3 ms·

I’m surprised that I haven’t seen much reported about the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo ( https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/1205151/download https://www.ju

I’m surprised that I haven’t seen much reported about the Office of Legal Counsel’s memo ( https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/1205151/download https://www.justice.gov/olc/page/file/1205151/download ). They claimed that the complaint didn’t qualify under the specific whistleblower law in question because the conduct wasn’t related to an ongoing intelligence operation. So, yes, both the inspector general and the director of national intelligence said they believed the complaint was believable. But OLC claimed that both ICIG and DNI overlooked another important requirement: that the conduct be relevant as far as the whistleblower law is concerned. In the end, the complaint and call record were released to the public, so it’s a moot point, but the issue bubbled up because the justice department initially refused to hand it over to the relevant congressional committees because they said the complaint didn’t qualify for the whistleblower law.

jakelazaroff 7y ago
What’s interesting to me is that so many rebuttals are focused on either procedure (did the whistleblower follow the correct channels, were the rules changed for them) or misdirection (the whistleblower is partisan, the Bidens are the real story here). I suspect that a lot of Trump’s defenders know that his conduct is impeachable, but simply aren’t willing to make the concession to the Democrats.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  The lack of reporting about OLC’s opinion only annoys me because even now I see a small trickle of news stories that say that this complaint became news when the justice department refused to send it to Congress the way it was legally required to. Every time I read that, I think “that requirement is disputed.”
  - jakelazaroff 7y ago
    Maybe so — but the Attorney General himself is implicated by name in the complaint, so it’s eminently reasonable that people are taking his office’s opinions with a grain of salt. We are truly in uncharted waters here.
    - maxlybbert 7y ago
      OLC doesn’t necessarily have a great reputation. They give legal advice to the executive branch, and attorneys are notorious for giving the answers they think their clients want. OLC is supposed to give the “best reading of the law,” while regular attorneys are expected to push the envelope a little. Even so, when I read a new story that says the justice department’s failure to act is newsworthy, I shouldn’t have to read the justice department’s website to find out why it didn’t act. A decent news organization would make some effort to ask that question before publishing their story. Mentioning OLC’s interpretation doesn’t mean I agree with it, either. The Congressional Research Service paper doesn’t call out the issue, but see if you notice a theme in the last few bullet points in the “Potential Questions for Congress” list (last pages): https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf .

jakelazaroff 7y ago

What’s interesting to me is that so many rebuttals are focused on either procedure (did the whistleblower follow the correct channels, were the rules changed for them) or misdirection (the whistleblower is partisan, the Bidens are the real story here). I suspect that a lot of Trump’s defenders know that his conduct is impeachable, but simply aren’t willing to make the concession to the Democrats.

maxlybbert 7y ago
The lack of reporting about OLC’s opinion only annoys me because even now I see a small trickle of news stories that say that this complaint became news when the justice department refused to send it to Congress the way it was legally required to. Every time I read that, I think “that requirement is disputed.”
- jakelazaroff 7y ago
  Maybe so — but the Attorney General himself is implicated by name in the complaint, so it’s eminently reasonable that people are taking his office’s opinions with a grain of salt. We are truly in uncharted waters here.
  - maxlybbert 7y ago
    OLC doesn’t necessarily have a great reputation. They give legal advice to the executive branch, and attorneys are notorious for giving the answers they think their clients want. OLC is supposed to give the “best reading of the law,” while regular attorneys are expected to push the envelope a little. Even so, when I read a new story that says the justice department’s failure to act is newsworthy, I shouldn’t have to read the justice department’s website to find out why it didn’t act. A decent news organization would make some effort to ask that question before publishing their story. Mentioning OLC’s interpretation doesn’t mean I agree with it, either. The Congressional Research Service paper doesn’t call out the issue, but see if you notice a theme in the last few bullet points in the “Potential Questions for Congress” list (last pages): https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/R45345.pdf .