You don't understand: "The adminstration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements", is irrelevant; they don't get a say. Furthermore, an unconfirmed and inexperienced Acting DNI is not qualified to decide when he thinks he ought to do what he is not allowed to do. This isn't a gray zone; these laws are established precisely to take such determinations out of a presidential administration's hands.
What laws? The laws appear not to apply to some people. How do we solve that? Can't touch a sitting president. This president can literally walk down New York Ave, shoot somebody in the face, and say come and arrest me if you can get a warrant.....hehe.
But it is enough to justify an impeachment inquiry, as would be the normal response to the documented behavior of this sitting President. Mueller did that - not "us". Mueller is and always has been a Republican in a government job, remember. He has also been a careful and precise bureaucrat all his life. And that calculus is becoming more and more obvious, as the grounds for impeachment of the sitting President and several of his appointments become clearer and clearer. Are you comfortable with a corrupt and treasonous President dodging impeachment solely by the cowardice and lack of will of those Constitutionally responsible for impeaching him?
Perhaps their main concern is what would happen politically if impeachment failed ... Trump will pobably get re elected yes?
Installed without congressional approval. That's the vulnerability of honor based systems. Without law, dishonorable people can take advantage and walk away scot-free.
Could be - there are many rationalizations available for not doing one's job in difficult circumstances. They have been compromising with the Republican Party for decades now - fecklessness, gormlessness, cowardice, is almost habitual by now.
For the record, we should note 50 USC § 3033 (k)(5)(C): (5) (A) An employee of an element of the intelligence community, an employee assigned or detailed to an element of the intelligence community, or an employee of a contractor to the intelligence community who intends to report to Congress a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern may report such complaint or information to the Inspector General. (B) Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information. (C) Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B), the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate. (Legal Information Institute↱; italic accent added) Per our neighbor's assertion↑: "The latest impeachment ploy", he argues, "is apparently based on", considerations that, as he quoted from CNN, "played a role in the administration's determination that the complaint didn't fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law". Thus, to make clear for our neighbor's benefit, and, I suppose, anyone else who needs the note, it's true, I wasn't just politicking when I said↑ the Trump administration's subsequent determination that the complaint didn't meet its standards is irrelevant, and that they don't get a say: As 50 USC § 3033 (k)(5)(C) explicitly states, "the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees". This part is not a call anyone else gets to make; the transmittal to Director met the criteria, and thus DNI is obliged by law. An analysis I started a few hours ago just could not keep up with reality, so, that's about what there is. Really, history will record what has happened, here, as catastrophic. ____________________ Notes: U.S. Code. 2019. Law.Cornell.edu. 26 September 2019. http://bit.ly/2mYZiIv
What happens when the Director says; "the quality of the information does not warrant forwarding the transmittal to any congressional committee", and just doesn't forward the info? Maybe it's time to throw a few bodies in the dungeon and let them stew it out, until they comply with the Law.
Often overlooked for political reasons is that the law is not just about legal semantics, it is also about intent and "spirit". Transparency and accountability are essential to any credible government of the electorate...IMO
Intent, spirit, semantics. It sounds like the title of a book about the conservative betrayal of the American endeavor.
"Circle of influence" is just another way to pose a guilt by association fallacy. There's yet to be any evidence of laws broken, just rumor and hearsay. Oh, I don't care if it did or did not meet the "reporting requirements" or who determined it. It's out now. I'm more interested in " the whistleblower didn't have direct knowledge of the communications". Certainly. Impeachment is a political, not criminal, proceeding. There doesn't actually need to be any "there" there. Dems would have just been smarter to have done this prior to the Mueller report, when there was so much more possible "there" there. Would have helped them look less incompetently partisan. Oh, but he was a Dem hero for years there. Rumor and hearsay are paltry grounds, but lucky, impeachment doesn't actually require facts. I haven't seen any concrete evidence of corruption, much less treason. You might call that obtuse, but I'd call the opposite hyperbolic.
Well, let's just say that Manafort's conviction and fine paid for the entire Mueller investigation. And last I heard is that; https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...advisers-have-been-convicted-and-who-are-they Is that ancient history or indicative of the person that hired them?
No it depends who does the hiring. Don't try to make more sophisticated than it is. Trump is a corporate raider who hired people that helped him in this effort. Now that Trump is president he is a National raider and hired people who help him in this new enterprise. Fortunately, the State has checks and balances which have already been applied and we are just beginning the next stage, in the form of Impeachment hearings.
And now you can hold yourself answered, as it's out, now, and you've read through the material. It's pretty straightforward.
Unless those hired were explicitly ordered to break the law, it is a guilt by association fallacy. Or maybe a conspiracy theory. Yes, it is. It's only rumor, hearsay, and fake news, where NPR and CNN skipped 560 some odd words to connect asking for a favor and Biden.
Of course. That's what reporting is - a summary of things that happen. No one would read it if all irrelevant facts were included.
Some people prefer news that is not intentionally misleading (like leaving out that the alleged victim denies the incident) , but YMMV.