Once again, McCarthy makes points everyone else misses (or ignores)

Breaking Down the Whistleblower Frenzy

The common meaning of urgent concern is obvious: It could describe anything that raises the specter of imminent harm. But urgent concern is also a specialized term in federal law. Under Section 3033(k)(5)(G) (of Title 50, U.S. Code), an “urgent concern” relates to specified problems involving intelligence activities and classified information that are within the responsibility of the Director of National Intelligence. The DNI is the cabinet official who oversees the so-called community of intelligence agencies. The urgent concerns Section 3033 outlines include, for example, violations or abuses of laws or executive orders, or deficiencies in the funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity. Section 3033 urgent concerns also include misleading of Congress regarding intelligence activities, and reprisals against whistleblowers who report an urgent concern.

In my view, Chairman Schiff’s claim, based on IGIC Atkinson’s interpretation of the statute, is wrong. Section 3033 does not apply to a president’s negotiations with or commitments to foreign powers, or to a president’s sharing of classified information with foreign powers. To repeat, the statute applies to intelligence activities by government officials acting under the authority of the DNI. If I am right, the Trump administration should not be accused of law-breaking for declining to follow Section 3033, even if the whistleblower had an “urgent concern” in the ordinary understanding of that term.

So McCarthy provides a second point here that rests above and beyond the other point that the Whistle blower in question likely does not have personal proof of what he/she is alleging. McCarthy is suggesting that the Democrats insistence that the complaint must be turned over to Congress is entirely wrong because the laws regarding this do not in fact include the President. McCarthy sides with the Director of National Intelligence based entirely on the reading and meaning of the laws at hand.

Now McCarthy does suggest that more facts are needed to make any sort of determination as to the seriousness of the claims. But McCarthy also makes the point that neither Congress or the American public has a right to hear unsubstantiated complaints that infringe on the President's executive privilege or infringe  on the President being able to conduct sensitive foreign business privately. There is no statute that requires it, and the constitution strictly prohibits such a statute from even being written. I know this is an unpopular position, these days, but the Presidency has many inherent powers under the constitution, and Trump is allowed those powers (just as much as any other President).

Once again, McCarthy points out that the "former intelligence agents" who are leaking this information to the media are quite literally breaking the law, and quite possibly breaking it in very serious fashion. He also points out that the same supposed actions of pressuring Ukraine for political purposes was going on in 2016 with the Obama administration and nobody seems to care. The logic among the brain dead of this country seems to be that Democrats should be allowed to break the law with impunity as long as the breaking is done to harm Trump. But any similar type of action taken by Trump should result in him being drawn and quartered.

This should be a huge loser for the Democrats, but rather will probably just fizzle out as these things normally do. But the reality is that we actually know (pretty much as a fact) that the Democrats did in 2016 what they are accusing Trump of doing in 2020... even if Trump haters actually have no evidence that Trump actually is doing the same thing. We also are being exposed (again) to more illegal leaking of sensitive information from lawless partisans who are doing everything in their power to bring down a legally and fairly elected President.