,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
Based on the limited details here, NYT finds it hard to see how the complaint in question could satisfy the statute. Obvious question: Then why would a Trump-appointed DOJ veteran and his legal team conclude it did? Which suggests it’s more complicated. nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/…
Obvious it’s possible Atkinson & his attorneys got it wrong. But if your analysis of extemely thin facts implies they got it OBVIOUSLY wrong in a way that involves serious risk to their careers, the right inference is: “There are important facts missing.”
That said, the NYT take here seems to lack imagination. Reportable abuses must “relate” to an intelligence activity; that doesn’t mean they have to be hermetically contained within it & involve only IC personnel.
Just to pick a stupidly obvious hypothetical, if Trump had promised to suppress any further reports of foreign election interference on his behalf detected by NSA or DHS, that would “relate to” an intelligence activity and fall well outside the ambit of “policy disagreement.”
