The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are both contemplating testimony from the intelligence community officer who first brought to light President Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But requiring the whistleblower to testify is both unnecessary and unwise.
Latest in whistleblowers
The lawyers representing the intelligence community whistleblower released two letters responding to news reports about their client and his complaint.
The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) released a statement about the whistleblower form that the Ukraine whistleblower used to file his complaint.
The earthquake took place yesterday, but today’s aftershocks continued to rock the Trump presidency.
First, the House Intelligence Committee released the whistleblower complaint. Then, amid presidential attacks on the whistleblower, the committee heard testimony from Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, with Democrats battering him for his having withheld the complaint until yesterday.
The misconduct cannot be dismissed as unproven; it screams off the plain text of the White House’s own memorandum detailing the president’s phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart.
Acting Diretor of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire released a statement yesterday about the ongoing standoff over the whistleblower complaint.
Editor’s note: This essay is adapted from the author’s coda to the forthcoming volume “Whistleblowing Nation: Disclosing U.S. National Security and the Challenge of Dissent,” edited by Kaeten Mistry and Hannah Gurman, Columbia University Press.
Editor’s Note: The drone program remains controversial, and critics regularly blast it for creating more terrorists than it kills. Prominent among these critics is Glenn Greenwald, a founding editor of The Intercept, which published an anti-drone report based on leaked documents. C.