Thread by @steve_vladeck

The Office of Legal Counsel’s formal explanation for why (Acting) DNI Maguire didn’t (and doesn’t) have a statutory obligation to forward the whistleblower complaint to the congressional intelligence committees is remarkably thin.

justice.gov/olc/file/12045…

A mini-#thread on why:

In a nutshell, OLC’s argument is that, on the merits, the underlying complaint doesn’t satisfy the substantive criteria for an “urgent concern” under the statute.

The problem is that the statute expressly leaves that call to the Inspector General, and not the (Acting) DNI:

Once the IG finds that the report is credible (whether he is right or wrong), the statute imposes a mandatory obligation on the (Acting) DNI to transmit the report and the IG’s findings to the congressional intelligence committees. This language is not remotely ambiguous:

OLC’s claim is that the IG’s determination isn’t just voidable, but void, if the (Acting) DNI disagrees on the merits. Not only is there no support in the text for this, but there’s evidence to the contrary; the DNI is allowed to provide “any comments” he “considers appropriate.”

The text settles this beyond peradventure.

But even if it didn’t, the purpose of the statute is equally clear; it wouldn’t make sense to allow political leaders of the intelligence community to be able to suppress whistleblower complaints that could very well be _about them_.

All of this is to say, I don’t think the OLC analysis changes anything about the (Acting) DNI’s statutory obligation to transmit the report to the intelligence committees.

He should comply with the statute. And if the President orders him not to do so, he should resign.

/end