Thread by @marty_lederman

1/ The @nytimes story, after many updates, continues to mislead on the substantive statutory question at the heart of the ODNI/ICIG dispute.

nytimes.com/2019/09/19/us/…

@nytmike @npfandos @AllMattNYT @julianbarnes @just_security @steve_vladeck @jacklgoldsmith

2/ "Some legal experts," according to the @nytimes, "said it was not obvious how an exchange 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'" ...

3/ because "[u]nder the law, the complaint has to concern the existence of an intelligence activity," and "a conversation between two foreign leaders is not itself an intelligence activity." The legal standard, however, is not ...

4/ ... whether the conduct is "itself" an intelligence activity, nor whether it "concerns" the "existence" of such an activity, but instead whether it "relat[es]" to the operation or administration of an intel activity within the DNI's responsibility and authority.

5/ The ICIG concluded that the subject of the complaint *does* “relate[] to one of the most significant and important of the DNI’s [intel] responsibilities." Whether the facts support that conclusion or not, at least the IG--unlike the Times-- is right about the legal standard.

6/ The @nytimes invokes a contrary view of "some [unnamed] legal experts," but all those I know agree that the statutory argument is dubious. (There's more disagreement about whether Trump could assert a privilege -- something he hasn't yet done.)