,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Question: Did Asst AG/OLC head Stephen Engel deliberately interpret the ICIG and whistleblower complaint to cover up the cover-up allegation?
Caveat: Intel isn't my area of legal expertise.
But I can read OLC memos & footnotes, and they raise troubling questions.
The key is fn 4:
Caveat: Intel isn't my area of legal expertise.
But I can read OLC memos & footnotes, and they raise troubling questions.
The key is fn 4:
2/ The 9/3 classified OLC memo contained the allegation that "unnamed officials within the Executive Office of the Pres had attempted to restrict access to records of the call..."
Why was this entire allegation classified and unmentioned in any way in the Sept. 24 OLC memo?
Why was this entire allegation classified and unmentioned in any way in the Sept. 24 OLC memo?
3/ Perhaps the reason was executive privilege. But there are obvious ways to mention the concern about storage of documents as a cover-up without mentioning the President.
In fact, the whistleblower did that by smart use of the passive voice:
In fact, the whistleblower did that by smart use of the passive voice:
4/ The OLC memo could have quoted that one passive-voice sentence to signal that the complaint included this basic concern. But instead, Engel appears to have abused classification to cover up this allegation, despite having no nat security concern or necessary exec privilege.
5/ Now let's take a closer look at the last sentence in footnote 4. He acknowledges that the complaint alleged about the abuse of the intel storage system by "unnamed officials," but Engel finds an excuse not to take note of this source of intel jurisdiction...
6/ "But the ICIG did not discuss this allegation in concluding that the complaint stated an urgent concern."
Since when is an ICIG subject to litigation waiver?
This isn't a courtroom. Engel is not a judge.
But he seemed to be trying too hard to be one to avoid the allegations.
Since when is an ICIG subject to litigation waiver?
This isn't a courtroom. Engel is not a judge.
But he seemed to be trying too hard to be one to avoid the allegations.
7/ First, the complaint states these facts sufficiently. Surely if Engel was asking in good faith if some part of the allegation was covered by the DNI's jurisdiction, he could have noted these facts in the complaint if he wanted to...
8/ Second, if Engel required the ICIG to make such an allegation about a cover-up (and it's implausible the IG didn't), what stopped Engel from following up with that simple question based on the obvious facts in the complaint?
Maybe that would have led to result he didn't want.
Maybe that would have led to result he didn't want.
9/ Thus, it appears OLC's Engel was deliberately using classification and a shell game of quasi-appellate jurisdictional rules to avoid inconvenient facts.
He seems to have been participating in this cover-up.
The House must ask him to answer for this seeming abuse of power.
He seems to have been participating in this cover-up.
The House must ask him to answer for this seeming abuse of power.
