In the next @NewYorker, I look at a culture of retribution against whistleblowers under Trump—and a new complaint implicating CIA director Gina Haspel and Donald Trump’s nominee for the top legal job in the intelligence community in a retaliation campaign.

In the complaint, a DOJ lawyer claims the retaliation came after he uncovered a secret CIA surveillance program and a practice of lying to prosecutors to conceal its use in criminal cases. The scheme was corroborated in hundreds of pages of emails, transcripts & other documents.
Experts said the concealment may have broken laws and undermined convictions. The FBI told prosecutors that the CIA information, which resulted in numerous prosecutions, came from FBI investigations, named after the Pirates of the Caribbean films, into a fictional crime group.
As the DOJ lawyer, Mark McConnell, raised his concerns to superiors, he faced what six officials said was a retaliation campaign by CIA leadership. Intelligence officials were furious.
CIA officials repeatedly called for repercussions or consequences for McConnell—Haspel allegedly personally joined those calls, though the agency denies it. McConnell’s lawyer, who also represented the Ukraine whistleblower, called for an investigation into Haspel’s role.
Officials also accused Associate Deputy Attorney General Patrick Hovakimian, Trump’s nominee to become the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, of failing to protect McConnell.
After he resisted efforts to delete evidence, refused to sign an order by the CIA that officials involved sign NDAs, and talked to government inspector general investigators, McConnell was removed from his role. Officials said he was frozen out of subsequent assignments.
The CIA requested from DOJ legal immunity for its role in the scheme McConnell revealed (DOJ declined). It also explored a deal in which, if McConnell dropped the matter (and his request to talk to me), the agency would withdraw its complaints about him. McConnell passed.
The disclosures come amidst a crackdown on government whistleblowers. The Obama admin charged, under the Espionage Act, more officials with disclosing classified information than all prior administrations combined. In half as long, the Trump admin has matched that count—and more:
McConnell’s allegations have been roiling intelligence and law enforcement circles for months. They are now also drawing congressional scrutiny.

More from Politics

This idea - that elections should translate into policy - is not wrong at all. But political science can help explain why it's not working this way. There are three main explanations: 1. mandates are constructed, not automatic, 2. party asymmetry, 3. partisan conpetition 1/


First, party/policy mandates from elections are far from self-executing in our system. Work on mandates from Dahl to Ellis and Kirk on the history of the mandate to mine on its role in post-Nixon politics, to Peterson Grossback and Stimson all emphasize that this link is... 2/

Created deliberately and isn't always persuasive. Others have to convinced that the election meant a particular thing for it to work in a legislative context. I theorized in the immediate period of after the 2020 election that this was part of why Repubs signed on to ...3/

Trump's demonstrably false fraud nonsense - it derailed an emerging mandate news cycle. Winners of elections get what they get - institutional control - but can't expect much beyond that unless the perception of an election mandate takes hold. And it didn't. 4/

Let's turn to the legislation element of this. There's just an asymmetry in terms of passing a relief bill. Republicans are presumably less motivated to get some kind of deal passed. Democrats are more likely to want to do *something.* 5/

You May Also Like