50 U.S. Code § 3033. Inspector General of the Intelligence Community U.S. Code

Cornell Law School ^ | Various | U.S. Government

[Swordmaker]

Nowhere in this law does it allow the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or even the Director of National Intelligence to have ANY oversight of the President’s phone calls or what the President does in Foreign Affairs. . . Or ANY intelligence employee to have oversight over the President of the United States such that they have reporting authority over the President. Such duties are for those in the Intelligence Community ONLY and the law as written is quite explicit. Read it yourself and see if you can find any phrase or paragraph or sentence in this law that allows an Intelligence Community employee, contractor, officer, or appointee, to have any oversight or authority over the President of the United States, or the IC IG the authority to decide he has authority to report outside his field of jurisdiction. I can’t find it.

[Swordmaker]

We’ve been discussing this for days, and I thought it would be good to have the actual law available to us. Here it is.

[Swordmaker]

The Intelligence Community is defined as follows:

intelligence community

(4) The term “intelligence community” includes the following:

• (A) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
• (B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
• (C) The National Security Agency.
• (D) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
• (E) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
• (F) The National Reconnaissance Office.
• (G) Other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs.
• (H) The intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Energy.
• (I) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State.
• (J) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of the Treasury.
• (K) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security.
• (L) Such other elements of any department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.

[TigersEye]

I didn’t read it all but I got quite a ways through it. What I didn’t see and would like to know is who has the authority to change the whistleblower statute?

[AnthonySoprano]

,

IG Horowitz still hasn’t reported on pre-eminent actions against the President of the United States over three years ago!

Summer of 2016! Still has not reported.

Dems get another IG (ICIG) removed, and pull their latest Get Trump Op in 30-40 days!

3.5 years versus 30 days?

You show me the urgency of these agencies, and I’ll tell show their goals.

The Deep state runs out the clock. It was seven years with iRS/ Lois Lerner - and that was all done by the IG. Sessions/ Rosenstein used that model to run out the Clock on the DoJ/ FBi Coup attempt.

‘

[JPJones]

(4) The term “intelligence community” includes the following:

(A) The Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
(B) The Central Intelligence Agency.
(C) The National Security Agency.
(D) The Defense Intelligence Agency.
(E) The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
(F) The National Reconnaissance Office.
(G) Other offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national intelligence through reconnaissance programs.
(H) The intelligence elements of the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Energy.
(I) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State.
(J) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of the Treasury.
(K) The Office of Intelligence and Analysis of the Department of Homeland Security.
(L) Such other elements of any department or agency as may be designated by the President, or designated jointly by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of the department or agency concerned, as an element of the intelligence community.

The “intelligence community” is waaaay too big.

Fire at least 50% of them.

The Draining of the Swamp starts here.

[Lowell1775]

Pimg

[stylin19a]

thank you, my FRiend. this is a keeper and you are correct - no oversight or authority over the President of the United States.

[Big Red Badger]

Thank You,
I need to get
My eyes Checked.

[Captain Compassion]

Bump!!

[Cboldt]

-- What I didn't see and would like to know is who has the authority to change the whistleblower statute? --

Congress. Congress writess all statutes (laws). Regulations are composed by administrative agencies.

This is not the only whistleblower statute. This one is aimed at the intelligence community. The "whistleblower protection" (for real whistleblowers) is different for the IC than for say the IRS or DoD. IC has --less-- protection.

This person doesn't get any protection. Laundering a leak through the whistleblower mechanism as ICIG Atkinson did, does not immunize a leaker.

See too 5 USC 2302(b)(8).

[Swordmaker]

I didn’t read it all but I got quite a ways through it. What I didn’t see and would like to know is who has the authority to change the whistleblower statute?

Only the House, the Senate, with the signature of the President on the resulting Bill. . . But someone changed the IC IG’s reporting form sometime in August, but only posted online for use in the last half of September. That’s mighty convenient when you can see the time line for “urgent” matters in the law I just posted. 14 days for the Inspector General to investigate the matter AFTER he receives the complaint before he has to pass it on to the Director of National Intelligence for his decision on what to do with it. The DNI then has seven days before he spike it or must notify Congress. . . That’s a 20 day time frame, but the IG’s letter to the congressional committees was dated on August 12, 2019, when the phone call occurred on July 25th. . . Just 18 days prior to the letter being sent to the committees.

When was the new reporting form, dated August 2019, but only published on the DNI’s website for use in late September, altered to allow the use of third-hand and hearsay information instead of prohibiting it as the previous form did? The previous form also said that use of such prohibited information would preclude consideration by the IG of the report.

That previous form could NOT have been filed with the IG in July... as the previous form with hearsay and third-party prohibitions was still the form required to be used. So exactly when did all this take place??? When was the new form made available to the complainant when it was not made available to the new DNI John Ratcliffe, who only took office in mid-August, after the 15th? DNI Dan Coats announced his resignation on July 29th. Who approved the new form, if anyone ever did? It doesn’t have the correct government date format (ddmmyy) instead showing “August 2019”, and lacks even a required government form number on it. Odd, don’t you think? Sounds rushed. Do you smell dead fish?

But that law applying a 20 day time limitation for reporting urgent matters to the Congressional oversight committees is FOR INTERNAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY EMPLOYEES or CONTRACTOR wrong doing only. This so-called “urgent intelligence matter,” which is constrained by statutory definition, did not meet those criteria, and the report went outside intelligence community activities which raised issues outside the boundaries of the intelligence community which required legal rulings from DOJ Legal Counsel about whether those laws relating to the intelligence community urgent reporting even applied.

The career lawyers in the DOJ determined that law did not apply at all because the subject of the hearsay evidence was NOT A MEMBER of any intelligence agency subject whose activities were not subject to being under the authority or jurisdiction of the DNI or IC IG, or to having his activities, behavior, or conversations with anyone, reported by any Intelligence Community member, as he was not a member of the Intelligence Community and certainly not subject to their statutory jurisdiction.

Ergo, the career legal counsel in the DOJ determined the entire topic was not within the jurisdiction of the Inspector General or even the DNI. The elected officials and politically appointed officials in the White House, or similar positions in Congress are not under the jurisdiction of law cited above, as much as the Democrats want it to apply to the President.

You can search through the statute exhaustively and you will find it mentioning ONLY the Intelligence Community members, employees, and contractors and their employees. They also determined that the matter was a matter of political policy, statutorily prohibited from such a report in the law itself.

Someone, at some undated time in August, after the event, changed the regulations and the IC IG’s form (apparently without going through appropriate channels and required public comment) for reporting urgent matters to allow what before was not allowed, i.e. specifically knowing only from first hand knowledge to permitting suspecting from hearsay and third hand rumors. This had to have been deliberate to make the report even acceptable, much less credible. Obviously coordinated shenanigans at work.

From the tenor of the “whistleblower’s” reporting, it looks to me as if the whistleblower arrogated to himself the role of the Inspector General, taking upon himself the task of investigation, interrogating members of the White House staff, asking questions he should have no business asking, gathering information he had no right to know, and collection data he had no business gathering to compile. He, from what I can tell, had no authority to do what he did in the course of collecting information under color of his connections with the CIA, if that is what agency he works for. The most a whistleblower is supposed to do is report what they saw or heard, not take it upon themselves to become Elliot Ness, no matter what level of investigative training they may have. It’s not their job. By doing what he did, he poisons the pool.

[bgill]

Not just that but where was the GOP when they were doing this?

[Missouri gal]

For all the reasons cited, then, the complaint is not legit, and the form was never approved, so it could never constitute a legitimate complaint even if it was within the authority of the intelligence community. The trail of the generation of the complaint goes toward Adam Schiff’s office, which released it simultaneously to the press and his committee. However, we have heard that Google is involved in the Burisma scandal as well as in generating this gossip “complaint.” The Deep State is just about everywhere you turn, and if this so-called complaint gets any travel, a raft of similar dressed-up gossip will surely follow.

[nwrep]

The “intelligence community” is waaaay too big. Fire at least 50% of them.

This sounds like the sentiment expressed by the Church Committee in the 1970s, and was derided by Republicans as liberal and treasonous for decades.

[goldbux]

* * *

[ml/nj]

Who’s going to read all that crap?

ML/NJ

[Bommer]

You don’t fire, you defund the crap out of them. Cut the budget by 50%. When they bitch, tell them they could save some money by not spying on the president or employing weasel ass leftists and FOCUS ON THEIR DAMN JOB!

[gnarledmaw]

Well, yes and no. Too many people in too many areas does make oversight difficult but you have to remember that except for a few at the top things are restricted on “need to know” basis. Its not quite like some people believe where just because someone has a clearance that they get to see everything of that classification. On top of that, the really highly classified stuff is compartmentalized and only accessible to those in one of two groups, those with clearance for that specific type of information and anyone with access to Hillary’s servers.

[Cboldt]

The "first-hand" aspect is in light of the entire process of "whistleblower protection."

Congress created an Office of Special Counsel to handle "illegal retaliation" complaints. Generally, in order for an unfair retaliation compliant to be considered, the whistleblower's report of fraud, abuse, etc. has to be first-hand knowledge. If this is the case, and the whistleblower is retaliated against, the OSC will investigate the case.

An IG who only takes first hand complaints protects the whistleblower's interests in case of retaliation.

I believe the vast majority of the federal government is against Trump. Any time an opportunity presents that can make him look bad, it gets done. The government is in rebellion. Those so-called "non-partisan career civil service employees" are unicorns - they do not exist. They are all partisan. Anybody who votes is partisan.