Intelligence Committee’s Republican Memo: A Test of Intelligence – Intelligence Test.

The Republicans have released their memo on the abuse by the DOJ/FBI and other intelligence agencies regarding their investigations into Russian activities and possible interference in US elections and policies. The Democrats are attempting to get their memo’s release approved which is not a given. This trust in our DOJ/FBI is an important issue in regard to our national government and democratic system. Of course, the question is: What is the salient issue or issues? Now that’s an interesting question because the memo / report / claims have become an independent issue of their own. How exciting to be able to assess the reasoning and judgement that we might expect of our elected officials. Of course, we ‘might’ become unease with how the issue is understood and what follows from examining the question of how the operation of the Intelligence Committee occurred.

Well, in a democracy it’s each of our responsibilities to question whether our elected officials are serving the public or other interests. In this test, the questions will indicate the path you want taken. So, if you have a preference for some ideology that differs from often stated American values then you should be willing to accept the consequence that such differences might cause.

If you find an intelligence test about our Congressional Intelligence Committees (House and Senate) amusing or disturbing, it’s just an intellectual exercise in building trust or distrust in our political parties and process. WARNING: Trust must be hard earned; though it is easily lost.

Question A:   What is Congress’s responsibility regarding the Dept. of Justice and associated entities?
Select those that apply.

(1). Funding

(2). Provide direction of their work

(3). Oversight

(4). Pass legislation authorizing DOJ/entities programs

(5). None of above

Question B:   The Intelligence Committees (IC) have responsibilities to:
Select those that apply.

(1). Oversee Intelligence entities

(2). Advise Department and agencies on legality of work

(3). Budget

(4). Being notified regarding covert actions

(5). Insure operations are consistent with laws

(6). Investigates agencies when accused of wrong-doing

(7). Propose legislation to Senate Committee regarding Intelligence community and operations

Question C:   To whom does Intelligence Committee(s) report any violations of the law within the DOJ or entities?
Select those that apply.

(1). President

(2). Vice-President

(3). Senate Majority Leader

(4). Speaker of House

(5). Attorney General

(6). Inspector General

(7). House and Senate

Question D:   By whom would a violation by an entity within the DOJ be Investigated (I), Prosecuted (P) and Resolved (R)?
Indicate which entity would perform a task with an I , P , or R.

(1). Intelligence Committee(s)

(2). Attorney General’s office

(3). Supreme Court

(4). Inspector General’s office

(5). An appointed Special Prosecutor

(6). Deputy Attorney General

(7). Federal Circuit Court

(8). Federal Bureau of Investigation

Question E:    Who would decide if a violation within an DOJ entity occurred?

(1). Intelligence Committee(s)

(2). Attorney General’s office

(3). Inspector General’s office

(4). An appointed Special Prosecutor

(5). Federal Circuit Court

(6). Deputy Attorney General

(7). President

(8). Congress

Question F:    Are the Intelligence Committees competent to make an assessment of abuse?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Question G:   What would a finding that the claims made by either/both Intelligence Committees are unfounded, false or politically motivated cause?
Select all that apply.

(1). Nothing

(2). A report would be issued

(3). It would become a political issue

(4). Someone of no import would have to resign

Question H:   If you didn’t trust Congress, didn’t trust the FBI/DOJ, and didn’t trust the Administration; who would you trust to determine if there was a violation of the law that an Intelligence Committee’s report indicates may have happened?
Select those that apply.

(1). No one

(2). Independent Special Prosecutor

(3). STEM-oriented leadership investigation team

(4). Intelligence officials retired prior to ‘issue’

(5). Joint Congressional, DOJ, and Judicial lead team

(6). Triumvirate of Legal Scholars (preferably not Party aligned)

ANSWERS:

Answer - A:  1, 3, 4

Rationale - A:      Because Congress authorizes all funding for the federal government’s activities, Item 1 is a given. It’s would not be important in this issue unless Congress were going to restrict funding or resources to deny the DOJ and entities the ability to do their work.

Congress gave themselves an oversight role (Item 2) on the DOJ to help insure that the DOJ didn’t operate outside their authorized arena and to investigate corruption and abuse. So, we have a group of untrustworthy individuals monitoring our law enforcement entities. Nothing dangerous there.

When and where Congress finds a need to alter the scope of the DOJ, Congress would be the authorizing body. To the extent that Congress passes such legislation (Item 4), it becomes the DOJ’s responsibility to execute the law. This would not include Congress directing the work; they would only oversee that it is done properly.

Answer - B:  1, 4, 5, 7

Rationale - B:      Item 1 is affected through the Committee. Items 4 and 5 are part of the process of oversight. Item 7 is how Congress carries out any changing and adapting the DOJ’s functions and operations as they determine are needed.

Item 6 isn’t directly the responsibility of the IC, they can decide for themselves that they will investigate; however, the Inspector General’s office is the more appropriate place to conduct misconduct, corruption or abuse within a DOJ entity.

Item 2 is not an IC role since that was done by Congress in passing legislation. Item 3 is a Congress role (Question A).

Answer - C:  5, 6, 1

Rationale - C:      First, let’s premise the following with a proviso that the person or entity that is suspected or determined to have violated the law would not be informed by the IC. So, if the violation included the Attorney General, the IC would not notify the Attorney General (AG) of their office.

The AG would be the logical place for being notified first. The AG would then direct the Inspector General (Item 6) to initiate an investigation, which is the entity that would pursue such charges.

Notification of other offices, like the President, would rest with the AG and that office’s determination that there was a substantive reason for notifying additional entities that would not compromise the investigation and/or was required because of those entities’ responsibilities in other areas.

Answer - D:  4 = I, 2 = P, 7 = R

Rationale - D:      Inspector General (Item 4) would investigate unless it was a violation by this office, which would revert to AG assuming investigation responsibility.

Prosecution would be by AG (Item 2, unless violation was AG itself).

Resolution would be via the Federal Circuit Court (Item 7) in which the case’s jurisdiction would appropriately belong.

Answer - E:  1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

Rationale - E:      Since a violation might occur in any number of different entities of the DOJ and related to many different situations, this isn’t a particularly answerable question. However, in cases where a perceived violation surfaces it could come from activities that are a normal part of all the listed entities (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8).

The missing Items 5 and 7 are just not involved in activities that would surface a violation or that wouldn’t already involve one of the other entities on the list.

Answer - F:  2 – No

Rationale - F:      The IC gets reports and briefings to keep them appraised on what programs and activities are taking place. If some event occurs that raises questions within the IC they may try to get information, but they are largely not analyst, or skilled in investigative work, and they will not be doing the work anyway. So, no they are not competent to make an assessment. That’s what other bodies are for and are delineated to do, e.g., Inspector General’s office.

Answer - G:  1 - Nothing

Rationale - G:     The IC(s) would state that they worked with the relevant parts of government to determine that nothing was found or could be proven to be a violation of the law; and so, they would say they did their job. Of course, if they didn’t have substantive evidence upon which to make a claim there would have been no need to demonstrate that it was false.

There would certainly be a report issued about the issue, but it would not be particularly meaningful.

It is likely that it would be a political issue since there is no reason in politics to be concerned about truth, integrity or intelligence.

Answer - H:  3, 6, 2, 4 (ordered by precedence)

Rationale - H:      If you selected 1 – No one, I can appreciate your distrust of our political officials, but in a democracy, you have to determine who you will accept to make a fair and appropriate decision. It’s good to question those elected or who are part of our government, but at some level you have to decide on what basis you accept or reject what they say and do.

Item 3 – A STEM-oriented leadership team operating based on reasoning, logic and problem-solving approaches (and wasn’t politically aligned) would arrive at an assessment that reflects the information assembled and conclusions that could be traced back to that information.

Item 6 – A Triumvirate of Legal Scholars that follows the law would represent a group that offers some basis for granting some credibility in an investigation’s outcome. The trio would have to be recognized as unbiased, unpartisan and honorable.

Item 2 – An Independent Special Council while the most likely to be the recommended approach presents the partisan politics problem in choosing someone to lead it and in what entities’ resources are involved.

Item 4 – Retired Intelligence officials, retired prior to issue, may be acceptable to public if they are not viewed as overly partisan or identified to a particularly ideology; but they will easily fall to political attacks that reduce the trust that the decision they reach would have.