General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIn regards to Michael Atkinson not revealing the contents of the complaint today.
He's bound by law not to, it wasn't his choice. The whistleblower complaint must be submitted before capital hill by the DNI (or in this case acting DNI) before it can be revealed to congress. Joseph McGuire Has not done so and is so far refusing to submit the complaint.
Joseph McGuire the acting DNI is still the one stonewalling this moving forward. Which is apparently an illegal act, but he's doing so anyway.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)After Coats and Gorden left, correct?
He is up to his eyeballs in this treason
herding cats
(19,568 posts)This is the very tip of what is looking like another ugly episode in this administration.
ffr
(22,672 posts)SHAME!
Sneederbunk
(14,308 posts)herding cats
(19,568 posts)We don't want the person doing the right thing to suffer.
Joseph McGuire is the first person we need to go after here and then follow the trail up.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)invading Iraq it took a full year to actually do so. Don't know what made me think of that. Tired of the two-year Watergate comparison, I guess.
Whatever. Subtracting a nearly month's government shutdown before we could get to work, Dems have had the house 8-1/2 months now and the senate 0.
herding cats
(19,568 posts)There's a lot of holes in the ICWPA in a case of a hostile DNI, but I don't think they can block the whistleblower forever.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)will no doubt bear on this obstruction as well as the original misuses of executive privilege, roles of the DoJ and AG, etcetera.
GeorgeGist
(25,323 posts)he will offer his testimony.
herding cats
(19,568 posts)IF the DNI formally deems the complaint not to be credible or an urgent concern then the whistleblower can notify the DNI they're going directly to the congressional intelligence committees.
So far, Joseph McGuire hasn't made a formal ruling.
shanti
(21,675 posts)Is that possible?
herding cats
(19,568 posts)Which is what lead to the the whistleblower via the IC IG being able to take the information directly to the House intelligence committee.
From here forward there are guidelines but also holes in the law. It never appears to have assumed a hostile DNI was a possibility.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)herding cats
(19,568 posts)I'm positive it's one being pursued at this time. It won't happen without the intervention of a higher court I suspect, though.
stopdiggin
(11,372 posts)where would such persons be held? by whom? for what length of time? any legal recourse? representation, bail, appeal?
or is all of that unsettled? "to be determined at a later date." and, yes .. serious inquiry. my civics classes didn't cover this.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The court can order him to comply or have the Marshals arrest him. They're technically DOJ employees, but report to the judges and will likely do what the court orders them to do, not what Barr says.
stopdiggin
(11,372 posts)appreciate the feed back
bluestarone
(17,058 posts)Would THIS be the ideal time to use Inherent contempt? Or not?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Fining them is a possibility but that won't likely make them turn over anything any time soon.
And trying to arrest them would be a fiasco.
I think they're better off going to court and getting an order. That puts the court behind them and on their side, pitting the legislative and judicial branches against Trump. If he defies the court order he's no longer just in contempt of Congress, but also on contempt of court, a more serious offense. And the court can send marshals to arrest, which is more efficient than the Sergeant-at-Arms trying to arrest them.
bluestarone
(17,058 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)herding cats
(19,568 posts)You understand what the viable options are and what would be meaningless theater.
Theater may be entertaining but we have too much at stake to play theatrical games right now.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)but only feeds red meat to the crowd.
herding cats
(19,568 posts)But, that's not what we need now. We're facing an actual crisis and we need real legal solutions to win.
Barr may be a vile person, but he's far from stupid. Barr is damn good at exploiting loopholes and hiding behind them. We need the courts on our side to help prevent that from happening.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)uponit7771
(90,364 posts)triron
(22,023 posts)No court order needed.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)triron
(22,023 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I think it's better to get a court order and have the court enforce it.
triron
(22,023 posts)Mike 03
(16,616 posts)bypassing all the lower courts, such as in a national emergency?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But the courts can fast-track the case.
Mike 03
(16,616 posts)in2herbs
(2,947 posts)that Barr turn it over to him and Barr refuses, can't we then charge Barr with the crime of being in possession of the complaint and refusing to turn it over to the proper authorities? Under the statute the DOJ is not included in the need to know category.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)and he refuses, THAT's a crime.
herding cats
(19,568 posts)Taking this to the courts will be the next step.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Some might think it's too slow and would prefer the "lock 'em up now" scenario, but it's the much smarter and likely more effective approach.
Inherent contempt leaves Congress out there on its own. Going to court puts the power of the court behind them
NotHardly
(1,062 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,311 posts)To these hooligans the law means doing what Trump wants and protecting Trump. Every attempt at transparency becomes another opportunity to protect Trump with executive privilege or another lawsuit. They are building an Ark to protect themselves.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)herding cats
(19,568 posts)He wasn't in contempt. He's the one who notified Schiff of the ICWPA he deems as credible being suppressed by the DNI. He followed the law then and today.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)herding cats
(19,568 posts)Pointing that out is the purpose of this entire thread.
People seemed to be angry at him for following the law today, and I was trying to explain he's not our enemy.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Unfortunately, some aren't interested in facts if they get in the way of a good rant.
turbinetree
(24,720 posts)Lock there asses up that are obstructing the statute...........................
sal2019
(23 posts)... it's gonna leak.
Pepsidog
(6,254 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Can the whistleblower just come forward and say "Hey guys! It's me... I'm the one... and here's what I want the world to know..."
herding cats
(19,568 posts)Hopefully the law will be re-examined in the future. Right now we have to deal with it as it is and it wasn't written with explicit concept of a hostile DNI.
The whistleblower is able to come directly to the congressional intelligence committees once the DNI formally deems the complaint not to be credible or an urgent concern. McGuire Previously chose to just sit on it before the IC IG brought it to Schiff"s attention. Which was the exact right thing for Atkinson's to do. Now the wheels keep on turning as the ICWPA is reviewed and applied.
The reality is there are brilliant legal minds on both sides trying to use the ICWPA to their advantage.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)risks much; career, family and financial ruin. The media would descend upon their doorstep without any hesitation. imo
herding cats
(19,568 posts)Then the threats from Trump's unstable followers would rain down on them and their loved ones.
They're in a dangerous position and trying to do the right thing. I respect that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)would even think about putting themselves and their families at even a fraction of the risk as they're saying the whistleblower should do.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)Our prisons will be crammed to the gills with white, Republicans.