Seth Abramson @SethAbramson @Newsweek columnist. Analyses @BBC. NYT bestselling author of Proof of Conspiracy (bit.ly/2kP6FkZ). Next: Citizen Journalist (Macmillan). Professor. Attorney. Sep. 26, 2019 1 min read

It's *this very fact* that puts the whistleblower complaint in not just the DNI's jurisdiction but the language and dicta of the statute: the individuals who maintain the NSC's now-*fraudulent* intel archive—because it's used to *hide political materials*—are overseen by the DNI.

1/ The DOJ's opinion holds that if there's *any* person in a whistleblower complaint who *isn't* beneath the DNI *and* in the intelligence community—in other words, if a president *ever* appears in a whistleblower complaint—only the president's subordinates at DOJ can address it.

2/ Not only is that—as Schiff noted—total nonsense because it may leave serious national security-implicating complaints unable to be investigated by anyone but a subordinate of the subject of the complaint, *here* it meant the DNI couldn't oversee *his own* subordinates. Crazy!

3/ Essentially, the DOJ OLC opinion held that as long as it's the *president* or subordinates of his not below the DNI who are *improperly secreting political documents in intelligence archives* and *secretly and illegally acting as counterintelligence agents*, the DNI can't act.


You can follow @SethAbramson.



Bookmark

____
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.