Acting DNI lawyer “whistleblower complaint not urgent, not required to provide to congress

quote:

---

Dear Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member unes: On August 12, 2019, the Of?ce of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community received a disclosure from an individual (hereinafter ?the Complainant") regarding an alleged ?urgent concern." pursuant to 50 U.S.C. The term ?urgent concern? is de?ned, in relevant part, as: (U) A serious or ?agrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or de?ciency relating to the funding, administration. or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classi?ed information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.2

After receiving the Complainant? disclosure, the ICIG was required within 14
calendar days to determine whether the information alleged by the Complainant with respect to an
urgent concern appeared credible.3 During that 14-day time period, the ICIG conducted a
preliminary review of the disclosure. As a result of that preliminary review, I determined that the
Complainant?s disclosure met the definition of an urgent concern, 119., a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding,
administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of
the Director of National Intelligence involving classi?ed information.?4 I also determined that
there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared
credible.-

---

quote:

---

It is my understanding that the Acting DNI has determined that he is not required to transmit my determination of a credible urgent concern or any of the Complainant?s information to the congressional intelligence committees because the allegations do not meet the de?nition of an ?urgent concern? under the statute, and has not made the transmission as of today?s date. Although I believe and appreciate that the Acting DNI is acting in good faith, the Acting treatment of the Complainant?s alleged ?urgent concern? does not appear to be consistent with past practice. As you know, the ICIG has on occasion in the past determined that, for a variety of reasons, disclosures submitted to the ICIG under the urgent concern statute did not constitute an urgent concern. In those cases, even though the ICIG determined that those disclosures did not meet the de?nition of an urgent concern, the DN I nevertheless provided direction to the ICIG to transmit the determination and the COmplainants? information to the congressional intelligence committees. In each of thoSe cases, the ICIG followed the direction and transmitted the determination along with the complainants? information to the congressional intelligence committees. That past practice permitted complainants in the Intelligence Community to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly, in an authorized and protected manner, as intended by the urgent concern statute. I am continuing my efforts to obtain direction from the Acting DNI regarding how the Complainant may bring the Complainant?s concerns to the congressional intelligence

---