Obama Chooses Saudis over 9/11 Victims, Rep. Jones Presses Forward on 28-Pages
July 2, 2014 • 12:34PM

Jones, Massie Focus on Redacted 28 Pages, Civil Liberties, War

In the July edition of his monthly Washington Watch video program posted on youtube.com, Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) conducted a 20-minute discussion with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the first-term Congressman who has worked with Jones to build support for the release of the still-classified 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission's report that are said to document Saudi support for the 9/11 attacks.

Massie said that he read the 28 pages "in that soundproof, secret room we have here in Congress." He urged those members of Congress who have not yet done so, to go read them. Massie said that he "had to stop every two or three pages and rearrange my perception of history," while reading the pages that have been kept from the public. He earlier participated in the press conference with Jones, Rep. Steve Lynch (D-Mass.), and members of the 9/11 families, calling for the release of the 28 pages.

On other matters, Massie, too, along with Jones, voiced his support for Obama abiding by the Constitution by coming to Congress to seek the authority to use military force in Iraq.

Supreme Court Allows Suit Against Saudi Kingdom To Proceed

In a pair of rulings which has caused much confused reporting in the news media, the Supreme Court allowed a lawsuit by 9/11 families and insurance companies to proceed against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, while at the same refusing to hear an appeal brought by 9/11 families of another, lower court ruling, which barred them from suing banks and individuals that provided support to al Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorists. In both cases, outrageously, the Obama Administration had intervened on the side of the Saudis against U.S. citizens and 9/11 victims.

In the first case, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia v. Federal Insurance Corp., the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by Saudi Arabia, various Saudi royal princes, and the Saudi High Commission (an alleged charity) of a December ruling, by refusing to hear an appeal of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. By refusing to hear the appeal, the high court let the appeals court ruling stand, permitting the suit against the Saudis to proceed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, where litigation has been ongoing for years against other entities.

"From our perspective, we are looking forward to having the opportunity to finally conduct an inquiry into the financing of the Sept. 11 attacks," said Sean Carter, a partner at Phila. law firm Cozen O'Connor, one of the firms involved in the litigation against the kingdom. Carter said he expected that discovery of Saudi government documents and depositions would begin shortly, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer

In the second ruling, the Supreme Court let stand a lower-court ruling in the case O'Neill et al. v. Al Rajhi Bank, et al., dismissing a lawsuit against banks and other entities accused of indirectly aiding the 9/11 attackers. The bank defendants dismissed by the ruling include Al Rajhi Bank, Dar Al-Maal Al-Islami Trust, Dallah Al Baraka Group LLC and Saudi American Bank, now known as Samba Financial Group. Rajhi Bank is well-known to the U.S. government for its role in financing terrorism; nonetheless, at the Supreme Court, Obama's Solicitor General argued that the 9/11 families had not proven that Rajhi Bank knew its money was going to finance terrorists.

Obama Protecting the Saudis: FBI Classifies Some, Releases Some Information on Sarasota Saudis and 9/11

On Monday, the Broward Bulldog online newspaper received 11 heavily-redacted pages of FBI reports concerning the wealthy Saudis — the Ghazzawi and al-Hiijjii families — who fled from Sarasota, Florida, only days before the 9/11 attacks. Most of the information in the documents was just recently classified to prevent its release. The FBI documents, stamped "secret," are marked as only having been formally classified earlier this month — although such documents are supposed to be classified when they are created.

Among other things, the Justice Department asserts that classification is necessary because the censored information pertains to foreign relations or foreign activities, including confidential sources. "This could be about information considered embarrassing to Saudi Arabia," said Bulldog attorney Tom Julin, as reported in the Bulldog..

The 11 pages released on Monday contain statements reiterating that the al-Hiijjiis had departed the U.S. in haste shortly before 9/11, and that further investigation had revealed "many connections" between them and persons associated with 9/11 attacks—statements that flatly contradict the FBI's public statements that its agents found no connection between the al-Hiijjiis and the 9/11 plot.

"This release suggests that the FBI has covered up information that is vitally important to public safety," said Julin. "It's startling that after initially denying they had any documents, they continue to find new documents as the weeks and months roll by. Each new batch suggests there are many, many more documents. There needs to be a full-scale explanation of what's going on here."

The judge in the FOIA case is still in the process of examining the full 80,000 pages of the FBI's Tampa field office investigation of 9/11 to determine if other documents are relevant to the investigation of the Sarasota Saudis and their links to the 9/11 hijackers.