this 32 CFR 2800 requirement; when there are problems with non compliance, how is this information forwarded to DC Atty Disciplinary Board, DoJ OPR, or the Atty General?

3. Where is the OVP list showing which DoD personnel have been detailed from DoD to OVP?

4. What assurances can OVP legal counsel provide that all requirements of legal counsel in re 32 CFR 2800 have been fully met?

5. How were the "full field investigations for personnel assigned to the Vice
President's staff" conducted if the auditors were blocked from reviewing OVP personnel compliance/non compliance with various security requirements?

Discoverable OVP Counsel Memoranda

OVP legal counsel known communications, or should be communications to security office.

"(B) Inform the Staff Security Office of individuals whose full field investigations have been satisfactorily completed and approved and of any subsequent changes."

6. Where are these OVP legal counsel communications required under 28 CFR 2800?

7. Which auditors reviewed these CFR requirements; and how did they prepare for this compliance audit using Statement on Accounting Standard 74?

8. How can OVP legal counsel say that they are satisfied that the requirements have been met, but the auditors were prevented from reviewing whether these requirements have or have not been met?

Mandatory Signatures

Here are the documents Congress may subpoena to determine which OVP personnel have or have not complied with their security protection requirements. As for the "Statement of Understanding of Security Procedures":

"Access to classified material will be denied until the individual has had a satisfactorily completed background investigation, has received the security orientation briefing and signed the Statement of Understanding of Security Procedures."

9. Where are these signed documents kept?

10. Who is the security custodian, account Representative, for OVP; when did they get direction to provide a letter to the Scooter Sentencing Court?

11. Who approved the file plan for storage of these signed documents?

12. When did auditors last review samples of these documents to ensure they were fully meeting 32 CFR 2800 requirements?

13. What method, if any, was used to document non-compliance/non-reporting/gaps in the personnel files related to these signed memoranda?

14. When will the Attorney General direct legal staff to review OVP legal counsel apparent reckless disregard for these requirements in 32 CFR 2800?

15. When was OVP Security Office audited to ensure combinations after Libby left were changed? ["Combinations will be changed in accordance with the provisions of ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraph IV–F–5."]

16. What is the OVP legal counsel view of OVP staff required compliance with non-Executive orders; does OVP legal counsel say that these directives are not applicable; if so, for what reason:

"The Staff Security Office is responsible for transmitting or transferring all classified material outside the Office of the Vice President and the White House Complex in accordance with the provisions of ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraphs I, G and H."

17. Who in the OVP is saying that the US government and Vice President are not required to comply with security standards? Look again at this directive, it is ISOO, which is an security standard.

"ISOO Directive No. 1, paragraphs I, G and H."
[Outside reference, not in 32 CFR 2800] Here are the details of this report, provided annyally to Congress:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/index.html

18. Is OVP legal counsel saying that 32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP are not included within this annual report to Congress as required; or is OVP legal counsel being reckless in failing to ensure all OVP operations are fully consistent with 32 CFR 2800 legal requirements?

19. Why should the public have confidence OVP has competent legal counsel given this apparent recklessness by OVP legal counsel in their public statements related to whether the OVP is or is not required to fully comply with all legal requirements related to ISOO?

20. How many subpoenas has OVP legal counsel directed outside counsel to issue in search of current and former OVP personnel providing information related to illegalities inside OVP legal counsel's office; is the Grand Jury aware of these attempts by OVP legal counsel to dissuade truthful reporting to the Grand Jury of this illegal activity inside OVP?

21. Why is the OVP 32 CFR 2800 requirement including an international standard, if as Addington suggestions, the OVP is not required to enforce international standards in Geneva?

Missing Records on What OVP Destroyed

There's been some discussion that the OVP has destroyed documents. Small problem: Just because a document has been destroyed, does not mean there are no records. Each time a document is destroyed, there is a log in the OVP recording which specific documents were destroyed.

You may wish to ask for a redacted copy of this log, and ensure a special master is assigned to ensure that all classified documents destroyed were properly documented. Someone has, or should have, a complete list of all destroyed documents; or they have not complied with the document annotation requirements in 32 CFR 2800 as applicable here:

"(8) Destruction of Classified Material. (i) SECRET and TOP SECRET material will be given to the Staff Security Office for destruction to insure destruction is properly recorded and destroyed material is removed from the classified control system."

22. Who maintains these logs recording the specific documents which have been destroyed?

23. Does the log correctly include sufficient identification of the document so that personnel can retrieve from other sources all documents destroyed?

24. What happens if a document is mistakenly destroyed: How does someone get another replacement document?

25. Which auditors reviewed the compliance of this record log; and what were the results of this review per SAS74 Compliance Audits and 32 CFR 2800 compliance audits?

26. Which auditors looked at sample destruction logs to verify the listed contents in the log correctly identify each document with sufficient detail to ensure the document destroyed can be matched with a bonafide record within OVP or other classified source?

27. When does the Security Office attend annual training with DoD to ensure that its operations are consistent with intelligence community document storage requirements?

28. Who/what at the NSA (or an entity with competent adults) [a] reviewed the document storage vault procedures and physical layout and [b] provided an assurance that the OVP safe's and document storage containers do meet OVP requirements under 32 USC 2800; which contract does OVP have with any outside contractor, entity, third party, or other agency to ensure these procedures are fully met and accurately reported to OVP Counsel and Congress?

29. When did the Security Officer get trained, and how did NSA personnel review the training to ensure that all procedures within OVP did meet the intent of 32 CFR 2800?

Vice President and Plame

There's the discussion that the OVP is not responsible for Plame's name getting leaked. Small problem again: There are specific 32 CFR 2800 requirements related to special access programs:

"(k) Special access. Special access authority is required for release of Sensitive Compartmented Intelligence Information. The names of personnel cleared for access to this category of information are on file in the Staff Security Office."

30. Who provided the authority in OVP to anyone to review any document with Plame's name?

31. How did OVP Security Office provide access to any document with Plame's name?

32. Who in the OVP was in violation of 32 CFR 2800 when it provided access of a document with Plame's name, but cannot provide a straight story to the Grand Jury of who reviewed this document; and impersmissibly/illegally released this classified name?

33. Where is the document listing all personnel in OVP who, according to 32 CFR 2800 was required to record their access to, receipt, and review of this classified document with Plame's name?

34. Is it the position of OVP legal counsel that all the "bad things" and "inconvenient rules" in 32 CFR 2800 listed above as legal requirements -- enforceable through DC Bar Rule 1.16 -- are not relevant because the weather is unfavorable?

Applicability of EO To 32 CFR 2800

The problem for OVP legal counsel is fundamental: It fails to communicate to anyone that it understands the relationship between EOs and CFR. Look closely at this language:

Pursuant to the provisions of sections 1–201 and 3–103 of E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978, the following officials within the Office of the Vice President, are designated to originally classify and declassify information as “SECRET” and/or “CONFIDENTIAL”:

This shows us:

A. 32 CFR 2800 cites as a reference an Executive order;

B. The Code of Federal Regulations -- a requirement -- does inclue the Vice President, via 32 CFR 2800, within the security requirements of the Vice President;

C. The OVP is, through Executive Order and CFR, responsible for all EOs.

35. What legal non-sense is anyone in OVP legal counsel's office relying on to suggests that the 32 CFR 2800 does not include any citation to any Executive Order?

36. Is it the position of OVP legal counsel that the 32 CFR citation of "E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978" is not an executive order; if not, what is, in the view of OVP legal counsel the meaning of "E.O. 12065 of June 28, 1978"

37. What is OVP legal counsel's position on the "non" relationship between OVP and CFR: Does the CFR include everyone "but" what it expressly says in 32 CFR 2800?

Summation

Ladies and Gentlemen of the blogosphere and wider internet community. It's clear the OVP legal counsel has a problem. They have asserted there is some basis to block auditors.

This is false. The Code of Federal Regulations specifically lists the OVP as being responsible for security requirements. Further, the 32 CFR 2800 specifically incorporates by reference Executive Orders which OVP legal counsel assert do not apply.

The evidence before us -- after a plain reading of the Code of Federal Regulations -- is overwhelming, stunning, and not in dispute:

OVP Legal counsel has a specific legal duty under CFR to review documents and comply with security requirements;

OVP legal consel has provide no reasonable or lawful explanation why the clear reference to Exeucitve Orders in 32 CFR 2800 does not apply to OVP;

The issue of whether the OVP is or is not within the Executive Branch is irrelevant, moot, and meaningless: 28 CFR 2800 specifically affirms a requirement which contradicts what OVP legal counsel has pubicly asserted they are complying;

Executive Orders, through 32 CFR 2800, do have a relationship to the OVP; any statement by the OVP, VP, or POTUS to the contrary is arguably reckless without rgard to a plain reading of 32 CFR 2800 which mentions specific Executive Orders as requirements on OVP;

OVP legal counsel appears to have been complicit in not ensuring the auditors fully met their legal duties under SAS74 and GAAS to conduct a compliance audit;

OVP legal counsel can provide not accurate accounting of any log, as required by 32 CFR 2800, of which documents have been destroyed; and this log does not appear to include a complete list of all documents observed to have been destroyed with the Vice President's private quarters [As evidenced by the shredding truck photographed departing the Vice President's residence]

Matter of Extreme, Urgent, and Material Public Interest

There are many questions and issues based on a non-classified reading of 32 CFR 2800 which raise reasonable questions about whether the OVP is or is not fully complying with all legal requirements

Illegal OVP Assertions: Adverse Inferences Are Appropriate

A plain reading of the OVP statemetns on "non" applicability of EOs, despite 32 CFR 2800 stasting otherswise, is a reasonable basis to conclude that all 32 CFR 2800 have not been met; and the motivation of shuttind down the audit of the OVP compliance with the EO security requirements was with an ill-intent: To block detention of material violations of the Code of Federal Regulations, arguably the basis for a criminal indictment by a Grand Jury

Missing Evidence: Adverse Infernces Warranted

For purposes of evidence, we remind counsel that where records are missing, this is admissiable, and the Grand Jury may conclude their non-existence can be linked with reasonable adverse inferneces.

Material Information For Grand Jury

It is reasonbale to conclde that all OVP legal counsel efforts to block compliance audits are related to efforts to block auditors from documenting non-existence of evidence that should be there;

Obstruction of Justice

There has been no timely disclosure to the Grand Jury of material information related to who leaked Plame's name; or who in the OVP Security Office knew, or should have known, which documents with Plame's name were ready by whom.

DC Bar Std 1.16

DC-affiliated legal counsel in OVP legal counsel's office appear to have recklessly engaged in illegal obstruction of justice, blocked audits, and not permitted full compliance with 32 CFR 2800. These are serious questions of integrity undermining reasonable public confidence that legal counsel working for the Vice President are competent, able to meet their legal obligations expected of all legal counsel, or that they can adequately ensure the OVP meets all legal obligations.

Conclusion

A plain reading of the Code of Federal Regulations puts the OVP, Vice President, and OVP legal counsel on the wrong side of the law. DOJ AG, DOJ OPR, and other legal counsel affiliated with the DC Bar need to decide whether you want to maintain public confidence in your legal profession; or whether you require outside supervision, as is required with law enforcement, to publicly oversee and monitor what appears to be an increasingly reckless, out of control, and unresponsive legal profession.

On the table is the CFR. The OVP has a legal requirement. They are clear. OVP has not met its burden to show it has fully complied with the 32 CFR 2800. Please forward all evidence, questions, concerns and comments related to this legal issue to Congressman Waxman of the House Oversight Committee.

Recommendations

A. This information needs to be provided to the Grand Jury and Congressman Waxman of the House; and

B. DoJ Office of Special Counsel needs to explain why DoJ Staff have not moved with all due speed on these alleged violations of 32 CFR 2800, as evidenced by the absurd statements of OVP that it is not subject to any Executive Order related to security classifications:

How long has DoJ Staff been sitting on the known violations of 32 CFR 2800 within OVP;

Why, despite clearly promulgated 32 CFR 2800 requirements on OVP for security issues, is the Department of Justice not swiftly moving to ensure the facts related to the obstruction of the auditors has been known, understood, and forwarded to the US Atty for prosecution;

Why hasn't this information been provided by DOJ OPR and DOJ Staff to the Grand Jury for their review?

If you review the DoJ Staff counsel notes from the 1970s in re Nixon, they were concerned what the public would do once it was known DoJ Staff had not timely acted on material violations of legal requirements. DoJ Staff counsel have refused to answer, much less consider the public response in re 32 CFR 2800. OVP Legal Counsel and DoJ Staff show evidence of recklessness in re their oath of office, 5 USC 3331.

» reply

Office of Legal Counsel

Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 12:49pm.

in the Justice Department,headed by Steve Bradbury. Looks like it is one wagons circled around Dick Cheney to shield him from an inquiring public.

Steve Bradbury may have to explain this one.

» reply

CFR Shows OVP Legal Counsel OK's Illegalities [DC Bar Rule 1.16]

Submitted by Anonymous on 25 June 2007 - 12:30pm.

Major problem for AG and VP Cheney in re classified information. Although the VP focuse on EOs, there's a major problem: CFR specifically addresses these requirements.

32 C.F.R. PART 2800—SECURITY PROCEDURES
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title32/32cfr2800_main_02.html

"All personnel of the Office of the Vice President are responsible individually for complying with the provisions of these regulations are in all respects. The provisions of these regulations applicable to all personnel assigned or detailed to the Office of the Vice President."

The Vice President is a "person" for purposes of 32 CFR 2800 enforcement. He shall comply with the CFR, which is the governing requirement; and shall be audited per Statement on Accounting Standard 74, to ensure compliance with the 32 CFR requirements applicable to the Vice President, OVP staff, and all OVP legal counsel

Recommend public read about soemthing called a compliance audit, under statement of Accounting standard 74. Review this: [ Compliance Auditing Considerations in Audits of Governmental Entities ] which outlines what the auditors should have done; and form a line of questions for DOJ OPR to review in re the Attorney General:

When did AG learn OVP was not complying with the 32 CFR 2800?

When did OVP and Potus agree to block DOJ OPR from reviewing AG "non review" of these 32 CFR 2800 violations by OVP personnel?

When did OVP dissuade legal counsel from reporting violations of the law and requirements to DC Bar, per 1.16?

» reply