When you cast assertions make sure you dot the i’s and cross the t’s.
We’re very involved with the impeachment proceedings that have taken this country by storm. On the surface, we can see what we read and share with each other; all the important information to decide for ourselves. We make a deduction, for example this is true because of the facts that have now been exposed while other facts; deep dark secrets remain protected; classified information at the FBI, CIA, DOJ and State Department.
There are only two sides to this coin, to this story, to this corruption and it is literally the good versus the bad. Some, clearly see Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Adam Schiff, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, as the antagonists; trying to impeach President Trump against the will of the American people who voted for him as Commander-in-Chief.
The impeachment inquiry had no process, procedures or rules. Chairman Adam Schiff controlled everything in the Intelligence Committee hearings to the point that he decided who could stay or who he would ask to leave, bypassing their Congressional right to ask pertinent questions regarding this impeachment and the witnesses.
The Republicans in Congress were fed up, they stormed in and Adam Schiff grabbed the whistleblower and made a getaway before anyone could identify the whistleblower but the whistleblower is just a pawn in this deadly game of chess. The Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has frequently used the word “Deadly”. I can’t figure out who she is threatening; I hope not the President.
In the ubiquitous fog of corruption we cannot always see what exactly is going on between those who are writing letters addressing those who they feel have crossed the line; they call it the bureaucracy. And in that bureaucracy there are very experienced tacticians and some are very experienced at coverups.
We have all been on pins and needles waiting for Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report to define those who will be possibly indicted and prosecuted for espionage and treason involved in the FISA Abuse scandal.
I have no real method on how I research information and then just by chance which happens more frequently I run into a piece of information that must be shared because it bothers me more than I care to admit. Are the President’s supporters putting too much faith in the investigations of IG Horowitz?~ Natalie
On Tuesday October 22, 2019, the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency sent the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) head Steve Engel a scathing letter criticizing his opinion that Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire could not share the whistleblower complaint about President Trump’s July 25, 2019 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine with Congress for the following reasons that aren’t necessarily true.
- ICIG was right to complain about OLC’s decision in a September 17 letter
- ICIG was about DNI’s jurisdiction over federal elections and classification of information (One would doubt that the Director of National Intelligence is more worried about election interference or classification of information with more serious national intelligence issues pending.)
- OLC’s opinion could impair whistleblowing (That’s a little drastic to describe it that way.)
- OLC’s opinion deviates from Congressional intent on IC statutes, as backed by both Chuck Grassley and Mark Warner (Wow, referring to those who knew more about this before it became the reason for impeachment.)
- OLC did not raise any valid constitutional concern, but instead simply substituted its judgment for the ICIG’s (Ah huh, the judgement of ICIG’s is more important than the OLC’s.)
But the writer was more interested in what it means that CIGIE’s Chair, Michael Horowitz, wrote it. Horowitz also happens to be DOJ’s Inspector General, the same guy Bill Barr has loaded up with investigations designed to take down President Trump’s critics (Deep State), someone whom the right has invested a lot of their respect (We The American People Have no choice in this matter).
“Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure Horowitz would have written the letter in any case, even if he weren’t DOJ IG. He’s a fierce protector of IG prerogatives, which is one reason why he’s the Chair.”
“Horowitz is also a brilliant tactician who has used his positions–both as DOJ IG and as CIGIE head–to assert his authority. Just as one very key example, after a several year fight with FBI, he managed to get broad access to FBI’s files for IG investigations. In another example, he managed to investigate lawyer Jim Comey (in his administrative role) even though generally such investigations get done by DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility.” (Horowitz was appointed by Obama and Attorney General Barr worked for George H W Bush)
“And I view this letter, in addition to being a very public and powerful stand on an important principle, as a tactic. One thing the letter does, for example, is lay out that a top DOJ lawyer violated Congress’ intent on how Inspectors General are supposed to work. That’s the kind of thing that — if my years of watching Horowitz are any indication — we may hear the next time Horowitz testifies about his work and the scope of DOJ’s IG, which is limited in ways that other IGs aren’t.”
(The IG is supposed to have limited power but what is supposed to be isn’t always the case in the real world of politics. Now, this is important, “The OLC made a correct assertion based on facts as he noted, A complaint from the Intelligence Community employee about statements made by the President during a telephone call with a foreign leader does not involve an “urgent concern” as defined in 50 U.S.C. 3033 (k)(5)(G), because the alleged conduct does not relate to “the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity” under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. As a result, the statue does not require the Director to transmit the complaint to the congressional intelligence committee.”)
“More interesting, given the abundant proof that DOJ worked hard to avoid connecting the dots on this complaint, is Horowitz’s footnote noting that DOJ and FBI have responsibilities to investigation interference in our elections seems” (They didn’t work hard, they purposely avoided connecting the dots for the impeachment to proceed.)
“Horowitz may not have the authority to investigate Steve Engel, but he does have the authority to investigate the people who found ways not to investigate this complaint competently, and his concern on OLC may reflect a concern on what else happened at DOJ.”(Horowitz, here did not want anyone looking over his shoulder).
“Horowitz also maps out broad authority for ICIG to continue to investigating both the allegation itself and (importantly), the misuse of the Top Secret server to hide other problematic call transcripts.” (The Inspectors General or the DNI does not have any oversight of where the President stores information. The Inspector General is not the oversight of the President, his oversight is over the agencies.)
“We further note that the DNI has jurisdiction over the handling of classified and other sensitive information. As a result, the whistleblower’s allegation that certain officials may have misused an intelligence system also raises an additional claim of a serious or flagrant problem that relates to the operations of the DNI and therefore may properly be considered an urgent concern under the statute.”
(The DNI does not have jurisdiction of White House classified information nor control over White House secure servers. The telephone transcript is related to foreign relations and would fall under the scope of the Department of State not the intelligence community not withstanding the employment of the “whistleblower”)
“We actually don’t know whether ICIG has continued to investigate this issue. But Horowitz lays out the case that he has the authority to.”
“Finally, Horowitz focuses on the delay that OLC’s opinion had, preventing Congress from learning about the complaint by September 2 (when, by law, they should have received the whistleblower complaint).”
As Congress has done in every other whistleblower law passed since 1978, it entrusted IGs to play a central role in the evaluation of the information provided. Specifically, the ICWPA requires an IG to make within 14 days a factual determination as to whether an alleged urgent concern provided to the IG “appears credible.” If the IG determines that the allegation appears credible, which necessarily includes a determination by the IG that it involves an “urgent concern,” the IG is required to forward the allegation to the head of the agency and the agency head “shall” forward it to Congress within 7 days “with any comments.” The ICWPA’s use of the word “shall” makes it clear that the statute does not authorize the agency head, or any other party for that matter, to review or second-guess an IG’s good faith determination that a complaint meets the ICWPA’s statutory language.