1/6 More thoughts on intel oversight, based on my research over the past decade, including dozens of interviews with IC officials, legislators, and Cong. staff (both parties).

2/6 Everyone believes Congressional oversight is difficult and often elusive, but essential. Secret agencies are paid to go up to the line to defend the nation. But policymakers elected by the people have to draw those lines.

3/6 Congress ideally plays 4 oversight roles:
1. Police officer -ensure compliance w/ law
2. Board of directors - set strategic guidance, match resources to priorities
3. Coach- examine, improve programs by asking questions
4. Ambassador-generate public trust in secret agencies

4/6. 2 big barriers to good oversight:
1. Info asymmetry --exec branch always knows FAR more than Congress can. In the unclassified world, Cong has lots of help knowing what's going on. Agencies publish info about their operations. Interest groups are numerous. Not in intel.

5/6 That's why briefings are so crucial. Congress has no other way of knowing what the IC is doing.

2. Congress ties its own hands. House still has term limits for Intel Ctee, so just when members become experts, they have to quit. Intel committees also have weak budget power.

6/6 How to brief/how many to brief in Cong. isn't formulaic. Decisions involve security/accountability tradeoffs. OBL raid briefings to Cong (& exec branch) were tightly restricted for op sec. What's the rationale for keeping info from Cong about election interfer now? Who gains?