"The letters he (ICIG Michael Atkinson) sent to Schiff and Nunes were sent because the whistleblower complaint had not been transmitted to Congress."
I see you finally admit, after repeatedly denying it, that ICIG Atkinson did indeed send the complaint to the Chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence Oversight Committees. I’m amazed. You were so insistent that he had not. Now you agree he did, and the reason he did is, as I’d been telling you was his superiors had determined he had no jurisdiction to do so. He complained they did it for politics, to protect President Trump.
Do you recall me telling you that the meta data evidence on his letter transmitting Eric Ciamarella’s complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committees was dated on August 12, 2019, the same day he received the whistleblower’s spy’s complaints hearsay allegations, and also two calendar weeks before he even submitted his findings that Eric Ciamarella was a liar credible, to the DNI, for his determination of whether the issue was appropriate to submit to Congress oversight or not. Yet, as I told you, and as the meta data clearly proves, Atkinson had already written his letter of transmission to the Congressional Intelligence Committees before he did one lick of investigative effort to check Eric Ciamarella’s credibility, or could possibly know the DNI’s Congressional referral decision!
Now, do you ALSO recall me telling you that it was determined by multiple career legal counsels (three to be exact) that it was, first: NOT an urgent Intelligence Community matter, and was secondly:, not at all under the ICIG’s or DNI’s Jurisdiction because the person being reported was not a member of the Intelligence Community, and thirdly: the person is a member of a class of persons who are statutorily excluded from being under ICIG’s jurisdiction, and fourthly, the matter being reported was one of political policy, which was also statutorily excluded from the ICIG’s Jurisdiction, and fifthly, due to all of the fore-going legal determinations, it thus was not an urgent Intelligence Community concern required to be reported to Congress, and, in fact, by statute and several Constitutional reasons, prohibited from such disclosure? But, of course, you likely don’t recall that.
Do you perhaps ALSO recall me informing you these three career legal counsels, one for the ICIG’s office, another in the office of the Director of National Security, and the third at the Department of Justice, all stated that Legally, and Constitutionally, that what was raised in the allegations were a matter of Executive Privilege, which are not matters ever subject to Congressional oversight.
Further, being a discussion between two Heads of State, it is a matter of Foreign Policy within the President’s Constitutional Foreign Policy domain and therefore, also not an area over which the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or even the DNI, or DOJ have any jurisdiction. Ergo, it is not in their authority to report anything to Congress on the President’s Diplomatic conversations! The President must have free rein to have i]open conversation about any topic that comes up, regardless what other officials may be listening in, without fear they may "report" what’s said to Congress. This has been held inviolate for over two centuries for privileged conversations at the Executive level. To break it requires SCOTUS intervention, and evidence of egregious misconduct.
Just because something was not reported by the ICIG’s superiors, especially when he has been told the legal and Constitutionally valid reasons why it cannot be, non-reporting to Congress does not give ICIG Atkinson any authority to break the very law that created his office, which is what he did! Read the damn law.
In your response, try to use Eric Ciamarella’s given name, not WB, or Whistleblower. I know you prefer not to reveal in context who and what he is, but just try. OK?
Of course I don't, and I think I'm beginning to see the problem with our conversation.
You're confusing documents and events and they appear to be all jumbled up in your mind.
A brief timeline:
Do you recall me telling you that the meta data evidence on his letter transmitting Eric Ciamarella’s complaint to the Congressional Intelligence Committees was dated on August 12, 2019, the same day he received the whistleblower’s spy’s complaints hearsay allegations...
Yes, and I asked you to provide a link to your document "proving" this ridiculous allegation. I'm still waiting.
I'm not saying the ICIG was correct in his assessment or that the the complaint met all of the criteria to be transmitted. Clearly many legal experts in the Administration didn't think it did so the ODNI didn't send it over!
This blew up because the existence of the complaint became known, not because of procedural problems by Atkinson.