Thread by @marty_lederman

1/ @nytimes says it's "not obvious how a communication between Trump and a foreign leader could meet the legal standards for a whistle-blower complaint that the inspector general would deem an urgent concern'" because . . .

nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/…

@steve_vladeck @just_security

2/ ... because "a conversation between two foreign leaders is not itself an intelligence activity." The statute, however, defines "urgent concern" as involving conduct "relating to" the administration or operation of an intelligence activity within the DNI's responsibility ...

3/ ... and authority. And it's hard to imagine how a POTUS commitment to a foreign leader of such concern *wouldn't* at least "relat[e] to" intel activities. Which is presumably why the IG concluded that it did. But who knows? Would need more details to assess w/confidence.

4/ In any event, it's still not clear that the DNI can countermand the IG's conclusion as a matter of statute. Lurking in the background, however, is the fact that the POTUS generally has constitutional authority to withhold from Congress the content of his communications ...

5/ ... with foreign leaders. (This is an argument ODNI has not yet pressed, AFAIK.) Which in turn raises the sticky question: What *should* happen when that communication involves, e.g., gross wrongdoing by the POTUS, e.g., a hypothetical betrayal of sources or self-dealing?

6/ Are there any *legal* steps anyone can take to bring it to Congress's attention and, if not, any circumstances in which it'd be the right thing to do, anyway, despite the POTUS's constitutional prerogative?

@jacklgoldsmith

6/ To be clear: It probably wouldn't be *criminal* for the whistleblower or IG to leak--"merely" a violation of conditions of employment, sanctionable by being discharged.