Interview with former FBI agent Mark Rossini

[benthamitemetric]

You wrote:

Do you have any actual case law of a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) for a discretionary investigatory decision made by an officer of any agency in the executive branch?

What? How did you come with this red herring?

The people who had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11 either had deliberately and repeatedly lied to the FBI criminal investigators who had wanted to start or continue FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists or radical Muslim terrorists found inside of the United States, or had withheld material information from their criminal investigations. Doing this had shut down criminal investigations that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. Their actions to shut down these investigations have never been explained in any way.

You wrote:

And if you think the decisions made weren't within the discretion of the officers who made them, then go ahead and cite the exact protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process. Only been asking that since you first posted your nonsense claim that the individuals in question had a legal obligation to share information in the way you believe they should have.

Now this really getting moronic.

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes. If you had even the slightest bit of legal knowledge, you would know this. But it is clear that you don't.

Of you do know this and then stated in your post what you have written, then you are deliberately being dishonest in your post.

Let me repeat so you do not miss understand what what a Federal statute means:

No "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.

For each decision made by an agent of the federal government that you believe gives rise to a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action, state the exact legal protocol you believe such agent violated.

It's really simple. Why can't you just do it?

Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim. It's beating a dead horse at this point, but revisit the whole square peg/round hole analogy. That's why you're stuck.

Do you want to admit you cannot find any caselaw that supports your interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) as applied to federal agents, by the way? If not, please provide even a single case.

 

[paloalto]

For each decision made by an agent of the federal government that you believe gives rise to a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action, state the exact legal protocol you believe such agent violated.

It's really simple. Why can't you just do it?

Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim. It's beating a dead horse at this point, but revisit the whole square peg/round hole analogy. That's why you're stuck.

Do you want to admit you cannot find any caselaw that supports your interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) as applied to federal agents, by the way? If not, please provide even a single case.

Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.

You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.

You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.

Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?

 

[Axxman300]

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

In a vacuum,sure, but in the real world of 2001 it just was not clear.

FBI management was risk averse, we know this from the Phoenix Memo, and Moussaoui. We know this because the FBI pushed John O'Neal out or the bureau. We know this because the Ambassador to Yemen hindered the FBI's investigation to the Cole bombing, and the FBI backed down.

We know that the NSA has admitted it had decisive information that it never read until weeks after 9/11.

Nobody at CIA or the FBI had evidence detailing an attack involving hijacking multiple jetliners to crash into the WTC or the Pentagon. There were meetings at Langley where attacks with jetliners were discussed in hypothetical situations, but all of those scenarios (to my knowledge) involved jets coming from overseas, and no domestic hijackings.

Without concrete foreknowledge on any level then there was no crime. We all know where the lines of investigation ended. In 16 years no additional information has been released to change anything about the 9/11 narrative.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.

You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.

You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.

Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?

What specific duty? Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government? You assume way too much and fail to provide actual specifics at every turn. You can't imagine these duties into existence. The agents either had specific duties to do a specific thing given specific circumstances or you have no 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim against them.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them. What was your duty to report that information to some specific person in the federal government? Did you violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) by not doing so? If not, why not? If your answer is going to be that you were not an FBI or CIA agent at the time, then identify for me the specific legal obligations that an FBI or CIA agent had that you did not with respect to such information, assuming, in arguendo, that such agents knew everything you claim to have known.

 

[Oystein]

This will be funny........

*procuring more *

The fight is a bit unfair, as one contestant is a pro and the other not even an amateur. Entertaining nonetheless

 

[paloalto]

What specific duty? Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government? You assume way too much and fail to provide actual specifics at every turn. You can't imagine these duties into existence. The agents either had specific duties to do a specific thing given specific circumstances or you have no 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim against them.

I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.

You merely assert there was a duty for any federal employee. You do not state where that duty comes from. Why can't you connect that duty to any actual legally binding law, regulation, or guideline?

And why can't you explain why you didn't have the same duty in the fantasy world in which you had specific foreknowledge about the attacks?

Maybe the following two questions will help you.

1. The violation of which of the following duties is a crime for which you may be prosecuted by the federal government?

(a) The duty to not transport a kidnapped person across state lines.
(b) The duty to tell the hobo in the subway stop to not harass the woman in the pink dress.
(c) The duty to wear a purple jacket and sing Sinatra when you take out the trash on a Thursday morning.

2. How could you prove the answer to number 1?

 

[Oystein]

I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.

Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

It seems you can't provide such evidence.

It appears you do not actually understand the relevant law.
You appear foolish to derive legal conclusions from the information you have discovered when you do not understand law, as you appear foolish to draw conclusions about the states of the minds of people many years ago when you have never met them and are not actually a psychic.

 

[paloalto]

Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them. What was your duty to report that information to some specific person in the federal government? Did you violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) by not doing so? If not, why not? If your answer is going to be that you were not an FBI or CIA agent at the time, then identify for me the specific legal obligations that an FBI or CIA agent had that you did not with respect to such information, assuming, in arguendo, that such agents knew everything you claim to have known.

You wrote:

"Also, putting aside the fact that we all know you are full of crap, you are the guy who has posted on this very message board the claim that you had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks based off of information that was publicly available in the months that preceded them."

LINK?

 

[paloalto]

Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

It seems you can't provide such evidence.

It appears you do not actually understand the relevant law.
You appear foolish to derive legal conclusions from the information you have discovered when you do not understand law, as you appear foolish to draw conclusions about the states of the minds of people many years ago when you have never met them and are not actually a psychic.

Already have see post 102.

I think you are repeating yourself.

 

[Oystein]

Already have see post 102.

No, you haven't.
Post 102 is you talking, nothing else.
No evidence.
No link to, no quote from any document that proves the egal situation in the USA is as you claim.
benthamitemetric has asked you fpr very specific evidence . you can't and don't provide it. Most definitely not in post 102.

I think you are repeating yourself.

That's right. You haven't heeded the advice yet, so I repeat: Don't be a fool and pretend that you can read the minds of people you have never met, years ago.

 

[paloalto]

No, you haven't.
Post 102 is you talking, nothing else.
No evidence.
No link to, no quote from any document that proves the egal situation in the USA is as you claim.
benthamitemetric has asked you fpr very specific evidence . you can't and don't provide it. Most definitely not in post 102.


That's right. You haven't heeded the advice yet, so I repeat: Don't be a fool and pretend that you can read the minds of people you have never met, years ago.

You do not have to read their minds after 16 years, the evidence now available, clearly shows their intent.

See the evidence that I have already posted in prior posts. See the article by Mark Rossini, he says it all.

Now let me guess, you can't remember what he said!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Where is the duty actually codified that, given what the investigators in question actually knew, they had to provide certain information to someone else in the federal government?

I already stated this in the post 102. Reread post 102. It is all there.

Let's have a look at post 102 in full.

Let me repeat my last post:

I have repeatedly stated that since no "protocols they should have been following instead at each step of the decision making process" ever, and I repeat ever trumps Federal law described right in written Federal statutes.

To suggest that I should describe the exact protocols and describe where they might not have been followed is not only totally absurd but completely asinine. Complete waste of time.This is getting even more moronic!

Read my post and reread my prior posts! If you can not understand these posts then there is no hope for you.

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, but rather a refusal to make any such statement.

You wrote:

"Again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) does not exist in a vacuum. It only occurs when someone has a specific duty to the federal government. If you cannot define the duty, you cannot make a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim and you have failed for days now to define any duties with actual specificity and so you have failed to articulate a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claim."

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, but simply a re-statement of the question.

Any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties, and that several al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US in order to take part in this attack, had a specific duty to give this material information to the Federal FBI investigators who were trying to find Mihdhar and Hazmi before they had time to take part in this attack.

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a personal statement of opinion.

In addition any Federal employee with information that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would cause mass casualties and was told that a suspected terrorist had just been arrested trying to get flight training on a B747 without even having a private pilot's license, had a specific duty to give this material information of this impending attack to these Federal FBI investigators investigating this terrorist and then help them get a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's possessions.

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a personal statement of opinion.

To discount this duty in any way, is just plain and completely moronic. It is clear that almost 3000 people were murdered on 9/11 because Federal employees with information that could have prevented the attacks on 9/11 deliberately did not do their duty.

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is an appeal to emotion based on hindsight.

You are suggesting this it was just fine, to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people on 9/11, and that no one had any duty at all to stop this attack.

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a strawman argument.

Do you actually realize how completely absurd your position is?

This is not a statement of where the duty is codified, it is a rhetorical question.

Let me offer some help here. A statement of where the duty is codified would take the form of: "The duty is codified in [statute], which states that [description of duty codified]." Unless and until you post an actual statement of this form, your repeated assertions that you have already done so will be seen as the attempts to evade the question that they so obviously are.

Dave

 

[Notconvinced]

Except for the evidence to support your claims that federal employees have the duties you claim.

Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[pgimeno]

Here are two criminal defendants from widely divergent backgrounds. Yet both were ensnared by Section 1001, a perennial favorite of federal prosecutors.

Since my question went ignored, I'll repeat it, this time with the above quote for context:

Assuming, by hypothesis, that someone violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), who would prosecute it?

EDIT: Perhaps someone from the Truth Movement, the most active activist group in the world? (oh gosh, I should borrow that image of a guy leaning on a wall from Beachnut)

 

[benthamitemetric]

Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no exemption. The law in question only applies only in the context of a matter within the jurisdiction of the government. In this case, there were "matters" within the jurisdiction of the federal government, but those were not matters with respect to the FBI or CIA agents paloalto is questioning (just as they were not matters with respect to you or me), and there was no actual specific duty of the FBI or CIA agents to do the things paloalto believe they should have done.

If you suspect there may be a crime and you don't tell the FBI about it, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

If you tell an FBI agent you bump into on the street that you are dracula reborn and that you have the power to infuse cupcakes with cosmic love rays with your mind, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

If you are an FBI agent who followed existing protocols and procedures in the investigation of a crime and yet failed to put all the pieces of imperfect information together to actually thwart that crime, you have not violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

Read more about how 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) claims are actually prosecuted in the real world and think on it: http://www.americanbar.org/content/...fall14_false_statement_prosc.authcheckdam.pdf

Does it seem odd that paloalto has not yet found a single instance of a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) prosecution of the kind he calls for here?

 

[Oystein]

Do you assert that Federal employees are exempt from the laws that apply to other persons? Are there certain classes of employee that might create such exemptions? Military, for example?

No, I assert no such thing.
I assert that paloalto is not providing evidence that his personal guesstimates are facts in the legal or psychological realms.

 

[Oystein]

You do not have to read their minds after 16 years, the evidence now available, clearly shows their intent.

To the extent that the claimed intent includes, specifically and explicitly, the murder of 3,000 people, you are talking out of your arse and yes, that's pretending to read minds.

Your information appears to contain evidence of intent - however it doesn't reach as far as you claim.
I advise you to be careful what you claim - to make sure it is actually backed by evidence, not bias and conjecture.
You seem to have resolved most keenly on the intent to frustrate your own goals and objectives by sticking to foolish pretence of mind-reading.

See the evidence that I have already posted in prior posts. See the article by Mark Rossini, he says it all.

Now let me guess, you can't remember what he said!

Mark Rossini provides no evidence that anyone at the CIA or FBI intended, explicitly, to have 3000 people murdered, as you so foolishly assert.

If you understood that foolish assertions like that kill your credibility dead, you would have retracted them already.

 

[paloalto]

To the extent that the claimed intent includes, specifically and explicitly, the murder of 3,000 people, you are talking out of your arse and yes, that's pretending to read minds.

Your information appears to contain evidence of intent - however it doesn't reach as far as you claim.
I advise you to be careful what you claim - to make sure it is actually backed by evidence, not bias and conjecture.
You seem to have resolved most keenly on the intent to frustrate your own goals and objectives by sticking to foolish pretence of mind-reading.


Mark Rossini provides no evidence that anyone at the CIA or FBI intended, explicitly, to have 3000 people murdered, as you so foolishly assert.

If you understood that foolish assertions like that kill your credibility dead, you would have retracted them already.

I had asked you to reread what Mark Rossini had written. It all there!

Let see if you can comprehend exactly what he said.

If you can actually comprehend exactly what he said, you will find he backs up my assertions as far as his experience with the CIA went!

I want to see if you can understand what he said?

In view of your prior posts, I doubt it!