On Wednesday’s edition of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) previewed what he expects to learn about the developing Director of National Intelligence whistleblower scandal at the hearing with the inspector general on Thursday.
“In tomorrow’s hearing with the intelligence community’s inspector general, who forwarded this report, saying it was an urgent concern, what exactly is the inspector general going to be able to talk about?” asked Cooper. “I know it’s behind closed doors, but is he going to be able to tell you what is actually in the complaint or who is instructing him or who’s instructing the DNI not to hand it over to your committee, if that’s what’s happening?”
“Well, yes, I think he will be able to discuss what’s in the report,” said Himes. “Remember, the law requires him to forward that complaint to the relevant congressional committees, to my committee. This idea that the DNI has the authority to say, ‘no, I disagree with the inspector general’s decision’ is lawless. It’s made up out of whole cloth. He does not have authority to do that.”
“And the reason that’s important, Anderson, and people need to understand this, because it’s not that complicated,” continued Himes. “Remember, a whistleblower is someone within an organization who says, ‘something’s going on here that isn’t quite right.’ The idea that the boss of that organization, in this case the acting DNI could say, ‘sorry, we don’t agree that this should be dealt with outside,’ that betrays the whole purpose of having a whistleblower. Imagine this whistleblower right now is thinking to themselves, ‘all the protections that I have, the whistleblower protections that I have by law, are now at risk because the boss decided lawlessly to stop this from happening.’ So at some level, it’s pretty simple, Anderson.”
“You’re saying under law, if the inspector general has forwarded this whistleblower complaint, as deemed it of urgent concern, deemed it a real issue, has forwarded it to the DNI, you’re saying the DNI does not have the legal authority to say — to not forward it on to Congress?” Cooper pressed him. “The DNI’s only option is to forward it on to Congress and they can add comments if they want, saying, ‘I don’t think this is valid, I don’t think this is under our purview.’ But he has to forward it to Congress?”
“That’s exactly right,” said Himes. “That the DNI can add explanatory comments, but in this case, the DNI appears to have consulted with the Department of Justice, which has no role under the law in this determination and is acting on the face of it. You don’t even need to be a lawyer to understand this.”
“By the way, quite apart from the law, which is pretty important in the United States of America, in the history of these referrals, there has never been a case in which the boss, in this case, the DNI, has overruled an inspector general or said that this is not a meritorious decision. It has never happened before,” continued Himes. “And the reason that’s really important, quite apart from the rule of law, is that, again, think about the whistleblower. If the whistleblower doesn’t know that they have the ability in a protected way to go to the congressional committees on things that are profoundly serious.”
“I don’t know what’s in this complaint, but remember, the intelligence community takes lethal action,” added Himes. “It surveils, it does really dangerous things. Inside the intelligence community, if someone doesn’t believe that there is a legally protected route to get to people like me in the Congress, behind closed doors, what happens? They go to the press. They do an Edward Snowden and they decide that that’s the best way to blow our secrets out into the public. So while it may seem complicated, at some level, this is very simple. There is a law that determines how somebody who thinks that there has been wrongdoing can come to the Congress and the DNI is right now illegally standing in the way of that process.”
Trump allies have launched a ‘tremendous lying operation’ about IG’s Russia probe report: CNN’s Toobin
CNN's Jeffrey Toobin on Tuesday found himself astonished at the efforts of President Donald Trump and his allies to blatantly lie about the contents of Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on the origins of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russian agents during the 2016 campaign.
Fox News hosts blasted for ‘cherry-picking’ IG report to spin it as a win for Trump: ‘They owe us an apology’
On Tuesday morning, CNN host Alisyn Camerota dropped the hammer on Fox News for spinning the Justice Department inspector general report that absolved the department of any conspiracy against Donald Trump, instead saying that it was an indictment of the department.
Joined by CNN contributor, ex-Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) and CNN host Brian Stelter, Camerota shared Fox clips from Monday night featuring hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham and marveled at the obvious lies.
"Let's go back to reality-world instead of upside-down world right now," host Camerota smirked after rolling the clips, "which is what we just played a montage of. Charlie, when you hear, you know, the talking points from obviously the Trump cheerleaders as well as some of your former Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill, do they -- when Hannity says everything we've been reporting for years has been dead on accurate, we were right every step of the way, and the report completely negates that, do they believe that? Why are they saying that?"
CNN panel pounds Rick Santorum for claiming Democrats went ‘too far’ in calling Trump an existential threat
On Monday's edition of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360," former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) tried to argue Democrats were overreaching in the impeachment hearings — only to be smacked down by his co-panelists.
"The thing that bothered me from the hearing was this whole thing that the president is an existential threat to the republic," said Santorum. "You know, I've always said this about my friends on the left. They always go one step too far that just — that makes people sort of scratch their head and say, well, I may not like what he did, but to call this an existential threat to the republic is just a little bit too far ... I understand why they're doing it. They're trying to stoke it up. I get why they're doing it. I just don't think it's very effective. It's too much."