Landmark Calls For Gorelick to Step Aside From 9/11 Commission

Landmark Legal Foundation ^ | April 13, 2004

[wcdukenfield]

Thomas H. Kean, Chair
Lee H. Hamilton, Vice Chair
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Messrs. Kean and Hamilton:

Landmark Legal Foundation, a national public interest law firm that specializes in government accountability, formally requests that the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States ("Commission") request that Ms. Jamie S. Gorelick step aside as a Commission member. Ms. Gorelick is hopelessly conflicted in her role as a Commission member, given the numerous issues about which she has knowledge resulting from her service as Deputy Attorney General of the United States from 1994 to 1997.

As Deputy Attorney General, Ms. Gorelick oversaw the management, budget and policy objectives of the United States Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). The Department of Justice's and FBI's pre-9/11 activities and functions are a key focus of the Commission, for which Ms. Gorelick should be providing testimony as a material witness. Ms. Gorelick's recusal in questioning former FBI Director Louis Freeh is no substitute for her testimony. Moreover, as a Commission member, Ms. Gorelick will have input into the Commission's findings, including those related to areas involving her past role. If Ms. Gorelick does not immediately step aside, many in the public will undoubtedly conclude that the Commission's work has been compromised.

The Commission knows best what matters Ms. Gorelick was directly involved in as Deputy Attorney General. However, here are a few examples that warrant Ms. Gorelick stepping aside.

Former Chief Assistant United States Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy led the 1995 terrorism prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, among others. Writing in National Review Online, he states:

Commissioner Gorelick, as deputy attorney general - the number two official in the Department of Justice - for three years beginning in 1994, was an architect of the government's self-imposed procedural wall, intentionally erected to prevent intelligence agents from pooling information with their law-enforcement counterparts.

Additionally, Mr. McCarthy states:

But the Justice Department, with Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick in the thick of important policy decisions, did not see it that way. Committed to the bitter end to the law enforcement mindset, and overwrought at the mere possibility of violating the ill-conceived 'primary purpose' test, DOJ made matters significantly worse. It imposed severe procedural barriers against competent intelligence gathering. As described by the FIFSA Court of Review in 2002:

[T]he 1995 Procedures limited contacts between the FBI and [DOJ's] Criminal Division in cases where FISA surveillance or searches were being conducted by the FBI for foreign intelligence (FI) or foreign counterintelligence (FCI) purposes.. ..The procedures state that "the FBI and Criminal Division should ensure that advice intended to preserve the option of a criminal prosecution does not inadvertently result in either the fact or the appearance of the Criminal Division's directing or controlling the FI or FCI investigation toward law enforcement objectives.' 1995 Procedures at 2, 6 (emphasis added). Although these procedures provided for significant information sharing and coordination between criminal and FI or FCI investigations, based at least in part on the 'directing or controlling language, they eventually came to be narrowly interpreted within the Department of Justice, and most particularly by [the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy Review (OIPR)], as requiring OIPR to act as a 'wall' to prevent the FBI intelligence officials from communicating with the Criminal Division regarding ongoing FI or FCI investigations? Thus, the focus became the nature of the underlying investigation, rather than the general purpose of the surveillance. Once prosecution of the target was being considered, the procedures, as interpreted by OIPR in light of the case law, prevented the Criminal Division from providing any meaningful advice to the FBI (Italics mine except where otherwise indicated.)

(Andrew C. McCarthy, "What About the Wall?" National Review Online, April 13, 2004, available at http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mccarthy.)

Ethan Wallision, also writing in National Review Online, states:

[In questioning National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Commissioner Gorelick] pointed to a report from 2001 that indicated, in her own words, that 'we have big systemic problems. The FBI doesn't work the way it should, and it doesn't communicate with the intelligence community.' In the ensuing dialogue, Rice seemed to implicate Gorelick in the allegation.

Gorelick: Now, you have said that your policy review was meant to be comprehensive. You took your time because you wanted to get at the hard issues and have a hard-hitting, comprehensive policy. And yet there is nothing in [the policy review] about the vast domestic landscape that we were all warned needed so much attention. Can you give me the answer to the question why?

Rice: I would ask the following. We were there for 233 days. There had been a recognition for a number of years before - after the '93 bombing, and certainly after the [thwarted] millennium [attack in Los Angles] - that there were challenges? inside the United States, and that there were challenges concerning our domestic agencies and the challenges concerning the FBI and the CIA. We were in office 233 days. It's absolutely the case that we did not begin structural reform at the FBI. [Emphasis mine].

(Ethan Wallison, "Wrong Side of the Table," National Review Online, April 12, 2004, available at http://www.nationalreviewonline.com/comment/wallision.)

Curt Anderson, a writer for the Associated Press, reports further that the FBI was hamstrung in its efforts to combat terrorism. He quotes your Commission staff report:

'On Sept. 11, the FBI was limited in several areas,' the commission said in a staff report. It cited 'limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, an overly complex legal regime and inadequate resources.'

Moreover, Mr. Anderson reports that former acting FBI Director Thomas Pickard was surprised by Ms. Gorelick's presence on the Commission:

According to a commission document obtained by the Associated Press, Pickard also raised questions about the presence of former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick on the panel. The document said Pickard found her membership 'surprising' because she and Reno had developed the policy to counter international terrorism primarily through the use of law enforcement techniques.

(Curt Anderson, "FBI Weak on Terror Threat Response," Associated Press, April 13, 2004.)

Ms. Gorelick should step down from the Commission, and the Commission should seek her sworn public testimony on these and other matters related to her role as Deputy Attorney General pre-9/11.

Sincerely,

Mark R. Levin
President

[jmstein7]

Go Mark!

[dead]

Keep up the great work.

You're trying to fight the tide with a teaspoon, but at least you're fighting.

Gorelick, her handlers, and the GOP wimps like Kean are despicable.

[smith288]

A leftist liberal doing the honorable thing? I wont hold my breath...

[Pres Raygun]

Go get em Mark. Don't ever grow weary of doing good!

[tomball]

It is about time.

[misunderestimated]

Can you provide a direct link to the above letter?

[Diogenesis]

Never give up. Never surrender.

"Book them, Dano"

GOTTA FREEP THIS

"Back in September 1994, I recommended to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick
that the DoJ strengthen investigative powers against suspected 'undesirable aliens,' accelerating
deportation appeal proceedings and limiting U.S. participation in a visa waiver pilot program under which 9.5 million foreigners entered the U.S. in 1994."
[Former FBI Director Louis Freeh]

GORELICK MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION NOW

Making a mockery of justice, Jamie Gorelick, who REFUSED to take Former FBI Director Louis Freeh's
recommendation to protect US citizens viciously questioned National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
on Thursday, April 8, 2004, in Washington. Isn't that special?

---

FREEP: Phone Commission at 202-331-4060
Email Commission at info@9-11commission.gov
Eleni121 spoke to the secreatry at the commission
whoshe stated that the best way to voice concern is in writing
--in the form of the email that is posted
but put Thomas Kean in the subject line.

DEMAND THAT GORELICK BE REMOVED!

info@9-11commission.gov

DONT FORGET - PUT THOMAS KEAN IN THE SUBJECT LINE

[mabelkitty]

YES!

Go, baby, Go!!

[Savage Beast]

!!PROPAGANDA ALERT!!

AOL Headlines:

'He Did Not Want to Hear'
Ashcroft Brushed Off Threats'
9/11Commission Witness Says

!!PROPAGANDA ALERT!!

[RetiredArmy]

Now if this were a Republican, yes, the liberal/socialist press would be howling for this person to get off. But, since it is a dem, never mind. Move on.

[1Old Pro]

If Ms. Gorelick does not immediately step aside, many in the public will undoubtedly conclude that the Commission's work has been compromised.

I've already concluded this.

[OpusatFR]

I can't believe this woman is even on the commission.

The entire thing is a farce. No credibility and a total waste of time for all the posturing.

[yeswecan]

Dittos!

[mabelkitty]

Come see!

[joyce11111]

Mark Levin is the best...he leaves no stone unturned!

[TopQuark]

What information do you have to conclude that he is a leftist liberal?

[Wolfstar]

Thanks for posting this. I totally agree with Landmark's position. Have been saying for weeks that both Richard Ben-Veniste and Jamie Gorelick had massive conflicts of interest since they both worked for the Clinton administration. I even called the 9/11 commission's Washington office about my concerns, but the guy I spoke with was hopelessly both disinterested and defensive.

There is no way, none, that this particular American can have any faith or trust in the work of this commission due to the Ben-Veniste and Gorelick conflicts of interest as well as:

• The obvious design of the public hearings to be sensational and to impact the presidential election. As I understand it, all of the people currently testifying publicly have already testified privately and under oath. So there is no valid reason for the public hearings that I can discern.
• The way the commission has allowed its public agenda to be driven by publication of a book by an obviously partisan, disgruntled, bigoted former Clinton-era official. This person is yet another individual with a massive conflict of interest, yet he is treated as though he's the most important witness.
• The focus of the public hearings almost exclusively on the Bush administration.
• The failure of the chairman to control the hearing room, allowing clapping from the audience, feeding the media circus with melodramatic calls for the National Security Advisor to testify, and for the White House to produce the PDB, and so on.
• The appearance of commissioners all over TV and radio, making judgements in public and in advance of the committee's report. As commissioners, they fill roles comparable to judges and should act with similar discretion. They have miserably failed in this role.
• The obvious partisan nature of the hearings, with the Democrats doing everything possible to get the public to believe that President Bush knew the attacks of 9/11 were going to happen and deliberately did nothing about it.

[Rocket1968]

Bump

[JennysCool]

The entire thing is a farce.

The wonderful thing is, I believe most of the U.S. agrees with your statement; apparently, the sheeple are not falling for the bag o' liberal tricks as much as they used to, and the more idiotically partisan activities (such as this one) that they engage in, the more that view will spread.