Did FBI HQ agent Dina Corsi commit obstruction of justice and thereby abet the 9/11 attack?

[eomer]

In June 2001 and again in August 2001, Agent Dina Corsi of FBI Headquarters withheld a lead from the FBI criminal investigation team that was investigating the USS Cole bombing. The lead was NSA information saying that two Cole bombing suspects, Almihdhar and Alhazmi, had attended the Maylasia meeting where an attack on the US (the 9/11 attack) was being planned.

Agent Corsi claimed that she was barred from sharing the lead with the criminal investigation due to certain rules ("the wall"). But in fact according to a secret monograph prepared by 9/11 Commission staff, agent Corsi had received in August NSA permission to give the lead to the FBI criminal investigation team, which meant that at least the second time she withheld it she knew she wasn't actually barred by those rules. So she intentionally misled the criminal investigation team when she withheld it from them in August.

It is possible that the Cole criminal investigation team having this lead could have prevented the 9/11 attack.

Here is the relevant excerpt from the monograph prepared by 9/11 staff (originally classified "Secret"):

The FBI analyst took responsibility for the search within the United States. As the
information indicated that Mihdhar had last arrived in New York, she began drafting
what is known as a lead for the FBI's New York Field Office. A lead relays information
from one part of the FBI to another and requests that a particular action be taken. Her
lead was sent on August 28. Because the lead contained information from the NSA
reports that bore caveats regarding sharing with criminal investigators, the analyst
included in the lead was not cleared for sharing with agents working on criminal matters.
She sent the lead to a designated intelligence agent on the relevant squad. The lead
suggested that the goal of the investigation was to locate Mihdhar, determine his contacts
and reason for being in the United States, and possibly conduct an interview. 115

The agent who received the lead forwarded it to his squad supervisor. That same day the
supervisor forwarded the lead to another designated intelligence agent and requested that
he open an intelligence case. The supervisor also sent the lead to the case agents
investigating the Cole attack. One of the Cole case agents read the lead with interest and
contacted the analyst to obtain more information. The analyst argued) however, that
because the agent was a designated criminal FBI agent, not an FBI intelligence agent, the
wall kept him from participating in any search for Mihdhar. In fact, she felt he had to
destroy his copy of the lead because it contained NSA information from reports that bore
the sharing caveats. The agent asked the analyst to get an opinion from the FBI's
National Security Law Unit (NSLU) on whether he could open a criminal case on
Mihdhar. 116

Subsequently, the analyst sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according
to the NSLU, the case could only be opened as an intelligence matter, and that if Mihdhar
was found, only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any
interview. The case agent angrily responded that there seems to be some confusion
regarding the wall because in his view it only applied to FISA information. The analyst
replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed they were in the relevant
manual and "ordered by the  Court and every office in the FBI is required to
follow-them including FBI NY." What she did not tell the agent was that she had sought
and received permission to share the NSA information with criminal agents. Thus, there
was no reason for her continued insistence that the New York agent could not keep a
copy of the lead.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/wall.pdf

Agent Corsi's misleading statements to the FBI criminal investigation team appear to fit the definition of criminal obstruction as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3):

In order to secure a guilty verdict under § 1512(b)(3), the Government is obliged to demonstrate that a defendant knowingly (1) "engage[d] in misleading conduct toward another person," (2) with the intent to "hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a [federal] law enforcement officer ... of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense." 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3).

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/335/335.F3d.316.02-4669.html

[BeFree]

1. Was she just following orders?

Or did she subvert the laws and common sense all on her own?

[noise]

41. The bizarre conduct took place in multiple agencies

so it is difficult to conclude that Corsi went rogue. Furthermore her immediate supervisor (Middleton) backed her up on the withholding.

So the question becomes what sort of orders called for obstructing al Qaeda investigations? What sort of commission pretends this didn't happen? Why was the 9/11 Commission considered credible when they called for all sorts of bureaucratic reforms while ignoring the elephant in the room?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. This can only be seen as relevant if Al Qaeda did 9/11. You realize that, right? n/t

[BeFree]

3. Not true at all

It could mean that the OCT perps were patsies that needed to be protected from being taken in for questioning. Had they been taken off the streets, the whole MIHOP plan would have to have been discarded.

So why did Corsi do what she did, eh, Bolo? That is the question.

[eomer]

4. No, not "if Al Qaeda did 9/11". You should have said "if Al Qaeda was one of the elements of 9/11".

We already know that there were other actors involved besides just Al Qaeda. For example, the Pakistani ISI and members of the Saudi royal family. There is certainly no reason that Al Qaeda being involved has to somehow preclude elements of the US being involved just like elements of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were. Why are you wanting to over-simplify it?

[apocalypsehow]

6. LOL - the backpedal express has begun.

:rofl:

You know, you can ask the Mods to lock your thread now that it's, uh, er, ummm, premise has been revealed to be not quite what you thought it was when you hit "post." :blush:

[eomer]

8. What the hell are you talking about?

Where in the OP (or anywhere else) did I say that Al Qaeda was not involved in 9/11?

All the theories that I think are likely involve Al Qaeda having a role. That is pretty much a given, isn't it? The question is who else was involved and whether that involvement was LIHOP or MIHOP.

LOL back at you -- your strawman express has begun.

Edit to add: do you know the meaning of the word "abet", used in the subject of the OP?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eomer]

11. Again, what the hell are you talking about?

Do you know what "back pedaling" means? Because I can find no coherent idea, not even a ridiculously false one, in your claim.

Where in the OP did I claim something that I am now back pedaling from?

[apocalypsehow]

12. You know perfectly well what I'm talking about. One huge element of "911 truth" is that the entire

notion that elements of al-quaeda or other foreign terrorist networks had anything to do with the events of 9-11 is a fiction, trumped-up propaganda by the U.S. government and other "evil" entities to deflect blame/attention from themselves. Nearly every OP that embraces conspiracy theory or is seen through that lens regarding the issue presumes that this is the case.

Your OP eviscerates that core claim of "9-11 truth"; indeed, contradicts one of the basic memes of it. Yet you express incredulity when someone points this out. I call that the very definition of "back pedaling" in the context of the larger claims of "9-11 truth" and all who espouse it.

[eomer]

13. I'm not one who has ever espoused that view so I can't back pedal from it.

And there are lots of other people and factions who like me disbelieve the official story in various ways but believe that Al Qaeda was one of the actors.

In other words, that's a very broad brush you're using there, do you have any that are capable of painting a slightly more detailed and nuanced (which is to say, a slightly more accurate) picture?

[apocalypsehow]

14. Wrong: I've employed a very narrow "brush" that applies precisely to a premise of "9-11 truth."

And not just a premise, but a foundational one, as fundamental to the belief system surrounding "9-11 truth" as it gets. Indeed, littered in the, errr, ummm, writings - one dare not dignify it with the term "literature" or even "works" - of the "9-11 truth" movement is precisely that foundational framing: the guys accused of doing it couldn't have done it, so they didn't - and were likely framed so the U.S. government could whip up anti-Islamic sentiment so they could deflect all attention away from themselves and the "real" conspirators involved.

This is a sine qua non of the "9-11 truth" movement, and to state otherwise is simply incongruous with the established facts.

Regardless, my reply above stands un-refuted by anything you have posted here.

[eomer]

20. No, it is broad-brush

Proof that it is broad-brush is the fact that you lumped me in to your presumption of a foundational premise when in fact I don't ascribe to that premise.

[apocalypsehow]

21. Now you are reduced to arguing about what you are arguing about - always a sure sign that one is

unable to substantively counter the factual statements of an opponent in debate.

My posts above stand un-refuted. Discussion concluded.

[eomer]

24. No, actually, you've taken the discussion on a wild goose chase and were proved wrong.

I'm glad the distraction is concluded.

[BeFree]

15. No

The question posed here is how did the bush administration allow the investigation to be halted.

Really quite simple. To conflate it is you are doing is really dumb. But as we've seen here time and time again, the protectors of the OCT will stop at nothing to keep their goofy bullshit alive.

[wildbilln864]

39. you make a lot of silly assumptions! nt

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

5. *Ouch* - that's gonna leave a mark. Talk about an OP that leads with its chin.

:rofl:

[eomer]

10. Self delete, posted in the wrong place.

See #11.

[BeFree]

16. Yep. It left a huge mark

And your spinning is a fine example of the power of the OP.

There is complete and utter avoidance of the question from yours and Bolo's remarks.
What we've come to expect. Not an honest bone in the whole body of the OCTers remarks. What a shame.

[wildbilln864]

38. like ...

Steuben glass hitting the sledge hammer huh!

[noise]

40. No comment on Corsi's conduct?

What a surprise.

Why hasn't the SLC/JREF crowd interviewed Corsi?

[noise]

7. No agents/officials assigned to the FBI UBLU have explained

their conduct to the public. Rodney Middleton, the chief of the unit, is a mystery man. No media interest at all.

[noise]

22. Where is Corsi?

Why hasn't she explained her conduct? Where is the great media?

What happened at Alec Station? Why did they keep info about al Qaeda operatives from the FBI for 20 months?

What happened at the NSA? Why did they fail to tell the FBI that al Qaeda operatives were roaming around the US?

The 9/11 Commission MFR's with Corsi, Wilshire, Soufan, Middleton, Blee etc. are still classified over nine years later.

[apocalypsehow]

17. And now that I've had time to plow through this document, we see that was is speculated is not quite

what the document says:

"By late 2000, these factors had
culminated in a set of complex rules and a widening set of beliefs - a bureaucratic culture
- that discouraged FBI agents from even seeking to share intelligence information.
Neither Attorney General Reno nor Attorney General Ashcroft acted to resolve the
conflicting views within the Department of Justice or challenged the strict interpretation
of the FISA statute espoused by the FISA court and OIPR.

It is clear therefore, that the information sharing failures in the summer of2001 were not
the result of legal barriers but of the failure of individuals to understand that the barriers
did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the
information could not have been shared."(all emphases added)

So much for the OP's premise.

It really helps if you read the documents in your posts all the way to the end. Just a helpful tip for future reference. :thumbsup:

[eomer]

18. Wrong.

Corsi may (or may not) have truly thought at an earlier time that there was a legal barrier but at the time this occurred in August 2001 she had just received permission from the NSA to share the information with criminal units. She then claimed that she was barred from sharing the information with criminal units.

[apocalypsehow]

19. Once again, you misrepresent the context of the situation - either because you couldn't be bothered

to read the very document you posted, or are willfully ignoring the parts that do not conform with your dubious narrative.

Again, from the memo:

"The only information the FBI analyst had regarding the meeting - other than the
photographs - were the NSA reports that she had found. These reports, however,
contained caveats that their contents could not be shared with criminal investigators
without OIPR's permission. Therefore, the analyst concluded she could not pass the
information contained in these reports to the agents. She did not ask OlPR for permission
to share these reports. She did not explain to the agents about the caveats but merely said
she could not share the information due to "the wall." (all emphases added)

As a rule, when folks find themselves in a hole, the wisest course of action is to simply stop digging. :thumbsup:

[eomer]

23. No, you are the one who is not reading carefully.

You've posted a description from page 31 of the context in June 2001. By the time of the incident in August 2001 the context had changed, as stated on page 32:

Second, the issue at the June 11 meeting was whether the information could be shared
with FBI agents, not criminal prosecutors. Again, the July 1995 procedures were silent on
the issue of sharing among FBI agents and thus had no application to the information in
question. Although there were internal FBI walls contained in some particular FISA
orders, none of this information had been generated pursuant to such FISAs. Thus, even
those internal walls did not apply.

Thus, the analyst could have shared the NSA information by asking OIPR's permission
either prior to the meeting or sometime after the meeting. She did not, however, make
any request to share the information until late August.

So then, in late August when the second incident occurred (page 33):

Subsequently, the analyst sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according
to the NSLU, the case could only be opened as an intelligence matter, and that ifMihdhar
was found. only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any
interview. The case agent angrily responded that there seems to be some confusion
regarding the wall because in his view it only applied to FISA information. The analyst
replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed they were in the relevant
manual and "ordered by the  Court and every office in the FBI is required to
follow-them including FBI NY." What she did not tell the agent was that she had sought
and received permission to share the NSA information with criminal agents. Thus, there
was no reason for her continued insistence that the New York agent could not keep a
copy of the lead.

Notice that the 9/11 Commission staff is clear that it is "her continued insistence" that there was no reason for. In other words, even if there was the reason of mistaken understanding in June, by August there was no reason because she had by then requested and received permission.

From the start I understood this August change in context, and in fact pointed it out in my OP:

[A]gent Corsi had received in August NSA permission to give the lead to the FBI criminal investigation team, which meant that at least the second time she withheld it she knew she wasn't actually barred by those rules.

[apocalypsehow]

25. No, you are simply ignoring the quote in my very first post, and picking and choosing paragraphs

that seem to support your dubious narrative - all the while ignoring the prior & subsequent statements that refute it.

*Ahem*:

"The analyst argued) however, that because the agent was a designated criminal FBI agent, not an FBI intelligence agent, the
wall kept him from participating in any search for Mihdhar. In fact, she felt he had to
destroy his copy of the lead because it contained NSA information from reports that bore
the sharing caveats. The agent asked the analyst to get an opinion from the FBI's
National Security Law Unit (NSLU) on whether he could open a criminal case on
Mihdhar. Subsequently, the analyst sent an email to the Cole case agent explaining that according
to the NSLU, the case could only be opened as an intelligence matter, and that ifMihdhar
was found. only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at any
interview. The case agent angrily responded that there seems to be some confusion
regarding the wall because in his view it only applied to FISA information. The analyst
replied that she was not making up the rules; she claimed they were in the relevant
manual and "ordered by the Court and every office in the FBI is required to
follow-them including FBI NY."

Which leads us right to this (exonerating) paragraph:

"It is now clear that everyone was confused about the rules governing the sharing and use
of information gathered in intelligence channels. Because Mihdhar was being sought for
his possible connection to or knowledge of the Cole bombing, he could have been
investigated or tracked under the existing Cole criminal case" (again, all emphases added)

All of which, of course, you simply choose to ignore - because it doesn't fit the frame of your dubious narrative.

Further, you are moving the goalposts: my challenge to your OP was regarding the questionable notion that there was criminal liability on the agent's part. You have now abandoned that line of reasoning - indeed, you don't even allude to it now - for obvious reasons, those being that as what was actually stated in the report does not in the slightest imply or indicate in any fashion whatsoever that criminal liability should attach to the agent in question, or anyone working these overlapping cases, for that matter.

Indeed, it supports the opposite view: that bad procedures and bureaucratic snarls, in-fighting, and red tape, not criminal negligence, was the culprit to blame when it came to this mishandled intelligence matter.

Such a refusal to sustain your original premise is a concession on your part that my analysis was correct, and the fact that you are now engaged in the informal logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts" puts the seal on that concession. As my points have prevailed throughout the course of this back & forth, there really was no other alternative but to attempt to change the subject along these lines: I don't blame you for attempting to do so. But that's not what my original reply was about, so it's time to move on from what has already morphed into a tangential discussion not related to your original (faulty, as shown) premise.

And, just as the string ran out on the productiveness of further interaction along these lines in our other sub-thread above, so, too, has it here.

Concession accepted: discussion concluded.

Edit: clarity.

[eomer]

26. Wrong on all counts.

The story that she told in late August:

she felt he had to destroy his copy of the lead because it contained NSA information from reports that bore the sharing caveats

That story was false and intentionally misleading because:

What she did not tell the agent was that she had sought and received permission to share the NSA information with criminal agents.

She knew her story was false. She knew that the NSA sharing caveats did not bar sharing with criminal agents because she had just received permission from the NSA that overrode the caveats and permitted her to share with criminal agents.

In other words, she:

knowingly engaged in misleading conduct toward another person with the intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a federal law enforcement officer of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense.

which constitutes criminal obstruction under 1512(b)(3).

[OnTheOtherHand]

33. so far you aren't winning this argument

Which leads us right to this (exonerating) paragraph: (...)

All of which, of course, you simply choose to ignore - because it doesn't fit the frame of your dubious narrative.

Well, no, it doesn't "lead us right to" the paragraph that asserts that "everyone was confused" -- which isn't really much of an exoneration anyway. You skipped the part that said:

What she did not tell the agent was that she had sought and received permission to share the NSA information with criminal agents. Thus, there was no reason for her continued insistence that the New York agent could not keep a copy of the lead.

It's true that the report doesn't suggest that the analyst was criminally liable; I would be quite surprised if it did. But it does seem to suggest that the analyst engaged in misleading conduct with the intent to hinder the communication of information relating to the possible commission of a Federal offense -- "in-fighting" or no -- which was eomer's point.

I don't know enough about this topic to accuse or exonerate anyone of criminal obstruction nor to assess their motives. Maybe you do, but I didn't see it here.

[apocalypsehow]

34. Oh yes I did - easily, handily. That is why all the parsing of phrasing & spinning of words has been

going on since I proved the premise of the OP - that the analyst was implicated in a criminal act - to be totally and completely erroneous, using the very document he posted as 'proof' to the contrary.

When folks don't have the facts on their side, they tend to parse, spin, obfuscate & dodge. That's all the replies to me have been doing since I opened up my first post in this OP.

Indeed, it has been all too easy, as a debate exercise; and the bottom line, of course, is that my posts stand un-refuted. But thanks for giving me another opportunity to kick this post and give other folks the chance to see why. :hi:

[eomer]

37. No, it is very simple. Here are the relevant events in chronological order:

1. On June 11 Corsi told agents of the Cole criminal investigation that she could not share information from the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
2. In late August Corsi requested and received permission to share the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
3. Subsequently Corsi drafted a lead that contained information from the NSA report. On August 28 she sent it to intelligence agents but did not send it to the criminal agents, even though she had received permission to do so.
   
4. One of the intelligence agents forwarded the lead to his squad supervisor who forwarded it to the criminal agents.
   
5. One of the criminal agents contacted Corsi to get further information. She told him that he would have to destroy the lead because it contained NSA information that bore the sharing caveats and therefore could not be shared with criminal agents. She knew this statement to be false because she had recently requested and received permission to share the NSA report with criminal agents.

Here is an even simpler version of just the barest facts:

1. Corsi requested and received permission to share the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
2. Corsi then lied and said that she could not share the NSA report with criminal agents.

If you wish to respond I would suggest you do it in the form of a timeline of events. This way we can see who is telling it straight and who is spinning and obfuscating.

[Raphael Weber]

59. Thanks for this thread

Very informative!
Should certainly be seen in the light of what happened at Alec Station as well. The two FBI guys who weren't allowed to testify I think.
And Moussaoui.
WAMY
Able Danger.

[rschop]

30. re: Corsi may (or may not) have truly thought at an earlier time that there was a legal barrier

Corsi knew before the June 11, 2001 meeting between the CIA and FBI HQ and FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, from reading the NSA cable on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, that there was no possible way this information was connected to any FISA warrant, and that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were connected to the east Africa bombings.

Both of these reasons made any legal restrictions to pass information to FBI criminal investigators because of the "the WALL" null and void.

eomer, keep up your excellent posts!

[eomer]

31. Yes, I think she was most likely dissembling all along.

The fact that she indisputably dissembled in August is an indication that she was probably dissembling all along. And if the criminal agents had had the information in June there would have been much more chance that the attack could have been prevented.

Thanks for bringing this information (and all the other important details) to us -- you've done all the work.

[noise]

32. Larry Parkinson, General Counsel of the FBI

Parkinson was asked about the internal walls in Summer 2001. He was not personally involved in any advice regarding the search for Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. During that time he had lots of discussions with Sherry Sabol and Tom Ainora regarding the lack of resources and sloppiness in FISA applications but none regarding the circumstances of the search effort. When told that Dina Corsi alleged that NSLU had told her that no criminal agents could be involved in the search for the two men and none could participate in any interview if they were found, Parkinson said he would be shocked if anyone in NSLU gave such advice. He said there would have been no problem with a criminal agent hopping in on the search or participating in the interview. There was no FISA on these individuals so no internal walls would have been applicable.

Larry Parkinson 9/11 Commission MFR

[rschop]

29. re: And now that I've had time to plow through this document, we see that was is speculated is not

quit what the document says:

From this monograph:

"The information sharing failures in the summer of 2001 were not the result of legal barriers but of the failure of individuals to understand that the barriers did not apply to the facts at hand. Simply put, there was no legal reason why the information could not have been shared."(all emphases added)"

This is pure HORESHIT!

In email back to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 29, 2001, Corsi stated that “if substantial evidence is developed of a federal crime”, (by Mihdhar and Hazmi), this information will be passed over the “WALL”. This literally is the smoking gun, the proof that Corsi, the CIA and the FBI HQ knew that any evidence of a crime immediately nullified the "WALL". This one statement proves that FBI HQ knew they had no legal reason to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

Corsi already had used in her EC to start an investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, the NSA cable that was based on the tapped phone conversation from the telephone number for the communications center for the east Africa al Qaeda bombings. This connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi not only to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, and the many crimes they had already carried out, but directly to the east Africa bombings that had murdered over 200 people including 12 Americans.

This was clear substantial evidence of a Federal crime.

She also knew that Walid Bin Attash, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting actually planning the Cole bombing, yet another crime that had killed 17 US sailors.

This was more clear substantial evidence of another Federal crime.

So Corsi already had multiple examples of substantial evidence of federal crimes, information she, the FBI HQ, and the CIA had been hiding from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team.

The people who were withholding this information from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing and who shut down Bongardt's investigation when he found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, knew exactly what they were doing. This was not due to any failure of individuals to understand, but due to criminal actions by individuals at the CIA and FBI HQ to criminal obstruct an ongoing FBI criminal investigation.

Corsi had already been given a release from the NSA when she told Bongardt that he had to stop his investigation because of NSA restrictions removed by this release.

Corsi clearly had fabricated Sabol’s ruling that Bongardt could not take part in an investigation of Mihdhar, when even the 9/11 Commission report makes it clear that Sabol had ruled that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar.

Corsi tells Bongardt that if there is substantial evidence of a federal crime, this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi will be passed over "the WALL" when she had evidence that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in several crimes that had already killed scores of Americans. For this report to claim that was due to misunderstanding was a cover up of criminal activity at both the CIA and FBI HQ, and is in line with many other examples that the 9/11 Commission was covering up massive criminal activity at both the FBI HQ and CIA that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The CIA had forbidden Wilshire twice in July from turning any information on Kuala Lumpur over to FBI criminal investigators. Rod Middleton, Corsi's boss, had been given the photo of Walid Bin Attash on August 30, 2001, connecting Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing. Yet he did not alert Bongardt when there was now clear photographic evidence that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing and tell him to immediately start a criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, particularly when he had been on the phone on August 28, 2001 with Corsi shutting down Bongardt’s investigation. This clearly shows that many higher level managers at both the CIA and FBI HQ had been involved in illegally shutting down Bongardt’s investigation and they were aware this was criminal obstruction. But even worse, both the CIA and FBI HQ had to know when they shut down the only real investigating team that could have stopped Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the al Qaeda attacks they had been warned about, that their actions would result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

From your post:

"It really helps if you read the documents in your posts all the way to the end. Just a helpful tip for future reference."

Maybe you should follow your own advise.

[apocalypsehow]

35. Your simply barking "this is pure HORESHIT! (Sic)" doesn't make it so. My facts, clearly posted from

the document linked in the OP itself, on the other hand, show that my conclusions, not the OP's are correct.

There was no criminal liability in this matter on the part of the analyst, period.

But I'll thank you, also, for giving me the opportunity to kick this post again and let others see why. :thumbsup:

[rschop]

42. re: Again your response is PURE HORSESHIT!

Your post is nothing more that your rather uninformed opinion, you have presented no reasons why your opinion is even remotely correct. I have listed the many reasons why it was not only was illegal for Corsi to withhold information from Bongardt’s criminal investigation, but it was completely illegal for her to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and even why she was aware that it was illegal.

Since she was acting under orders from Rod Middleton her boss, and also at the direction of Tom Wilshire, the CIA officer who had been moved over to the FBI in mid-May 2001 to spy on Bongardt’s investigation for the CIA, it is clear that many higher level managers at both the CIA and FBI HQ were not only aware of what she was doing but were directing her efforts to illegally shut down Bongardt’s investigation.

They allowed her to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when at the same time they were aware of a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans, knew al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part on this horrific al Qaeda attack and even knew by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation, they were shutting down the only investigation that could have prevented these attacks.

The many managers, many high level managers, at both the CIA and FBI HQ were aware that their efforts directing Corsi to shut down Bongardt’s investigation would directly allow the al Qaeda terrorists to murder thousands of Americans.

[rschop]

43. KICK!

[zappaman]

44. kick

cuz you make no sense

[rschop]

27. EXCELLANT POST eomer

This is an excellent post by eomer, and destroys in fact obliterates any argument that Corsi acted "legally" when she shut down FBI Special Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

The rest of the 35 page "secret" document goes on to further destroy any augment Corsi was working within the law. It even itself concludes that the wall never applied to the information that came from Kuala Lumpur on Mihdhar and Hazmi, since this information had never been connected to any FISA warrant and could never have been legally used as an excuse to shut down this investigation.

Since FISA warrants never applied to information gathered outside of the US, it was never possible for Corsi to legally use this as her excuse to shut down the FBI investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. So this document that had been posted to show, or imply that “the wall” had somehow allowed Corsi to legally withhold critical and material information from an ongoing FBI criminal investigation, shows just the opposite, that there was no possible justification for her to do this based on the concept of “the wall”. It is clear that the wall was nothing more than a fraud, a criminal ruse that had allowed FBI HQ agents to illegally shut down criminal investigations.

So how had Corsi and the FBI HQ been able to carry out this criminal conspiracy and withhold material information using “the wall”, as their excuse. First she had to keep the fact that the NSA information had never been connected to any FISA warrant secret. Second she then had to make sure that the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in numerous crimes, secret. Once there was “substantial evidence of a Federal crime”, as Corsi wrote in her email to Bongardt on August 29, 2001, the criminal FBI investigators would know there was no way “the wall” would apply to this information. Corsi had to keep secret the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi were connected to the east Africa bombings. She (and the CIA) also had to keep secret that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing by hiding the fact that Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been photographed by the CIA at Kuala Lumpur.

One note, this document by Barbara A. Grewe is filled with many errors if you can imagine it, most are easy to pick out and fix. Some may be innocent. She not only just does not know what she is talking about, but this report intentionally leaves out many if not most of the critical details of the interaction between the CIA and FBI criminal investigators. These interactions prove that the CIA and FBI HQ had deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place by illegally shutting down investigations of al Qaeda terrorists inside of the US. These investigations could have prevented the attacks on 9/11. She leaves out this information to continue the massive cover up by the 9/11 Commission that the CIA and FBI HQ had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11.

According to this document it says “Subsequently, the analyst (Dina Corsi) sent an email, (on August 29, 2001) to the Cole case agent (Steve Bongardt) explaining that according to the NSLU, the case could only be opened as an intelligence matter, and that if Mihdhar was found, only designated intelligence agents could conduct or even be present at the interview. The case agent (Steve Bongardt) angrily responded that there seems to be some confusion regarding the wall because in his view it only applied to FISA information.“

But the 9/11 Commission report (p 538, footnote 81) says that when Corsi consulted Attorney Sherry Sabol, Sabol told Corsi that since the NSA information did not have any connection to a FISA warrant, since this information was from a wire tap on a phone outside the US, Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi and if Corsi was still confused, she could go to the NSA and get this release herself unaware that Corsi had already gotten a release the day before. Not only had Corsi lied to Bongardt over what Sabol had ruled but Corsi had concealed from Sabol, the information that she had already gotten a release when she talked to her. What is amazing is that it appears that Grewe never bothered to even read the already available 9/11 Commission report when she was writing this 35 page monograph, for the 9/11 Commission.

What else did Grewe leave out.

According to Grewe: “On August 22, 2001 the FBI analyst (FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi) and her colleague who was detailed to the CIA (FBI Agent Margaret Gillespie) learned that Mihdhar had entered the United States on January 15, 2000 and again on July 4, 2001”.

What is left out is that this information that al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US was also given to CIA officer Tom Wilshire on August 22, 2001 by Corsi and Gillespie. Wilshire had been moved to the FBI ITOS unit in mid-may 2001 as Deputy Chief of this unit. Wilshire knew immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans. He had in fact sent this information in email to his managers back at the CIA that not only were the people who had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting connected to the warnings that CIA had gotten about a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US, but had identified in his July 23, 2001 email, that in particular Khalid al-Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda operation.

So what did Wilshire and Corsi do with this horrific information? They never tried to alert any criminal investigators at the FBI that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. They kept this information completely secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators, in spite of the fact that both the CIA and FBI HQ knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. Beyond all belief Corsi even admits to DOJ IG investigators that she is aware by at least August 22, 2001, that the CIA had a photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur, knew that this then connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing that took place at Kuala Lumpur. Corsi even knew that the CIA had intentionally been keeping this photo secret from Bongardt and his team to prevent them from having enough evidence to start any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

In July 2001 CIA managers had refused to give permission twice to Wilshire in response to his requests, to turn the information on Kuala Lumpur over to the FBI criminal investigators. So it is clear that this conspiracy was orchestrated by the very highest levels of the CIA.

Since the FBI HQ, and the CIA knew about a huge imminent attack inside of the US by the al Qaeda terrorists that would kill thousands of Americans, it is not believable that they did not also know that by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, thousands of Americans would be killed in these attacks as a direct result of their actions.

[noise]

28. People have to suspend common sense for the given explanations to make sense

1)What sort of FBI agent would care more about a bureaucratic wall than preventing a possibly massive terrorist attack? We see the expected conduct with Bongardt and Samit desperately trying to prevent a possible attack. Add in Corsi's conduct and it becomes pretty clear that the wall was used to obstruct investigations.

2)The CIA cannot have it both ways. They can't claim they were aware of the danger while concurrently withholding crucial info from the FBI. Furthermore if FBI and CIA agents were truly concerned about bureaucratic rules then the CIA should have turned over al-Hazmi/al-Mihdar info as that was the proper procedure.

3)There was similar odd conduct at the NSA:

Q: What do you believe are the principal reasons for the NSA's refusal to hand over the information on the two 9/11 hijackers to the FBI? Was it legal? Bureaucratic? And does that culture persist despite the improved communications between agencies?
Anonymous

Bamford: In my view, the principal reason that the NSA failed to pass key information on to the CIA and FBI was Gen. Hayden's reluctance to involve NSA in anything domestic—even though he had an obligation to pass this information on and there was no legal prohibition against it. He could have easily obtained a FISA warrant to eavesdrop on al Mihdhar's and al Hazmi's international calls, and the FBI could have gotten a FISA warrant to tap into their domestic calls. Had that been done, the agencies would almost certainly have discovered that a terrorist plot was under way.

Expert Q&A

The FISA law was created to address domestic abuses revealed by the Church hearings. Furthermore there have been credible reports that the NSA was engaged in pre-9/11 warrantless surveillance programs.

[plain1]

45. Most people prefer nonsense to sense. eom

[zappaman]

46. not me

so...what've you got?

[plain1]

47. Anyone who buys what politicians sell, without being skeptical.

Are you looking in the mirror?

[zappaman]

48. I'm always skeptical of the government...

now, show me your evidence.
or are you "immune" to real discussion?

[plain1]

49. Yes, of course you are.

That's the very reason why you should become more knowledgeable about the issues that concern you. Substantive issues, not your
debate (sic) skills.

[zappaman]

50. uh huh

tell me, are you "immune"...to debate?
:rofl:

[plain1]

51. Broken record.

Can't you do any better than put on such a silly act? At least admit that you are satisfied with what the gov't told you
and that's all you need to know. Are you immune to stating your own beliefs, even though they aren't supported by the evidence?

[apocalypsehow]

52. The problem with that assertion is that premise of this OP has been *repeatedly* dis-proven in the

replies I posted above, and those replies stand un-refuted. It would behoove you to read them.

[BeFree]

53. What is interesting

CIA head, Tenet, knew all of this. He knew what was going on, and in a feeble attempt to stop the hijackers he went straight to Bush. Those are facts supported, but never followed up on, by M$M.

CIA head Tenet knew. He must have really taken it in the shorts to not spill the beans publicly. There is much blood on his hands. He could have prevented 9/11 from happening. And he didn't. Instead, he got a medal from Bush. He got a medal from bush.

If that doesn't make anyone here spitting mad, there is something wrong.

[eomer]

54. Here are the facts.

1. On June 11 Corsi told agents of the Cole criminal investigation that she could not share information from the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
2. In late August Corsi requested and received permission to share the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
3. Subsequently Corsi drafted a lead that contained information from the NSA report. On August 28 she sent it to intelligence agents but did not send it to the criminal agents, even though she had received permission to do so.
   
4. One of the intelligence agents forwarded the lead to his squad supervisor who forwarded it to the criminal agents.
   
5. One of the criminal agents contacted Corsi to get further information. She told him that he would have to destroy the lead because it contained NSA information that bore the sharing caveats and therefore could not be shared with criminal agents. She knew this statement to be false because she had recently requested and received permission to share the NSA report with criminal agents.
   
   Posted for anyone reading the claims you continue to post after they've been disproved.
   
   

[SDuderstadt]

55. Five questions, dude

It was Xmas vacation and I have been real sick with a cold, so I haven't jumped in until now, but there are some considerations you and rschop are completely ignoring in your quest to convict Corsi:

1) If Corsi had been trying to "criminally obstruct" any investigation, why did she initially request permission to share the lead information with a criminal agent?

2) When Corsi initially obtained permission, how do you know she felt the permission was correct? Do you somehow claim to know her state of mind?

3) If the permission was, in fact, erroneous, what would have been the consequence had a defense attorney objected that "the wall" had been breached? Do you think whatever trial court the case might have wound up before would have admitted the information simply because someone made a mistake in interpreting "the wall"? How do you know that Corsi was not so conscientious and determined to thwart a plot, that she erred on the side of caution, but made a mistake nonetheless?

4) If, as you and rschop (or, at least, rschop) claim, this matter was "criminally covered up", how were we able to find out about it?

5) Do you really have a great deal of confidence in rschop's "detective work" when he a) claims that he figured out the 9/11 attack in advance, but did not warn the FBI because he "didn't think anyone would believe him" (paraphrase) and b) claims he can substantiate his claim of foreknowledge by his employees at the time, however he gave their affidavits to the FBI (in an office that did not appear to exist) and just happened not to have kept a single copy? Does that make any sense to you?

[eomer]

60. Regarding 1): because she was fishing around for a denial, not for permission.

SDuderstadt said:

1) If Corsi had been trying to "criminally obstruct" any investigation, why did she initially request permission to share the lead information with a criminal agent?

The answer is apparently: because she was fishing for a particular answer that she wanted but didn't get, which was a denial of permission.

She made the request on 8/26 and quickly received permission on 8/27. Rather than immediately transmit the information now that she had permission, what did she do next? The following day she contacted DOJ lawyer Sherry Sabol for an opinion on the very same question. She again got the same answer -- that she could share the information with criminal agents. Did she then transmit the information, having both received permission on 8/27 and also having received legal advice on 8/28 from the DOJ that she is able to share? No, instead she misrepresented the legal advice and claimed that she had been told she could not share. It's clear from this sequence and timing of events that she did not want to share the information for some reason and was not sincerely trying to get permission to share it; rather she was trying to find someone who would tell her that she couldn't share it.

Below is my source, which is History Commons. For their original source follow the link below and then you'll see a link to an Inspector General's report within the text I excerpted.

FBI headquarters agents Dina Corsi and Rod Middleton contact Justice Department lawyer Sherry Sabol to ask her opinion on the search for future 9/11 hijacker Khalid Almihdhar, but Sabol will later say that Corsi misrepresents her advice to other agents. Corsi contacts Sabol, an attorney at the national security law unit, to ask her about legal restrictions on the search for Almihdhar, because of an argument she has had with New York agent Steve Bongardt about whether the search should be an intelligence or criminal investigation (see August 28, 2001 and August 28, 2001). Corsi will later tell Bongardt that Sabol told her that the information needed for the investigation cannot be passed on to criminal agents at the FBI, only intelligence agents, and that if Almihdhar is located, a criminal agent cannot be present at an interview. Corsi’s understanding of the issue is wrong, and the “wall,” which restricted the passage of some intelligence information to criminal agents at the FBI, does not prevent the information in question being shared with criminal agents (see August 29, 2001). The 9/11 Commission will comment that Corsi “appears to have misunderstood the complex rules that could apply to the situation.” <9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 271> In addition, Sabol will later insist that her advice was very different than what Corsi claims it is. She will deny saying a criminal agent could not interview Almihdhar, arguing that she would not have given such inaccurate advice. She will also say the caveat on the intelligence information from the NSA would not have stopped criminal agents getting involved and, in any case, the NSA would have waived the caveat if asked. (Note: the NSA did so at Corsi’s request just one day earlier (see August 27-28, 2001), but presumably Corsi does not tell Sabol this.) <9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004, PP. 271> Larry Parkinson, the FBI’s general counsel at this time, will later say there was no legal bar to a criminal agent being present at an interview and that he would be shocked if Sabol had actually told Corsi this. <9/11 COMMISSION, 2/24/2004> Furthermore, Corsi apparently does not tell Sabol that Almihdhar is in the US illegally. The illegal entry is a crime and means criminal FBI agents can search for him (see August 29, 2001).

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=dina_corsi_1

[SDuderstadt]

61. Why write it up at all, then?

Why not just totally conceal it??

It's a hoot to watch you strain to make the facts fit your pre-determined conclusion.

[eomer]

62. She was being pressured to share the information...

and apparently was looking for some way to not do so. Read the various accounts I've given you and you will see she was receiving daily pressure to share the information with the criminal agents.

Here are her actions. Does this seem odd to you? Seems odd to me.

• 8/26 Requested permission to share the info.
  
• 8/27 Received permission. Yay, let's share it. Oops, why didn't she share it?
  
• 8/28 Requested legal advice on whether she could share the info. Neglected to disclose that she had just received permission to do so.
  
• 8/28 Received legal advice that she could share it. Yay, let's share it. Oops, why didn't she share it?
  
• 8/29 Still getting pressure to share it, so instead she lies and says she's received legal advice that she cannot share it (the opposite of the advice she had actually just received).

So, no, my interpretation is not a strain. It's the obvious conclusion from those facts.

[noise]

63. Note how SDuderstadt acts like you are out of line

for questioning Corsi's bizarre conduct. Corsi or several other officials at the FBI could clear this up in five minutes. It's been almost 10 years and yet FBI officials are evidently content to keep the public ignorant.

[zappaman]

64. Isn't it obvious?

Sdude is an authoritarian

[noise]

66. Is it not strange that he

appears more concerned with those who question Corsi than he does with Corsi's bizarre conduct?

1)Al Qaeda was the enemy. Named perps of the African embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.

2)Two ID'ed al Qaeda operatives with links to the Yemen hub and direct association with USS Cole plotters were in the US.

3)Corsi went out of her way to prevent criminal agents from being involved in the search.

The obvious question--why did she do so? This is not a conspiracy question. It is a basic question that has not been answered.

[SDuderstadt]

67. More of your bullshit...

I am asking logical questions and you are questioning my integrity, which is a violation of DU rules. If you guys want to have actual debate, I'll ask you politely to quit smearing my motivation.

You guys seem shocked that anyone can have a different take on the fact.

[SDuderstadt]

68. "It's an obvious conclusion from those facts"

No, it's one possible conclusion from those facts. How do you know other facts have not been omitted from the account?

[noise]

69. Whose fault is it that we don't have all the facts?

Why does the UBLU (FBI Bin Laden unit) get the benefit of the doubt when they refuse to explain their conduct? They have an obligation to explain their conduct.

[SDuderstadt]

70. Dude...

It's yours. Instead of whining about it here, why not approach your member of Congress, your Senator, FBI Director Mueller, the FBI IG and AG Holder?

[noise]

71. Indeed it is my fault

We should never blame the people who are abusing their authority.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Dude...

Like I said, quit whining about it here and take the matter to someone who can help you with it.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

56. 1-2-3

1) Corsi lied about the wall. Why did she lie? Was she ordered to lie? Ans since she lied she had to make it look like she wasn't lying, so she made it look like she she was sharing the info with agents, while neve really doing so.


2)As part of that disinfo, she had to make it look like she felt that others were making mistakes. All part of the covering of her tracks as she obstructed things.

3) Even deeper into the coverup, and looking ahead, she mangled jurisprudence by making it look like any subsequent trial would let a perp off the hook if the wall wasn't allowed to be the point of obstruction.

And let's all thank rschop for his diligence, he may not be personally perfect (who is?) but his reporting on the obstruction has been thoroughly backed up. Thanks, Robert.

[noise]

57. As usual some posters overlook the important issue

FBI accountability to the public. Strangely some posters like to pretend that the public has an obligation to be loyal to the FBI. As if one is somehow out of line for daring to question authority.

The FBI/Corsi/UBLU agents could clear this up in five minutes if they stopped hiding behind secrecy laws.

I must again note why Corsi's conduct is so strange. The obstructed investigation involved two ID'ed al Qaeda operatives linked to the African Embassy bombings and the USS Cole attack.

[SDuderstadt]

58. More of your bullshit...

dude.

Well, at least you didn't call me an "authoritarian" like you usually do.

[wildbilln864]

36. kick &

recommend! Thanks! :hi: