{"id":231647,"date":"2019-09-20T03:27:39","date_gmt":"2019-09-20T07:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=231647"},"modified":"2019-09-20T03:27:39","modified_gmt":"2019-09-20T07:27:39","slug":"administration-blocks-urgent-whistleblower-disclosure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/09\/20\/administration-blocks-urgent-whistleblower-disclosure\/","title":{"rendered":"Administration blocks ‘urgent’ whistleblower disclosure"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
FILE: President of the United States Donald Trump speaking at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Photo<\/a>: Gage Skidmore\/Flickr<\/a>, CC BY-SA 2.0<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plunged into an extraordinary showdown with Congress Thursday over access to a whistleblower’s complaint about reported incidents including a private conversation between President Donald Trump and a foreign leader. The blocked complaint is both \u201cserious\u201d and \u201curgent,\u201d the government’s intelligence watchdog said.<\/p>\n

The administration is keeping Congress from even learning what exactly the whistleblower is alleging, but the intelligence community’s inspector general said the matter involves the \u201cmost significant\u201d responsibilities of intelligence leadership. A lawmaker said the complaint was \u201cbased on a series of events.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Washington Post and The New York Times reported Thursday evening that at least part of the complaint involves Ukraine. The newspapers cited anonymous sources familiar with the matter. The Associated Press has not confirmed the reports.<\/p>\n

The inspector general appeared before the House intelligence committee behind closed doors Thursday but declined, under administration orders, to reveal to members the substance of the complaint.<\/p>\n

The standoff raises fresh questions about the extent to which Trump’s allies are protecting the president from oversight and, specifically, if his new acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, is working with the Justice Department to shield the president from the reach of Congress.<\/p>\n

Trump, though giving no details about any incident, denied Thursday that he would ever \u201csay something inappropriate\u201d on such a call.<\/p>\n

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he was prepared to go to court to try to force the Trump administration to open up about the complaint.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe inspector general has said this cannot wait,\u201d said Schiff, describing the administration’s blockade as an unprecedented departure from law. \u201cThere’s an urgency here that I think the courts will recognize.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schiff said he, too, could not confirm whether newspaper reports were accurate because the administration was claiming executive privilege in withholding the complaint. But letters from the inspector general to the committee released Thursday said it was an \u201curgent\u201d matter of \u201cserious or flagrant abuse\u201d that must be shared with lawmakers.<\/p>\n

The letters also made it clear that Trump’s new acting director of national intelligence, Maguire, consulted with the Justice Department in deciding not to transmit the complaint to Congress in a further departure from standard procedure. It’s unclear whether the White House was also involved, Schiff said.<\/p>\n

Because the administration is claiming the information is privileged, Schiff said he believes the whistleblower’s complaint \u201clikely involves the president or people around him.\u201d<\/p>\n

Trump dismissed it all.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnother Fake News story out there – It never ends!\u201d Trump tweeted. \u201cVirtually 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!\u201d<\/p>\n

He asked, \u201cIs anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call.\u201d<\/p>\n

House Democrats are fighting the administration separately for access to witnesses and documents in impeachment probes. Democrats are also looking into whether Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani travelled to Ukraine to pressure the government to aid the president’s re-election effort by investigating the activities of potential rival Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian gas company.<\/p>\n

During an interview Thursday on CNN, Giuliani was asked whether he had asked Ukraine to look into Biden. \u201cOf course I did,\u201d Giuliani said.<\/p>\n

Later, Giuliani tweeted, \u201cA President telling a Pres-elect of a well known corrupt country he better investigate corruption that affects US is doing his job.\u201d<\/p>\n

Among the materials Democrats have sought in that investigation is the transcript of a phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 25.<\/p>\n

This new situation, stemming from the whistleblower’s Aug. 12 complaint, has led to their public concerns that government intelligence agencies and the recently named acting director might be under pressure to withhold information from Congress.<\/p>\n

Trump tapped Maguire, a former Navy official, as acting intelligence director in August, after the departure of Director Dan Coats, a former Republican senator who often clashed with the president, and the retirement of Sue Gordon, a career professional in the No. 2 position.<\/p>\n

Maguire has refused to discuss details of the whistleblower complaint, but he has been subpoenaed by the House panel and is expected to testify publicly next Thursday. Both Maguire and the inspector general, Michael Atkinson, are also expected next week at the Senate intelligence committee.<\/p>\n

Atkinson wrote in letters that Schiff released Thursday that he and Maguire had hit an \u201cimpasse\u201d over the acting director’s decision not to share the complaint with Congress.<\/p>\n

While Atkinson wrote that he believed Maguire’s position was in \u201cgood faith\u201d it did not appear to be consistent with past practice. Atkinson said he was told by the legal counsel for the intelligence director that the complaint did not actually meet the definition of an \u201curgent concern.\u201d And he said the Justice Department said it did not fall under the director’s jurisdiction because it did not involve an intelligence professional.<\/p>\n

Atkinson said he disagreed with that Justice Department view. The complaint \u201cnot only falls under DNI’s jurisdiction,\u201d Atkinson wrote, \u201cbut relates to one of the most significant and important of DNI’s responsibilities to the American people.\u201d<\/p>\n

The inspector general went on to say he requested authorization to at the very least disclose the \u201cgeneral subject matter\u201d to the committee, but had not been allowed to do so. He said the information was \u201cbeing kept\u201d from Congress. These decisions, the inspector general said, are affecting his execution of his duties and responsibilities.<\/p>\n

Illinois Rep. Mike Quigley, a member of the panel, said Atkinson said that the complaint was \u201cbased on a series of events.\u201d<\/p>\n

In calling the inspector general to testify, Schiff said Atkinson determined the whistleblower complaint was \u201ccredible and urgent\u201d and should be \u201ctransmitted to Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Several lawmakers suggested the failure to disclose the complaint’s contents amounted to a failure to protect the whistleblower, another violation. However, 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 was indeed protecting the whistleblower.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., said on MSNBC that the acting director \u201cbroke the law when he decided to basically intercept the inspector general’s report to Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

That’s \u201cnever been done before in the history of inspector general reports to the Congress,\u201d Himes said. \u201cAnd the American people should be worried about that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Himes said, \u201cWe don’t know exactly what is in the substance of this complaint. It could be nothing. It could be something very, very serious.\u201d<\/p>\n

——<\/p>\n

Associated Press writers Jonathan Lemire, Eric Tucker and Zeke Miller contributed to this report.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plunged into an extraordinary showdown with Congress Thursday over access to a whistleblower’s complaint about …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":225379,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231647","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-w","mauthors-mary-clare-jalonick","mauthors-lisa-mascaro","mauthors-the-associated-press"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231647","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231647"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231647\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":231650,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231647\/revisions\/231650"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/225379"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231647"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231647"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231647"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}