old salt wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:29 pm
The WB law does not forbid the DNI from consulting the ODNI GC or the DoJ OLC.
Nor does it grant the DNI the authority to ignore Exec Privilege.
The DNI followed the ICWPA, as interpreted by the ODNI GC & the DoJ OLC.
Don't blame the DNI for following proper channels in navigating the ambiguities of a law that clearly did not envision nor address the potential conflicting rights of a President, if accused. A law so ambiguous that it apparently allows the IC IG to modify critical triggering criteria, just by making an admin change to a complaint form.
If the DNI broke the law, Congress can sue & SCOTUS can rule on his actions & the Constitutionality of the ICWPA if executed in the manner you assert that it should have been. Good luck in court.
Same goes for leakers. Good luck in court.
If that's how you want to look at it, there's also nothing, anywhere in the WB law, preventing the DNI from walking this complaint right up to Trump, and handing it to him.
As a citizen, I'd like to think that the DNI is smart enough, and has enough common sense not to do that.
Smart enough to simply follow procedure, and think it through.
For example, what harm does it to either the intel, or the WB to hand it over to the Intel Committee? The primary job of the DNI in this case is to protect the WB, as well as the classified info.
In what world does handing this complaint to Trump's direct report, Barr, achieve that goal? Or more to my point: is there anything in the law preventing Barr from simply handing that WB complaint over to Trump.
No. So what would that tell a DNI who uses a little common sense?
I'm sorry, but your argument simply doesn't make sense here. What the DNI did wasn't in the interest of the WB. Full stop.
