Interview with former FBI agent Mark Rossini

[Oystein]

My GOD man can't you read:
...

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

 

[beachnut]

It is not nice to tease/poke/stir up/etc people with delusions. oops

Today I will post the contents of the dictionary, and conclude the CIA made it happen... can't argue with the facts

 

[paloalto]

Maybe you are right. It was not deliberate. The CIA and FBI HQ's shut down these FBI criminal investigations again and again and again accidentally. Their numerous and careful actions to shut down these investigations, when they all knew it would shut down or block investigations that could have stopped the al Qaeda terrorist attacks that these agencies had been warned about since April 2001, and allow this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to take place that would kill many people in the US, were numerous actions that were all completely accidental.

Their testimony was that the people in the CIA and at FBI HQ's were just all way to stupid to know that the three al Qaeda terrorists that the CIA found on August 21, 2001, inside of the US, were connected to the warnings of this huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that was just to take place inside of the US, is correct. How could anyone have been smart enough to have connected these two. Even the 9/11 Commission stated that they could never figure out why the CIA had never connected these two.

After all, as you have pointed out, how could anyone be smart enough to know that three al Qaeda terrorist inside of the US were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US. Maybe the CIA and FBI HQ's thought they were here in order to get a little R&R before going to Outer Mongolia to carry out this attack.

It is now clear that no one could ever have been smart enough to connect several al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US.

And how would anyone know when you shut down the FBI criminal investigations of these al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US, by FBI criminal investigators who wanted to under take to find these terrorists before they had time to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US, and told the FBI HQ's agents that if they shut down their investigations of these terrorists, people in the US will die, that this would allow these terrorists to carry out a terrorist attack inside of the US.

To connect these two, the fact that al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US to the many warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US, is as you said, is just nonsense.

You are speculating at great length about the psychological state of people you never met many many years ago.

What do you mean. I was agreeing with you that:

To connect these two, the fact that al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US to the many warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US, is as you said, was just nonsense. As the CIA and FBI HQ's stated: Who could ever have been smart enough to connect these so called "dots", several al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US to a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US.

 

[benthamitemetric]

My GOD man can't you read:

"What were the exact applicable information sharing protocols in place at the time?"

Very simple, and I have already provided this information once:
I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, but it is in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators.

Everyone at the CIA and FBI HQ's was well aware of this!

I don't know how this can be made any clearer!

In fact, I m sure I can't make this any clearer than this.

It makes no difference if the agency that has the information is not the same agency doing the criminal investigation or a completely different agency, the law is exactly the same in all cases.

READ THE POST!

Show me the exact protocols for sharing. And show me the "law" by which those protocols were governed as well. Why can't you just provide them? Is there a document out there somewhere that says that in 2001 the information sharing protocol was that every single piece of information viewed by every single person employed in the FBI must be shared with every single person in the CIA, or were the protocols not as you describe them above? If the latter, why don't you clarify as to the exact circumstances under which an FBI agent had to, by law, share info with the CIA (and, in such cases, to whom at the CIA such info as to be shared and what such recipient's legal obligation was with regards to disseminating it intra-agency) and vice versa.

We can get to your silly misapplication of federal laws, but first I am trying to take you seriously re your claims that information sharing protocols were not followed. Once we've figured that out, we can see if any alleged violations of those protocols were violations of law.

EDIT: And just so this rope-a-dope exchange isn't too drawn out, let me hint to you that there are dozens upon dozens of books written about the protocols in question. I'm pretty sure you know all about them as they were discussed at length in the commission report and numerous hearings, etc. Try googling the name of Pink Floyd's 1979 blockbuster album in the context of the CIA and FBI and let me know if that jogs your memory/honesty.

 

[paloalto]

Show me the exact protocols for sharing. And show me the "law" as well. Why can't you just provide them? Is there a document out there somewhere that says that in 2001 the information sharing protocol that states every single piece of information viewed by every single person employed in the FBI must be shared with every single person in the CIA, or were the protocols not as you describe them. If the latter, why don't you clarify to the exact circumstances under which an FBI agent had to, by law, share info with the CIA (and, in such cases, to whom at the CIA such info as to be shared and what such recipient's legal obligation was with regards to disseminating it intra-agency) and vice versa.

We can get to your silly misapplication of federal laws, but first I am trying to take you seriously re your claims that information sharing protocols were not followed. Once we've figured that out, we can see if any alleged violations of those protocols were violations of law.

I already have. See my prior post. It says it all.

The information sharing protocols were very simple.

"Is there a document out there somewhere that says that in 2001 the information sharing protocol that states every single piece of information viewed by every single person employed in the FBI must be shared with every single person in the CIA, or were the protocols not as you describe them."

"And If the latter, why don't you clarify to the exact circumstances under which an FBI agent had to, by law, share info with the CIA (and, in such cases, to whom at the CIA such info as to be shared and what such recipient's legal obligation was with regards to disseminating it intra-agency) and vice versa."

Please reread my prior post again.

The information sharing protocols were very simple.

There was never a requirement that FBI information had to be shared with the CIA unless the CIA requested it and the FBI provided it as a courtesy.

But by law: "If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation by any agency, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, and it was in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators.

It made no difference if the agency that had the information was the same agency that was doing the criminal investigation or a completely different agency. Any material information any agency had with respect to a Federal criminal investigation had to be given, to the criminal investigators, investigating a crime.

I don't know how I or anyone can make this any clearer.

Here again are the laws covering this information sharing:

The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony

The Penalty shall not exceed 8 years if the withholding involves withholding from a terrorism investigation.

See 18 USC 371 Conspiracy:

Conspiracy is an offense that is charged in combination with another. When a person commits a criminal offense together with another person or group, the agreement among them to commit the crime is a conspiracy and its own offense. Conspiracy is an inchoate crime, which means that the offense is committed before any action takes place. It is the agreement to engage in a criminal offense that is the crime. The criminal offense itself does not have to take place. Under 18 USC 371, a person can be charged with conspiracy based on two elements:
1. An agreement to commit a criminal offense.
2. An overt act that furthers the conspiracy.
The US Attorney does not have to prove that the agreement was in writing. It can be verbal and still subject the parties to criminal liability.
The statute provides that the sentence for conspiracy is up to 5 years imprisonment:

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The only defense to conspiracy is that the defendant withdrew from the agreement. To prevail at trial, the defendant must convince the jury that he withdrew from the conspiracy by communicating his withdrawal to the co-conspirators and taking some action that is inconsistent with the conspiracy. Not only must the defendant disavow the agreement, he must also do something that defeats the purpose of the conspiracy. The defendant must take affirmative action against the conspiracy.

Constructive manslaughter:

Constructive manslaughter is also referred to as "unlawful act" manslaughter. It is based on the doctrine of constructive malice, whereby the malicious intent inherent in the commission of a crime is considered to apply to the consequences of that crime. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. The malice involved in the crime is transferred to the killing, resulting in a charge of manslaughter.

Criminally negligent manslaughter

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability.[6] A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts himself or herself in a position where the defendant will be unaware of facts which would render him or her liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment.

Offense Mandatory sentencing
Involuntary Manslaughter 1-10 years

Voluntary Manslaughter 1-20 years

Second Degree Murder 10-30 years

Murder & Felony Murder Death, Life without parole, or Life with parole eligibility in 25 or 30 years

Some one asked:

"None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols." This is just plain horse ******

All of these laws apply regardless whether the people having material information are part of different agencies from the investigation or are part of the same agency. These laws make no exceptions for information withheld by persons from criminal investigators within the same agency.

Anyone who knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry commits a Federal felony.

They go to jail, if they conspired with another person, this is criminal conspiracy, and they get more jail time.

If people die due to their actions or "in-actions", then the manslaughter statues also apply as listed above, and they can get 20 additional years in jail.

 

[benthamitemetric]

I already have. See my prior post. It says it all.

The information sharing protocols were very simple.

"Is there a document out there somewhere that says that in 2001 the information sharing protocol that states every single piece of information viewed by every single person employed in the FBI must be shared with every single person in the CIA, or were the protocols not as you describe them."

"And If the latter, why don't you clarify to the exact circumstances under which an FBI agent had to, by law, share info with the CIA (and, in such cases, to whom at the CIA such info as to be shared and what such recipient's legal obligation was with regards to disseminating it intra-agency) and vice versa."

Please reread my prior post again.

The information sharing protocols were very simple.

There was never a requirement that FBI information had to be shared with the CIA unless the CIA requested it and the FBI provided it as a courtesy.

But by law: "If there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation by any agency, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, and it was in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators.

It made no difference if the agency that had the information was the same agency that was doing the criminal investigation or a completely different agency. Any material information any agency had with respect to a Federal criminal investigation had to be given, to the criminal investigators, investigating a crime.

I don't know how I or anyone can make this any clearer.

Here again are the laws covering this information sharing:

...

Why are you dodging on providing the exact info sharing protocols, which have been much discussed? Do you not realize that a protocol of "if there is evidence of a substantial Federal crime by a suspect or suspects in a Federal investigation by any agency, that information not only can be shared and given to the Federal criminal investigators investigating that crime, and it was in fact a major Federal crime not to share that information with these Federal criminal investigators" doesn't even make sense in the real world? In fact, as you likely know, there not only were very detailed protocols for how any when law enforcement agencies and intelligence agencies share info, but there are also substantial restrictions on when they may do so. Even within the FBI, there are major restrictions on intra-agency info sharing, and, back in 2001 and the the years prior to it, those restrictions were much more severe. The heart of those restrictions at issue re Sept 11 evidence sharing came to be known as the "Gorelick wall," again, as I'm sure you already know.

The fact, however, that you seem to think that, in spite of these complicated protocols, each law enforcement agency had perfect information about all of the others such that it would know if any given piece of information it received was relevant to any potential investigation of each other, indicates to me that you haven't wrestled with these ideas very much.

BTW, do you really not understand that 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) is applicable to those under investigation by the federal government, not those conducting the investigation?

EDIT: (Hint--think about the significance of the phrase "in any matter" means in the context of this statute. We won't judge you if you actually google cases involving the statute to see how it is applied, either.)

 

[beachnut]

...
If people die due to their actions or "in-actions", then the manslaughter statues also apply as listed above, and they can get 20 additional years in jail.

Did you say you knew the attacks were coming... have you turned yourself in.

 

[Axxman300]

First off, we got public warnings of an Al Qaeda attack on CONUS as far back as March, 2001. The military closed their bases from public access, and began building new fencing, and added security in anticipation of a terror attack - WHICH THEY STATED PUBLICLY.

In July the State Department issued a travel warning for the Middle East citing chatter for planned Al Qaeda hijacking of commercial jets some time in August.

Again, the idea that the public wasn't told is a lie.

As far as sharing information between CIA, FBI, and NSA goes it's not as simple as you want people to believe. Secret documents are classified, that means they are assigned a code, and a color which determines who can see it, and where it can be shared, and when it can be shared. This system was and is frustrating to those in the various agencies who either know the information is available but can't get it, or have no clue the information exists until after the fact.

Anyone who has worked for the US Government knows this to be true, even today after 9-11.

This is why the US Army sidelined the CIA all together and formed its own intelligence unit.

You need to be asking why the FBI's bin Laden desk was separate from their Terrorism Desk, and what if any problems this might have caused. You also have to ask why nobody in the US Government outside of a minority of worrywarts even took Al Qaeda seriously.

Finally you have to ask if our response to 9-11 was over the top.

*hint* the answer is kinda yes*

 

[Cosmic Yak]

paloalto has yet to answer this point. Why would the US government publish "iron-clad" proof of its own murderous treason? If this "proof " is indeed "iron-clad", why has no-one, inside or outside that government, done anything about it? paloalto's only argument so far is that no-one has read all the reports, which is, as far as arguments go, about as weak as Budweiser and just as unsatisfying.

Have you taken at honest look at the state of the GOVERNMENT?

Which one? And how is this relevant to my questions?

 

[Oystein]

What do you mean. I was agreeing with you that:

To connect these two, the fact that al Qaeda terrorists were found inside of the US to the many warnings of a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US, is as you said, was just nonsense. As the CIA and FBI HQ's stated: Who could ever have been smart enough to connect these so called "dots", several al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US to a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack just about to take place inside of the US.

Sarcasm duly noted.

It is very telling that you obviously do not care enough about the entire issue to treat it with due seriousness.

 

[paloalto]

Show me the exact protocols for sharing. And show me the "law" by which those protocols were governed as well. Why can't you just provide them? Is there a document out there somewhere that says that in 2001 the information sharing protocol was that every single piece of information viewed by every single person employed in the FBI must be shared with every single person in the CIA, or were the protocols not as you describe them above? If the latter, why don't you clarify as to the exact circumstances under which an FBI agent had to, by law, share info with the CIA (and, in such cases, to whom at the CIA such info as to be shared and what such recipient's legal obligation was with regards to disseminating it intra-agency) and vice versa.

We can get to your silly misapplication of federal laws, but first I am trying to take you seriously re your claims that information sharing protocols were not followed. Once we've figured that out, we can see if any alleged violations of those protocols were violations of law.

EDIT: And just so this rope-a-dope exchange isn't too drawn out, let me hint to you that there are dozens upon dozens of books written about the protocols in question. I'm pretty sure you know all about them as they were discussed at length in the commission report and numerous hearings, etc. Try googling the name of Pink Floyd's 1979 blockbuster album in the context of the CIA and FBI and let me know if that jogs your memory/honesty.

Your suggestion that the "wall" was important with respect to the 9/11 events show just how uniformed people are about the events on 9/11. If turns out that the wall was a total fiction used by the CIA and FBI HQ's to claim they had legal authority to deliberately and illegally withhold material information from FBI criminal investigators.

The wall with respect to the events on 9/11, applied to the caveat on NSA cables that stated that this cable could not be given to FBI criminal investigators without written permission from the NSA General Council. This was to prevent criminal FBI agents from using information in a cable in a criminal trial since the information could have been obtained using a FISA warrant instead of a criminal search warrant. This caveat did not apply to the NSA cable on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the Kuala Lumpur meeting, or to any information on Mihdhar or Hazmi for the following reasons.

First Mihdhar and Hazmi were already connected to the east Africa bombings, and the FBI had already opened a FBI criminal investigation into everyone connected to the east Africa bombings, which allowed them to find and arrest Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi had the NSA cable that had this connection so she knew that this caveat did not apply to Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Second, both Mihdhar and Hazmi were directly connected by the CIA on January 4, 2001, to the planning of the Cole bombing, a substantial Federal crime which immediately eliminated any requirement to get NSA approval to give this NSA cable with this caveat to FBI criminal investigators.

Third, it was obvious that the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, so this caveat never applied to the information in this cable. FISA warrants are only need for NSA cables describing phone conversations when one party to the conversation was inside the US, in this phone conversation, both parties were out side of the US.

Forth, after Bongardt told Corsi that this NSA cable clearly had no connection to any FISA warrant and asked her to get an opinion from the FBI NLSU attornies, she and Middleton took this NSA cable to a NSLU attorney and was told that since the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant FBI Agent Steve Bongardt could take part in any criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi that he wanted. But she lied and told Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he could not have any anything to do with an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Fifth the NSA General council had already given FBI Agent Dian Corsi written permission to give this NSA cable to FBI criminal Agent Steve Bongardt and his team on August 27, 2001, even though this was unnecessary, the day before she claimed to Bongardt, that she did not have this permission.

Finally Corsi sent an email to FBI Steve Bongardt on August 29, 2001, that said:
“….if at such time as evidence is developed of a substantial Federal crime[by Mihdhar and Hazmi], that information will be passed over the wall, and given [to you and your team] for follow up criminal investigation”

But it turns out she admitted to DOJ IG investigators that she had known by August 22, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, clearly a substantial Federal crime by al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi. Since at the time she sent this email to Bongardt, she knew that Wilshere was also aware of this information and that this information had been obtained by Wilshere from the CIA, she clearly knew that the both FBI HQ;s and the CIA were keeping this information complete secret from FBI criminal investigator Steve Bongardt and his team so that he would never gave the probable cause he needed to start a FBI criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But since Tom Wilshere, the CIA and even Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton, were well aware of a huge an horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place inside of the US, they all were clearly aware that shutting down Bongardt’s investigation would block him from stopping this attack. Corsi and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation anyway even when he told her and Middleton that people will die because she and Middleton were shutting down his investigation.

Tenet and the CIA even completely refused to help the FBI agents in Minneapolis who wanted to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s possessions when he and the CIA were told in a FBI cable entitled “a terrorist leans to fly”. Tenet told the news media after 9/11, that why should he help the FBI, [if thousands of people were killed in the upcoming al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place which he knew about, because he refused to help the Minneapolis agents, that was just not his problem, in effect that was the FBI’s problem].

Since all of these people were well aware that their deliberate actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, and blocking Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, would allow the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to take place that these people were well aware of, they then clearly knew that their deliberate actions were going to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder many, many, Americans. I don’t know how this can be made any clearer than this.

In effect the "wall" is even more iron clad proof that both the CIA and FBI had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorist to murder thousands of people in the US.

 

[paloalto]

Sarcasm duly noted.

It is very telling that you obviously do not care enough about the entire issue to treat it with due seriousness.

I was clearly pointing out how completely absurd your position was.

If the CIA and FBI HQ's knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, and they deliberately shut down and blocked all FBI investigations that could have prevented this attack, then they deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder many many people inside of the US.

Your posts make no sense in view of the facts with respect to the attacks on 9/11 and what the CIA and FBI HQ's knew prior to these attacks.

 

[Oystein]

I was clearly pointing out how completely absurd your position was.

No.

If the CIA and FBI HQ's knew a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, and they deliberately shut down and blocked all FBI investigations that could have prevented this attack, then they deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorists to murder many many people inside of the US.

There - you're doing it again: Speculating about the state of mind of people you never met many years ago.
That is completely absurd!

Your posts make no sense in view of the facts with respect to the attacks on 9/11 and what the CIA and FBI HQ's knew prior to these attacks.

Since you cannot know the states of mind of people you never met, many years ago, you are the one not making sufficient sense.

You seem to assume perfect cognition in the minds of the relevant individuals. This is highly biased conjecture. Your conclusions do not follow from the facts you claim.

I think you have done (or collected) excellent and significant research that may well be able to shed new and interesting light on how Atta's men were able to carry out the attack unapprehended, and I am with you that those responsible ought to be held responsible. I just don't think they are responsible of just the crime you allege in your hot fever fantasies.

 

[benthamitemetric]

Your suggestion that the "wall" was important with respect to the 9/11 events show just how uniformed people are about the events on 9/11. If turns out that the wall was a total fiction used by the CIA and FBI HQ's to claim they had legal authority to deliberately and illegally withhold material information from FBI criminal investigators.

The wall with respect to the events on 9/11, applied to the caveat on NSA cables that stated that this cable could not be given to FBI criminal investigators without written permission from the NSA General Council. This was to prevent criminal FBI agents from using information in a cable in a criminal trial since the information could have been obtained using a FISA warrant instead of a criminal search warrant. This caveat did not apply to the NSA cable on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the Kuala Lumpur meeting, or to any information on Mihdhar or Hazmi for the following reasons.

First Mihdhar and Hazmi were already connected to the east Africa bombings, and the FBI had already opened a FBI criminal investigation into everyone connected to the east Africa bombings, which allowed them to find and arrest Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi had the NSA cable that had this connection so she knew that this caveat did not apply to Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Second, both Mihdhar and Hazmi were directly connected by the CIA on January 4, 2001, to the planning of the Cole bombing, a substantial Federal crime which immediately eliminated any requirement to get NSA approval to give this NSA cable with this caveat to FBI criminal investigators.

Third, it was obvious that the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, so this caveat never applied to the information in this cable. FISA warrants are only need for NSA cables describing phone conversations when one party to the conversation was inside the US, in this phone conversation, both parties were out side of the US.

Forth, after Bongardt told Corsi that this NSA cable clearly had no connection to any FISA warrant and asked her to get an opinion from the FBI NLSU attornies, she and Middleton took this NSA cable to a NSLU attorney and was told that since the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant FBI Agent Steve Bongardt could take part in any criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi that he wanted. But she lied and told Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he could not have any anything to do with an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Fifth the NSA General council had already given FBI Agent Dian Corsi written permission to give this NSA cable to FBI criminal Agent Steve Bongardt and his team on August 27, 2001, even though this was unnecessary, the day before she claimed to Bongardt, that she did not have this permission.

Finally Corsi sent an email to FBI Steve Bongardt on August 29, 2001, that said:
“….if at such time as evidence is developed of a substantial Federal crime[by Mihdhar and Hazmi], that information will be passed over the wall, and given [to you and your team] for follow up criminal investigation”

But it turns out she admitted to DOJ IG investigators that she had known by August 22, 2001, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, clearly a substantial Federal crime by al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi. Since at the time she sent this email to Bongardt, she knew that Wilshere was also aware of this information and that this information had been obtained by Wilshere from the CIA, she clearly knew that the both FBI HQ;s and the CIA were keeping this information complete secret from FBI criminal investigator Steve Bongardt and his team so that he would never gave the probable cause he needed to start a FBI criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But since Tom Wilshere, the CIA and even Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton, were well aware of a huge an horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place inside of the US, they all were clearly aware that shutting down Bongardt’s investigation would block him from stopping this attack. Corsi and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation anyway even when he told her and Middleton that people will die because she and Middleton were shutting down his investigation.

Tenet and the CIA even completely refused to help the FBI agents in Minneapolis who wanted to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s possessions when he and the CIA were told in a FBI cable entitled “a terrorist leans to fly”. Tenet told the news media after 9/11, that why should he help the FBI, [if thousands of people were killed in the upcoming al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place which he knew about, because he refused to help the Minneapolis agents, that was just not his problem, in effect that was the FBI’s problem].

Since all of these people were well aware that their deliberate actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, and blocking Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, would allow the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to take place that these people were well aware of, they then clearly knew that their deliberate actions were going to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder many, many, Americans. I don’t know how this can be made any clearer than this.

In effect the "wall" is even more iron clad proof that both the CIA and FBI had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorist to murder thousands of people in the US.

First, you still haven't simply provided the information sharing protocols applicable to any of the individuals whose actions you purport to summarize. What were the exact protocols?

Second, you provide a veritable deluge of unsourced and overly simplified assertions regarding the individuals at issue. For each assertion, please provide an actual source. It's not even worth engaging with a series unfounded assertions.

Third, you are not describing many aspects of "the wall", as anyone can verify by simply reading the memo. Again, remember too that the wall was not the entirety of the intelligence sharing protocols, either. Per the first item above, I've been asking for those for like four posts now. What's the delay?

Fourth, you didn't respond re your misreading and misapplication of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

 

[paloalto]

First, you still haven't simply provided the information sharing protocols applicable to any of the individuals whose actions you purport to summarize. What were the exact protocols?

Second, you provide a veritable deluge of unsourced and overly simplified assertions regarding the individuals at issue. For each assertion, please provide an actual source. It's not even worth engaging with a series unfounded assertions.

Third, you are not describing many aspects of "the wall", as anyone can verify by simply reading the memo. Again, remember too that the wall was not the entirety of the intelligence sharing protocols, either. Per the first item above, I've been asking for those for like four posts now. What's the delay?

Fourth, you didn't respond re your misreading and misapplication of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a).

Your suggestion that the "wall" was important with respect to the 9/11 events show just how uniformed people are about the events on 9/11. If turns out that the wall was a total fiction used by the CIA and FBI HQ's to claim they had legal authority to deliberately and illegally withhold material information from FBI criminal investigators.

The wall with respect to the events on 9/11, applied to the caveat on NSA cables that stated that this cable could not be given to FBI criminal investigators without written permission from the NSA General Council. This was to prevent criminal FBI agents from using information in a cable in a criminal trial since the information could have been obtained using a FISA warrant instead of a criminal search warrant. This caveat did not apply to the NSA cable on Mihdhar and Hazmi and the Kuala Lumpur meeting, or to any information on Mihdhar or Hazmi for the following reasons.

First Mihdhar and Hazmi were already connected to the east Africa bombings, and the FBI had already opened a FBI criminal investigation into everyone connected to the east Africa bombings, which allowed them to find and arrest Mihdhar and Hazmi. Corsi had the NSA cable that had this connection so she knew that this caveat did not apply to Mihdhar and Hazmi.

[NSA Cable sent to the CIA, in December 1999] DOJ IG report 302

Second, both Mihdhar and Hazmi were directly connected by the CIA on January 4, 2001, to the planning of the Cole bombing, a substantial Federal crime which immediately eliminated any requirement to get NSA approval to give this NSA cable with this caveat to FBI criminal investigators.

DOJ IG report, page 271

Third, it was obvious that the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant, so this caveat never applied to the information in this cable. FISA warrants are only need for NSA cables describing phone conversations when one party to the conversation was inside the US, in this phone conversation, both parties were out side of the US.

Dina Coris's EC to start intelligence investigation, [NSA Cable sent to the CIA, in December 1999] DOJ IG report 302

Forth, after Bongardt told Corsi that this NSA cable clearly had no connection to any FISA warrant and asked her to get an opinion from the FBI NLSU attornies, she and Middleton took this NSA cable to a NSLU attorney and was told that since the information in this cable had no connection to any FISA warrant FBI Agent Steve Bongardt could take part in any criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi that he wanted. But she lied and told Bongardt that the NSLU attorney had ruled he could not have any anything to do with an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

[9-11 Commission Report p 538, Footnote 81, DOJ Inspector General investigator’s interview with Sherry Sabol November 7, 2002].

Fifth the NSA General council had already given FBI Agent Dian Corsi written permission to give this NSA cable to FBI criminal Agent Steve Bongardt and his team on August 27, 2001, even though this was unnecessary, the day before she claimed to Bongardt, that she did not have this permission.

DE 448

Finally Corsi sent an email to FBI Steve Bongardt on August 29, 2001, that said:
“….if at such time as evidence is developed of a substantial Federal crime[by Mihdhar and Hazmi], that information will be passed over the wall, and given [to you and your team] for follow up criminal investigation”

DE 682

But it turns out she admitted to DOJ IG investigators that she had known by August 22, 2001, (DOJ IG report page 301), that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, clearly a substantial Federal crime by al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi. Since at the time she sent this email to Bongardt, she knew that Wilshere was also aware of this information and that this information had been obtained by Wilshere from the CIA, she clearly knew that the both FBI HQ;s and the CIA were keeping this information complete secret from FBI criminal investigator Steve Bongardt and his team so that he would never gave the probable cause he needed to start a FBI criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

But since Tom Wilshere, the CIA and even Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton, were well aware of a huge an horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place inside of the US, they all were clearly aware that shutting down Bongardt’s investigation would block him from stopping this attack. Corsi and Middleton shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation anyway even when he told her and Middleton that people will die because she and Middleton were shutting down his investigation.

Tenet and the CIA even completely refused to help the FBI agents in Minneapolis who wanted to get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s possessions when he and the CIA were told in a FBI cable entitled “a terrorist leans to fly”. Tenet told the news media after 9/11, that why should he help the FBI, [if thousands of people were killed in the upcoming al Qaeda terrorist attack about to take place which he knew about, because he refused to help the Minneapolis agents, that was just not his problem, in effect that was the FBI’s problem].

Since all of these people were well aware that their deliberate actions in shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, and blocking Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, would allow the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack to take place that these people were well aware of, they then clearly knew that their deliberate actions were going to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder many, many, Americans. I don’t know how this can be made any clearer than this.

In effect the "wall" is even more iron clad proof that both the CIA and FBI had deliberately allowed the al Qaeda terrorist to murder thousands of people in the US.

See where the information I posted was sourced above.

You wrote:

Third, you are not describing many aspects of "the wall", as anyone can verify by simply reading the memo. Again, remember too that the wall was not the entirety of the intelligence sharing protocols, either. Per the first item above, I've been asking for those for like four posts now. What's the delay?

I described the aspects of the "wall" with respect to the actions that were taken to shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. I had already stated this! I have no interest in any other aspect of what might be called the "wall". Total waste of time.

It is clear that claiming that the wall had anything to do with legally blocking FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi was a complete fraud on the American people. It was a ruse FBI HQ's used to illegally withhold material information from a criminal investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

 

[paloalto]

None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols. You have repeatedly said that you are sure they were not followed, which implies you actually know exactly what they were. So what were they exactly?

I said no such thing.

What I stated was, what were the statutes that spelled out the definitions of a crime or crimes. Very simple. I never stated what you claim to have quoted:

You wrote: "None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols."

Who cares!

You wrote:

"You have repeatedly said that you are sure they were not followed, which implies you actually know exactly what they were."

I never made any such statement, you must have me confused with someone else.

The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime, that is all. If you take actions as defined in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), you have committed a crime and you are a criminal.

Very simple. I do not know how I can make this any clearer than that.

 

[Axxman300]

The NSA has stated that they never passed along vital intercepts to either Langley or the FBI because they didn't know that they had the intercepts until AFTER 9/11 when they performed an audit. The information that they had would have put the FBI on the doorsteps of at least four key Al Qaeda hijackers, but it was sitting on magnetic tape in a vault somewhere at Ft. Meade.

Also, 46 CFR 503.59 is clear on how classified information is shared, and the part you're ignoring is that:

(d) Classified information shall be made available to a recipient only when the authorized holder of the classified information has determined that:

(1) The prospective recipient has a valid security clearance at least commensurate with the level of classification of the information; and

(2) The prospective recipient requires access to the information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

In normal-person language this means that the whole process WAS and IS subjective, boiling down to the judgement of some department manager. These people are usually more interested in covering their own butts, and are risk averse which was the case before 9/11.

 

[beachnut]

...
Very simple. I do not know how I can make this any clearer than that.

It is simple, you make up fake conclusions. You make it very clear, not sure how you missed it.

Monday morning quarterbacking taken to new levels of wooⁿ⁺¹

 

[benthamitemetric]

You before you got called out on not knowing the information sharing protocols:

I will make it abundantly clear to you when information can and in fact under law must be shared between Federal agencies and even within the same agency.

You after you got called out for not knowing the information sharing protocols:

I said no such thing.

What I stated was, what were the statutes that spelled out the definitions of a crime or crimes. Very simple. I never stated what you claim to have quoted:

You wrote: "None of these laws have anything to do with interagency information sharing protocols."

Who cares!

You wrote:

"You have repeatedly said that you are sure they were not followed, which implies you actually know exactly what they were."

I never made any such statement, you must have me confused with someone else.

The Federal statute spells out in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), the definition of a crime, that is all. If you take actions as defined in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), you have committed a crime and you are a criminal.

Very simple. I do not know how I can make this any clearer than that.

And you are still way, way off on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Have you ever even read a single piece of case law dealing with this provision before? It's not like there is a lack of them. Maybe time to accept that your internet law degree isn't worth much. Don't take my word for it, read the US attorney's manual starting here: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-903-false-statements-concealment-18-usc-1001

You aren't going to get anywhere with 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) in your argument unless you first define the scope of the agents's duties to the federal government in the circumstances at issue. If there even are such duties in the context of your argument, they are the information sharing protocols you want to now ignore. And the reason you will not get anywhere with those protocols is, as Axxman300 points out, you will not be able to actually find information sharing protocols that were violated by the persons you name in a way that would trigger a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action. Part of that is you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole as, again, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) was written to criminalize individuals lying to federal governmental agencies in matters that implicate such individuals or their associates; it is not applicable to mistakes, oversights, failures, or even plain stupidity by federal investigators.

So, again, what were the information sharing protocols you think were violated in a way that triggers a 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a) action??

 

[LSSBB]

First off, we got public warnings of an Al Qaeda attack on CONUS as far back as March, 2001. The military closed their bases from public access, and began building new fencing, and added security in anticipation of a terror attack - WHICH THEY STATED PUBLICLY.

Citation please.