House chairman Adam Schiff: Whistleblower complaint may involve Trump
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s director of national intelligence is refusing to turn over to Congress a whistleblower complaint that reportedly concerns Trump making an unspecified promise to a foreign leader. It’s a matter of urgent concern, the intelligence community’s inspector general said.
Trump, though giving no details about any incident, denied on Thursday that he would ever “say something inappropriate” on such a call.
The committee chairman, California Democrat Adam Schiff, said he could not confirm whether the report from The Washington Post was accurate because the administration was claiming privilege in withholding the complaint. But letters from the intelligence community’s inspector general to the committee released Thursday said it was an “urgent” matter of “serious or flagrant abuse” that must be shared with lawmakers.
“There is an effort to prevent this information from getting to Congress,” Schiff said, describing it as an unprecedented departure from law.
JUST IN: Read the intelligence community watchdog's letters describing "urgent concern" in whistleblower complaint https://t.co/ZqU7F2LvOZ
— Axios (@axios) September 19, 2019
Schiff said the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, in a further departure from standard procedure, consulted with the Justice Department, in deciding not to transmit the complaint to Congress. It’s unclear if the White House was also involved, he said.
Because the director is claiming privileged information, Schiff said he believes the whistleblower’s complaint “likely involves the president or people around him.”
.@RepAdamSchiff: "If, in a matter within the jurisdiction of the DNI, you have an employee of that community who follows the law & makes a [whistleblower] complaint, & it is possible for subject of that complaint to essentially quash [it] … then this system is badly broken." pic.twitter.com/lDfw8IsOcX
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2019
Schiff spoke to reporters after the intelligence community’s inspector general, Michael Atkinson, appeared behind closed doors Thursday but declined to tell the panel the substance of the complaint.
The chairman said he would go to court, if necessary, to try to force the administration to turn over the information in the complaint.
The Washington Post reported the complaint involves an intelligence official’s allegation that Trump made the promise to an unidentified foreign leader in a telephone call. The Post cited two anonymous former U.S. officials.
The Associated Press has not confirmed the report.
NEW: IC IG told lawmakers today that the complaint involved multiple acts, not a single one, per two sources.
Separately, other sources tell NYT it involved a commitment by Trump to a world leader, though its not rooted in just a single communication
— Nicholas Fandos (@npfandos) September 19, 2019
Trump dismissed it all.
“Another Fake News story out there — It never ends!” Trump tweeted. “Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself. No problem!”
He asked: “Is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call.”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 19, 2019
But the situation raised Democrats’ concerns that the intelligence community might be under pressure from the administration to withhold information from Congress.
Trump named Maguire, a former Navy official, as acting intelligence director in August, after the departure of Director Dan Coats who often clashed with the president, and the retirement of Sue Gordon, a career professional in the No. 2 position.
Maguire has refused to discuss details but he has been subpoenaed by the panel and is expected to testify publicly about the whistleblower complaint next Thursday. Both Maguire and Atkins are also expected next week at the Senate Intelligence Committee.
House lawmakers on the intelligence panel appeared frustrated as they left the closed session.
“There’s a lot more we have to learn,” said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill.
Rep. Mike Quigley: "Mr. Barr and the Department of Justice's job in their mind is to protect the president and it doesn't matter if that violates the laws." pic.twitter.com/N7lGDm10P8
— The Hill (@thehill) September 19, 2019
In calling the inspector general to testify, Schiff said Atkinson determined the whistleblower complaint was “credible and urgent” and should be “transmitted to Congress.”
Atkinson wrote in letters the committee chairman released Thursday that he and Maguire had hit an “impasse” over the acting director’s decision not to share the complaint with Congress.
While Atkinson wrote that he believed Maguire’s position was in “good faith” it did not appear to be consistent with past practice. Atkinson said he was told by the legal counsel for the director of national intelligence that the complaint did not meet the definition of an “urgent concern.” He said the Justice Department said it did not fall under the intelligence director’s jurisdiction because it did not involve an intelligence professional.
Atkinson said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s view. The complaint “not only falls under DNI’s jurisdiction,” Atkinson wrote, “but relates to one of the most significant and important of DNI’s responsibilities to the American people.”
The inspector general went on to say he requested authorization to at the very least disclose the “general subject matter” to the committee, but had not been allowed to do so. He said the information was “being kept” from Congress. These decisions, the inspector general said, are affecting his execution of his duties and responsibilities.
New: A DOJ official says it was the Office of Legal Counsel that advised DNI not to disclose the whistleblower complaint to Congress. No word yet whether Barr was directly involved.
— Julia E. Ainsley (@JuliaEAinsley) September 19, 2019
At the committee Thursday, Atkinson declined to discuss the substance of the complaint and mostly discussed process, apparently constrained by the law governing his own position.
The inspector general’s testimony was described by three people with knowledge of the proceedings. They were not authorized to discuss the meeting by name and were granted anonymity.
In issuing a subpoena for Maguire to appear, Schiff said the complaint had not been transmitted to Congress within 10 days “in violation of the law.”
Schiff noted in his letter seeking Maguire’s testimony that “your office consulted the Department of Justice about the complaint even though the statute does not provide you discretion to review” the inspector general’s findings, “let alone to involve another entity within the executive branch.”
"It's another fire alarm pulled from inside a house on fire with presidential conduct so alarming that multiple national security officials have sounded similar alarms before this whistleblower case came to light" – @NicolleDWallace pic.twitter.com/FkyyMjTCNj
— Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) September 19, 2019
Andrew Bakaj, a former intelligence officer and an attorney specializing in whistleblower reprisal investigations, confirmed that he was representing the whistleblower but declined further comment.
The general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jason Klitenic, wrote in a letter Tuesday to the committee that the agency is protecting the whistleblower.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said Thursday on MSNBC that the acting director “broke the law when he decided to basically intercept the inspector general’s report to Congress.”
That’s “never been done before in the history of inspector general reports to the Congress,” Himes said. “And the American people should be worried about that.”
Himes said ahead of the meeting that lawmakers are in the uncomfortable position of not knowing any more than what’s in the news reports.
“We don’t know exactly what is in the substance of this complaint,” he said. “It could be nothing. It could be something very, very serious.”