,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ The released OLC opinion makes it sound as if the whistleblower complaint was simply about the Trump/Zelenskyy call, which has been declassified. But then why are members reviewing the complaint in a SCIF? Must be more to it than that one call, right?
@just_security
@just_security
2/ I suppose it *might* be about only the one Zelenskyy call, but also name the "WH officials" who expressed concerns to the whistleblower. But their identities wouldn't be classified--they presumably could be redacted or viewed outside a SCIF--and, anyway, ...
3/ ... the OLC opinion says the officials are "unnamed" in the complaint.
If the complaint *does* go beyond the Zelenskyy call--in a way that continues to require a SCIF--then why did the OLC opinion suggest otherwise?
If the complaint *does* go beyond the Zelenskyy call--in a way that continues to require a SCIF--then why did the OLC opinion suggest otherwise?
4/ Trump has tweeted that "I fully support transparency on so-called whistleblower information." So why isn't it public?
