Changes

:*It should concern every American that the timing and substance of the updated CRS analysis advances a particular [[partisan]] narrative at the expense of a clear application of the law. The idea that the IC IG can forward a report to Congress about the president and color a complaint about public policy matters as an “urgent concern” to trigger congressional oversight is not supported by the underlying statutes at all.

:*It should concern every American that the timing and substance of the updated CRS analysis advances a particular [[partisan]] narrative at the expense of a clear application of the law. The idea that the IC IG can forward a report to Congress about the president and color a complaint about public policy matters as an “urgent concern” to trigger congressional oversight is not supported by the underlying statutes at all.

:*the timing of the updated report’s release raises additional questions about whether certain congressional staff or members were illegally coordinating with the whistleblower during this IC IG’s review process.

:*the timing of the updated report’s release raises additional questions about whether certain congressional staff or members were illegally coordinating with the whistleblower during this IC IG’s review process.

:*[[Michael E. DeVine]], listed author of the CRS report, did not respond to the reporter for questions.  

:*Michael E. DeVine, listed author of the CRS report, did not respond to the reporter for questions.  

:*Congressional staff commented “It’s a big deal,” and anticipated there would be “subpoenas and discovery of CRS staff emails, communications, etc.”  

:*Congressional staff commented “It’s a big deal,” and anticipated there would be “subpoenas and discovery of CRS staff emails, communications, etc.”