,
22 tweets,
9 min read
Read on Twitter
The acting Intel Chief's counsel wrote to Chairman Schiff that the whistleblower's still-undisclosed allegations don't meet the legal definition of an "urgent concern." In a statement, Schiff points out that the Intel IG has already determined they do. nytimes.com/2019/09/17/us/…
Schiff's statement tonight echoes the letter he sent last week. intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/… (see FN 5 and accompanying text) 
Politico got the DNI counsel’s letter
“This complaint, however, concerned conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community....”
This letter is really interesting. It appears to confirm that the ICIG went directly to Congress on Sept 9—disclosing that acting DNI had put the clampdown on this. And it shows the acting DNI looped in the Justice Department for some reason.
The top of page 2 is key, and it’s cut off a little bit in the screen grabs above. It’s where the DNI’s office acknowledges that the ICIG viewed the complaint “as an urgent concern”—the legal question the DNI’s office took it upon themselves to dispute.
This is where Professor Vladeck says the DNI is wrong—they don’t have the authority to overrule the ICIG on that determination.
For completists, here’s the statute at issue. You have to scroll down to (k)(5). law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50…
The whole point is to plainly provide an avenue—with appropriate security protections—for intelligence community employees to get in front of Congress with their issues.
The whole point is to plainly provide an avenue—with appropriate security protections—for intelligence community employees to get in front of Congress with their issues.
If the ICIG finds the complaint credible, which it apparently did, it’s supposed to be transmitted by the DNI to Congress within 7 days (together with any comments DNI wants to make). But even if not, the ICIG is supposed to convey how the whistleblower can reach out to Congress.
Sending the complaint to the ICIG *first* is a precondition under the statute to communicating with Congress directly. But it’s never meant to be a blockade.
WaPo’s story I think is the only one to report that the whistleblower is a former NSC staffer. washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
Although NYT has an amusing correction to sorta the same effect.
Just in-- The IC IG will testify before the House Intel committee in closed session tomorrow morning, and the Acting DNI has agreed to testify in an open hearing a week later, according to Chairman Schiff's office.
It’s approximately the worst case scenario—what the administration is seeking to suppress is an intelligence whistleblower complaint involving the President and a foreign leader, WaPo reports. Of course it is. washingtonpost.com/national-secur…
We don’t know what the “promise” was yet or who the foreign leader is. We don’t know a lot about the substance. But we do know p firmly that the Trump administration’s reaction was to panic, call in a fixer from DOJ, and contort the whistleblower law to keep it all secret.
What the admin could have done is let the whistleblower process happen according to law and then addressed the substance of the matter. But they lack confidence they can win playing fair, so they immediately resort to bending and breaking the laws. That’s what worries me most.
Chairman Schiff’s office has released the first letter IC IG Atkinson sent them about the whistleblower complaint, dated September 9th.
A second letter from the IC IG to Schiff, dated September 17th.
A letter from Chairman Schiff to Acting DNI Maguire confirming the postponement of his open hearing but also reengaging the dispute and upbraiding him again, dated September 18.
This, from the IC IG’s September 17th letter, seems like the key development.
The IC IG’s understanding is that the Acting DNI can bottle up *the IC IG’s ability to disclose* the substance of the whistleblower complaint to Congress.
The IC IG’s understanding is that the Acting DNI can bottle up *the IC IG’s ability to disclose* the substance of the whistleblower complaint to Congress.
Couple interesting things in this passage from the September 17th letter.
-IC IG pointedly says he disagrees with “DOJ’s analysis of the **facts**,” not the law.
-Acting DNI and DOJ won’t let him even summarize the factual issue to Congress.
-IC IG pointedly says he disagrees with “DOJ’s analysis of the **facts**,” not the law.
-Acting DNI and DOJ won’t let him even summarize the factual issue to Congress.
The Sept. 9th letter from the IC IG to Schiff says that, in the past when they thought a whistleblower complaint was out of scope, they just sent it to the congressional intel committees anyway. This is the only whistleblower complaint apparently that’s been kept from Congress.
