The US Congress and President passed legislation which creates an
Intellinegnce Community (IC) Inspector General (IG).
The President nominated a former FBI Agent, subsequentnly promoted
to senior investigator in the Treasury Department, National
Security Agency, and Office of Directorate of National Intellingence.
While assigned to the NSA in 2004, the candidate self-reported
to the Senate during confirmation proceedings that they had
provided 1,000 to the Bush Campaign.
The candidate later considered re-entering the FBI, but there
were apparent personal questions with pay.
A polygraph examination, required of FBI employees, was not completed,
as disclosed in writing to the Senate.
WE reviewed multiple iterations of the appointee's name in the FEDERAL
Election Database.
We were unable to find information within the FEC Database matching
the details provided to the SEnate.
The nominee statys they have "taken and passed" poloygraph Examinations
in 2002, 2006, and 2011, either a "full scope," or "counterintellingence
scope" examination.
We have several questions:
- Did the nominee use a different name in 2004?
- Was the nominee associated with a law firm while assigned to Fort
Meade, MD in 2004?
- What evidence can the nominee provide that would support the
$1,000 contribution in 2004 to the Bush Campaign?
- Did the nominee provide this money through a Political Action
Committee?
- Is there any relationship between the FEC data and the decision
not to pursue a subsequent assignment with the FBI [See question/answer 47, page 11-12 of 14]?
- What would the nominee's response have been during a polygraph
examination related to questions about his political contributions?
- Was there a problem with adequate reporting of the nominee
political contribution(s)?
- What plan does the FEC, nominee, or others have to resolve
the apparent discrepancy between what the appointee said to the
Senate in writing; and the information available through the FEC?
The nomiee's name is
Irvin Charles McCullough
We eagerly await an answer, as this may shed some light on how
we interpret the responses to the other questions from the Senate,
both before the Committee, and in writing.
Relevancy to IC IG
Records are important tools to establish facts. The new IC IG would
be required to review substantial written evidence before making
conclusions in reports to Congress, Intellingence Community leadership,
and others.
We need to know whether something has been missed, or whether
someone may have not connected the dots. Again.
Links
FEC Website: here
Written answers: here
Responses to additional Preharing Questinos: here.
Senate Confirmation Hearing, here.
Hearing/Meeting: Open Hearing: Nomination of Irvin Charles McCullough to be Inspector General for the Intelligence Community
Open
Date & Time Thursday, September 22, 2011
2:30 PM
Location Dirksen 138