The report claims that President Trump had made a promise to a foreign leader that the whistleblower found to be concerning.
SCHIFF: First of all, I want to thank the whistleblower for coming forward, for having the courage to follow the procedures as they’re written in law to make a lawful disclosure to the Congress and to the inspector general of conduct that was gravely concerning to the whistleblower.
Under the law, when a whistleblower does that, the inspector general has two weeks to investigate that complaint to determine if it’s urgent and credible, and to forward that complaint to the director of national intelligence.
The inspector general made exactly those determinations, found that this was within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence, that it was an urgent matter, and it met the statutory requirements that it dealt with a serious or flagrant abuse, violation of law or other misconduct misuse of resources.
What then is supposed to happen is the director of national intelligence has seven days to review the complaint and then they shall provide it to the Congress, and they shall instruct through the inspector general the whistleblower, how the whistleblower can come directly to Congress.
In the absence of that whistleblower law, there is no lawful mechanism for intelligence community employee or detailer or contractor to raise a complaint about serious misconduct.
The whole point of the whistleblower statute is not only to encourage those to report problems, abuses, violations of laws but also to have a legal mechanism to do so and not to disclose classified information because there is no other remedy.
That whole purpose is being frustrated here because the director of national intelligence has made the unprecedented decision not to share the complaint with Congress.
We were informed of this fact after the seven-day period in which the director has to review it and submit it to Congress had expired.
No complaint was provided and the inspector general felt it necessary to inform the Congress that that complaint was being withheld. In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector general in the absence of his actions and coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern.
We will be releasing the inspector general’s letters, but I want to read one sentence from them. Mr. Atkinson wrote, I set forth the reasons for my concluding that the subject matter involved in the plaintiff’s disclosure not only falls within the DNI’s jurisdiction but relates to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s responsibilities to the American people.
This is what’s being withheld from Congress right now. We do know that the department of justice has been involved in the decision to withhold that information from Congress.
We do not know, because we cannot get an answer to the question about whether the white House is also involved in preventing this information from coming to Congress.
We do not have the complaint, we do not know whether the press reports are accurate or inaccurate about the contents of that complaint.
But what I do know is this. If, in a manner within the jurisdiction of the director of national intelligence, you have an employee of that community or contractor or detailee who follows the law and makes a complaint, and it is possible for the subject of that complaint to essentially quash the complaint or keep it from Congress, then this system is badly broken.
Now, I don’t think this is a problem of the law. I think the law is written very clearly. I think the law is just fine. The problem lies elsewhere.
And we’re determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is, to make sure that the national security is protected and to make sure that this whistleblower is protected.
Because the impact of this opinion, which the department of justice has been unwilling to share with us, the impact of this opinion is that if the department of justice decides that an employee of the intelligence committee comes forward, follows the law, follows the process, is nonetheless outside the process, they’re not protected.
Which not only means this whistleblower is not protected, it means no whistleblower is protected. That is the danger of the doj’s misinterpretation of the law.
So that is where we are right now. Next week we will have an open hearing with the director of national intelligence where he can explain to the country why he believes this urgent concern should not be shared with the Congress. But that’s where we are. And we’ll be happy to respond to a few questions.
This article originally appeared at The Federalist Papers and was republished with permission.
Follow the author, Carmine Sabia on Twitter!
Scroll down to leave a comment!
Join us at SPREELY if you want REAL NEWS without the leftist censorship!
Dean James at Right Wing Tribune