It still doesn’t matter which form was used. The very law either form is based on limits the IC DG’s and even the DNI’s jurisdiction to those employees in the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. Their jurisdiction and the reporting requirement does not extend to the EPA, NASA, the US Geological Survey, the US State Department, the Department of Justice, and a host of other agencies over which they have zero jurisdiction. . . and among those areas where the DNI and his subordinate have ZERO oversight, ZERO authority, and over which they have even less than ZERO reporting ability on is their ultimate superior executive, the President of the United States, who at the time he was talking to a leader of a foreign nation, was wearing his ultimate leader of the Department of State hat, and who during that call temporarily picked up his ultimax chief law enforcement hat as leader of the Department of Justice.
The POTUS is NOT IN UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY and certainly not their jurisdiction, and the law does not give either of them the authority to eavesdrop on him and report his activities because the law specifically constrains them to "intelligence community members, present and past," especially the IC IG, as an agent of the Congress. That falls under the separation of powers. The act, as written, specifies that the IC IG is, in fact a quasi-agent of Congress. He cannot be reporting on the actions of the executive branch, who is the President, in such a manner, not Constitutionally.
Incidentally, the letter to the chairmen of both the House and Senate Oversight Committees was dated on August 12, contrary to this self-serving press release from the office of the IC IG. If he wrote his letter on August 12, about a phone call that occurred on July 25, and, as he claimed he took 14 days to determine credibility of the "whistleblower," AND the whistleblowe obviously took plenty of time to do his own thorough investigation, which appears to have included interviewing multiple supposed witnesses, and reviewing scads of news articles. . . and then after the IC IG, turns it over to the DNI, as he claims he did, with his recommendation of credible, and "urgent," and having jurisdiction for the new DNI’s (who took office after August 17th) statutory SEVEN DAY consideration, how is it that he wrote his letter disagreeing with the DNI’s decision to not transmit it to Congress as being outside the IC IG’S and DNI’S jurisdiction, as determined by a ruling from career legal counsel in the DOJ, on August 12th???? Something smells all the way to Pluto and back!
Something smells all the way to Pluto and back!
The very reason I started looking into all of it for myself.
If you listened on Thursday the DNI laid it out and it became clear there was coordination between those “in the know” on the inside and people like Schiff.