Then came the declassification of the "Whistleblower's" actual complaint against the president, which made clear the still-unnamed intelligence officer was peddling nothing but gossip and hearsay, seasoned with several factual falsehoods.
The director of national intelligence also does not have "The responsibility and authority" over Trump, further establishing that the ICWPA is inapplicable to the situation at hand-which is exactly what the Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a memorandum opinion provided to the DNI general counsel: "The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community," Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel of the Office of General Counsel noted in concluding that the complaint did not trigger the ICWPA reporting requirements.
When the ICIG receives a complaint under the ICWPA, he has 14 calendar days to "Determine whether the complaint or information appears credible" and then must "Transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information." The director of national intelligence then has seven days to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.
The corollary to these mandates is the right under the statute for the whistleblower to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly, if the DNI does not forward his complaint.
Without an "Urgent concern," the IC operative could not legally provide the classified information to the congressional intelligence committees under the guise of a whistleblowing scandal-which of course was the sole reason for the complaint.
As Davis noted, the revised form "Was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed," and the whistleblower's complaint was dated August 12, 2019.
While the whistleblower's plot to manipulate the ICWPA is obvious from the complaint, and so is his inaccurate partial quote of the statutory definition of "Urgent concern," the change in the form suggests complicity in the ICIG's office.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/did-the-inspector-generals-office-help-the-whistleblower-try-to-frame-trump/
The director of national intelligence also does not have "The responsibility and authority" over Trump, further establishing that the ICWPA is inapplicable to the situation at hand-which is exactly what the Office of Legal Counsel concluded in a memorandum opinion provided to the DNI general counsel: "The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community," Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel of the Office of General Counsel noted in concluding that the complaint did not trigger the ICWPA reporting requirements.
When the ICIG receives a complaint under the ICWPA, he has 14 calendar days to "Determine whether the complaint or information appears credible" and then must "Transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information." The director of national intelligence then has seven days to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees.
The corollary to these mandates is the right under the statute for the whistleblower to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly, if the DNI does not forward his complaint.
Without an "Urgent concern," the IC operative could not legally provide the classified information to the congressional intelligence committees under the guise of a whistleblowing scandal-which of course was the sole reason for the complaint.
As Davis noted, the revised form "Was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no specific date of revision is disclosed," and the whistleblower's complaint was dated August 12, 2019.
While the whistleblower's plot to manipulate the ICWPA is obvious from the complaint, and so is his inaccurate partial quote of the statutory definition of "Urgent concern," the change in the form suggests complicity in the ICIG's office.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/did-the-inspector-generals-office-help-the-whistleblower-try-to-frame-trump/
No comments:
Post a Comment