- Moderator
- #81
The statute authorizes the ICIG to “receive and investigate ... complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.”
Unpacking the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Complaint
Last week saw an important development in the continuing erosion of governmental checks and balances. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff subpoenaed Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire and wrote a blistering letter accusing Maguire of violating the law by...www.lawfareblog.com
Defines a matter of "urgent concern" for purposes of this Act as: (1) a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the administration or operation of an intelligence activity involving classified information; (2) a false statement to the Congress, or willful withholding from the Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the administration or operation of an intelligence activity; or (3) an action constituting reprisal in response to an employee's reporting of an urgent concern.
H.R.3829 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998
Summary of H.R.3829 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998www.congress.gov
Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA) of 1998 provides a secure means for employees to report to Congress allegations regarding classified information. The ICWPA is a statute that provides a process by which employees, or contractor employees, of IC elements can report matters of "urgent concern" to the intelligence committees of Congress.
An "urgent concern" is defined as:
- A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters.
- A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.
Now show how a presidential diplomatic phone call falls within the authority or responsibility of the DNI, or involves the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity. Here's a clue commie, you must first prove the DNI has responsibility or authority over anything his boss does.
.
Two points:
Intelligence and National Security and Foreign Affairs are intertwined. There are no convenient hard borders of “responsibility”. Nothing you posted actually outlines the responsibilities or limits there of, of the DNI, a broad position.
Your point about ”not a difference in policy”...is irrelevant. The complaint was not about policy. There was no “policy” being played out. In fact, it was contravening our long standing policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia while also addressing corruption (remember, prior to the Congressional release of the aid, the military intelligence had cleared Ukraine for aid, finding Ukraine had made substantial steps in addressing corruption). Wha the whistle blower reported was not a policy difference but a call AND a series of actions to hide that call, which looked like extortion for personal gain. It was appropriate to report it.
Oh bullshit, no agency had certified the new Ukraine admin, the new parliament hadn't even been seated at the time of the call. And a presidential diplomatic phone call does not fall within the authority or responsibility of the DNI and it's damn sure not an intelligence activity. You can try to read into the responsibilities of the DNI all you want, that doesn't alter the fact that the ICIG got way outside his lane and deserved to be fired. I proved it and all you need to do is admit it and STFU.
.
The only thing you are showing us is you are a bit ignorant on how things really work.
For example...."a simple diplomatic phone call"
Who listens to the call?
Traditionally, officials from the US national security council (NSC) brief the president before a call with a foreign leader. Then the briefers sit in the Oval Office with the president while he speaks on the phone with the foreign leader. "At least two members of the NSC are usually present," according to USA Today.
There will also be officials sitting in a secure room in another part of the White House, listening to the president's call and taking notes. Their notes are known as a "memorandum of telephone conversation", and like many things in Washington it has an abbreviation: "memcon".
The president's calls with foreign leaders are also transcribed by computers. Afterwards, as former White House officials explain, the human note takers compare their impressions with an electronic version of the call. The notes from the officials and from the computerised transcriptions are combined into one document. This transcript may not be perfect, but it is done as carefully as time and resources allow.
More deflection. This thread isn't about the phone call, it's to determine if the ICIG did his job according to the law and rules, he didn't, and deserved to be fired. Why are you commies trying to complicate it?
.
No deflection. Simply showing you what goes on with "diplomatic calls" since you didn't appear to know, just as you don't appear to understand how both intelligence and national security are intertwined.
The ICIG did his job according to the rules. The only ones who doesn't think so are Trump and his rabid supporters. Why are you fascists supporting a lawless and unaccountable chief executive?
