In regards to Michael Atkinson not revealing the contents of the complaint today.

[herding cats]

He's bound by law not to, it wasn't his choice. The whistleblower complaint must be submitted before capital hill by the DNI (or in this case acting DNI) before it can be revealed to congress. Joseph McGuire Has not done so and is so far refusing to submit the complaint.

Joseph McGuire the acting DNI is still the one stonewalling this moving forward. Which is apparently an illegal act, but he's doing so anyway.

[GusBob]

1. And when did Cover-up boy sign on?

After Coats and Gorden left, correct?

He is up to his eyeballs in this treason

[herding cats]

2. That's correct on all counts.

This is the very tip of what is looking like another ugly episode in this administration.

[ffr]

25. For our nation. A black eye.

SHAME!

[Sneederbunk]

3. Time for whistleblower to deliver copy to House committee.

[herding cats]

4. That breaks the law and removes their legal protections.

We don't want the person doing the right thing to suffer.

Joseph McGuire is the first person we need to go after here and then follow the trail up.

[Hortensis]

6. Yes. :) I'm remembering that after W announced we were

invading Iraq it took a full year to actually do so. Don't know what made me think of that. Tired of the two-year Watergate comparison, I guess.

Whatever. Subtracting a nearly month's government shutdown before we could get to work, Dems have had the house 8-1/2 months now and the senate 0.

[herding cats]

9. This one is going to be a battle, but I expect it won't take that long.

There's a lot of holes in the ICWPA in a case of a hostile DNI, but I don't think they can block the whistleblower forever.

[Hortensis]

10. Yes. Plus, court decisions we're waiting on

will no doubt bear on this obstruction as well as the original misuses of executive privilege, roles of the DoJ and AG, etcetera.

[GeorgeGist]

5. I suspect if The whistleblower is a patriot ...

he will offer his testimony.

[herding cats]

7. Per the ICWPA they can only do so after the DNI dismisses the claim.

IF the DNI formally deems the complaint not to be credible or an urgent concern then the whistleblower can notify the DNI they're going directly to the congressional intelligence committees.

So far, Joseph McGuire hasn't made a formal ruling.

[shanti]

8. What if McGuire just sits on it?

Is that possible?

[herding cats]

12. That's what he did originally.

Which is what lead to the the whistleblower via the IC IG being able to take the information directly to the House intelligence committee.

From here forward there are guidelines but also holes in the law. It never appears to have assumed a hostile DNI was a possibility.

[LonePirate]

11. Jail him (McGuire). It's time to start upholding the law.

[herding cats]

13. That actually might be a possible outcome.

I'm positive it's one being pursued at this time. It won't happen without the intervention of a higher court I suspect, though.

[stopdiggin]

14. serious question. isn't detaining someone an executive function?

where would such persons be held? by whom? for what length of time? any legal recourse? representation, bail, appeal?

or is all of that unsettled? "to be determined at a later date." and, yes .. serious inquiry. my civics classes didn't cover this.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Short version - Congress can cite him for contempt and go to court for enforcement

The court can order him to comply or have the Marshals arrest him. They're technically DOJ employees, but report to the judges and will likely do what the court orders them to do, not what Barr says.

[stopdiggin]

17. thanks

appreciate the feed back

[bluestarone]

19. Question:

Would THIS be the ideal time to use Inherent contempt? Or not?

[StarfishSaver]

26. They can try, but it's not as simple as some people think

Fining them is a possibility but that won't likely make them turn over anything any time soon.

And trying to arrest them would be a fiasco.

I think they're better off going to court and getting an order. That puts the court behind them and on their side, pitting the legislative and judicial branches against Trump. If he defies the court order he's no longer just in contempt of Congress, but also on contempt of court, a more serious offense. And the court can send marshals to arrest, which is more efficient than the Sergeant-at-Arms trying to arrest them.

[bluestarone]

30. Makes sense TY

[StarfishSaver]

35. ...

[herding cats]

37. This is what I'm hoping for here.

You understand what the viable options are and what would be meaningless theater.

Theater may be entertaining but we have too much at stake to play theatrical games right now.

[StarfishSaver]

40. Yes. Especially if the theatrics don't get us any closer to getting the info we need

but only feeds red meat to the crowd.

[herding cats]

44. Theatrics feed emotions and can fire up a base

But, that's not what we need now. We're facing an actual crisis and we need real legal solutions to win.

Barr may be a vile person, but he's far from stupid. Barr is damn good at exploiting loopholes and hiding behind them. We need the courts on our side to help prevent that from happening.

[StarfishSaver]

46. You are so right!

[uponit7771]

54. +1

[triron]

20. They can also use "inherent contempt" and imprison and/or fine him.

No court order needed.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Who will they arrest and how will they do it?

[triron]

29. It was used before. I assume it can be done. Otherwise it wouldn't have been.

[StarfishSaver]

32. It was last done about 90 years ago. It so easy now

I think it's better to get a court order and have the court enforce it.

[triron]

48. Only if it can be expedited. It would be interesting to know why it was usedd before.

[Mike 03]

16. Can a Congressional Committee ever go straight to the Supreme Court,

bypassing all the lower courts, such as in a national emergency?

[StarfishSaver]

18. No.

But the courts can fast-track the case.

[Mike 03]

31. Thank you! Much appreciated.

[in2herbs]

22. Could this be a way to get at Barr? A copy of the complaint was given to Barr. If Schiff demands

that Barr turn it over to him and Barr refuses, can't we then charge Barr with the crime of being in possession of the complaint and refusing to turn it over to the proper authorities? Under the statute the DOJ is not included in the need to know category.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Congress can't charge him with a crime, but if they get a court to order him to produce it

and he refuses, THAT's a crime.

[herding cats]

36. Exactly.

Taking this to the courts will be the next step.

[StarfishSaver]

38. Yes. It's the smarter move

Some might think it's too slow and would prefer the "lock 'em up now" scenario, but it's the much smarter and likely more effective approach.

Inherent contempt leaves Congress out there on its own. Going to court puts the power of the court behind them

[NotHardly]

23. It is a real shame we have no Enforcement agency in the Federal Government ... or...

it is simply a shame we have no enforcement authorities with the huevos (sp) to arrest the criminals we get to watch in plain site

[bucolic_frolic]

24. They'll just assert more executive privilege

To these hooligans the law means doing what Trump wants and protecting Trump. Every attempt at transparency becomes another opportunity to protect Trump with executive privilege or another lawsuit. They are building an Ark to protect themselves.

[turbinetree]

28. LOCK HIS ASS................................Contempt is still fucking Contempt......................

[herding cats]

34. Who, IC IG Michael Atkinson?

He wasn't in contempt. He's the one who notified Schiff of the ICWPA he deems as credible being suppressed by the DNI. He followed the law then and today.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Atkinson is the good guy here.

[herding cats]

41. Yes, he definitely is.

Pointing that out is the purpose of this entire thread.

People seemed to be angry at him for following the law today, and I was trying to explain he's not our enemy.

[StarfishSaver]

43. I'm glad you're trying to explain

Unfortunately, some aren't interested in facts if they get in the way of a good rant.

[turbinetree]

55. Here let me clarify my rant.................................and defend my self

Lock there asses up that are obstructing the statute...........................

[sal2019]

33. This is DC we're talking about ...

... it's gonna leak.

[Pepsidog]

42. Where's Ellsberg when you need him?

[NurseJackie]

45. Ought not there be a "back door" or some way to bypass all this rigamarole and red tape?

Can the whistleblower just come forward and say "Hey guys! It's me... I'm the one... and here's what I want the world to know..."

[herding cats]

47. I agree there should.

Hopefully the law will be re-examined in the future. Right now we have to deal with it as it is and it wasn't written with explicit concept of a hostile DNI.

The whistleblower is able to come directly to the congressional intelligence committees once the DNI formally deems the complaint not to be credible or an urgent concern. McGuire Previously chose to just sit on it before the IC IG brought it to Schiff"s attention. Which was the exact right thing for Atkinson's to do. Now the wheels keep on turning as the ICWPA is reviewed and applied.

The reality is there are brilliant legal minds on both sides trying to use the ICWPA to their advantage.

[saidsimplesimon]

50. The whistle blower

risks much; career, family and financial ruin. The media would descend upon their doorstep without any hesitation. imo

[herding cats]

51. Most definitely.

Then the threats from Trump's unstable followers would rain down on them and their loved ones.

They're in a dangerous position and trying to do the right thing. I respect that.

[NurseJackie]

52. I know. It's sad... frustrating and disturbing.

[StarfishSaver]

53. I doubt that anybody the people calling for him/her to come forward

would even think about putting themselves and their families at even a fraction of the risk as they're saying the whistleblower should do.

[Kablooie]

49. Boy, if the law is ever invoked and Trumpees who illegally protect Trump are imprisoned...

Our prisons will be crammed to the gills with white, Republicans.