4 ms·
> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off This is an interesting legal artifact but it doesn’t speak to apprai
by the_optimist 5y ago
> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off
This is an interesting legal artifact but it doesn’t speak to appraisal of whether or not this is currently occurring or has occurred. In other words, they could simply have pressed this loophole with another loophole, or those committed could have simply signed off. Absence of evidence remains not evidence of absence.
- harry8 5y ago>> must notify both the house and senate intelligence committees and get a written sign-off Further, didn't James Clapper lie, in public, under oath in an oversight committee hearing then admit that he had done so when caught out and face exactly zero legal or career consequences for that flagrantly illegal act? "Must" seems to be open to interpretation meaning something very different to its dictionary definition when this is one, well known and obvious example of how the law is not applied when breached. Is there any real oversight? How would we know?