michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.” Today. It took just days for the whistle-blower’s complaint to trigger an impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Julian Barnes on the weeks that led up to that complaint — and how it almost didn’t happen. It’s Monday, September 30. Julian, tell me about what you’ve been reporting.

julian barnes

Up until now, the focus has been on the whistle-blower complaint and how it was handled.

archived recording The explosive reports of a whistle-blower complaint against President Trump is raising more questions than answers.

julian barnes

How it was handled by the Inspector General.

archived recording Yeah, so when you get into this, what does it mean that they have blown through the legal deadlines? Does that in itself mean that the Intel agencies here are in violation of the law and what happens next?

julian barnes

How it was handled by the Director of National Intelligence.

archived recording Did he handle it accurately when it wasn’t released for so many weeks?

julian barnes

And how you know, the Department of Justice reacted to that.

archived recording Paula, the Department of Justice declined to look into the allegations in the whistle-blower’s complaint. Does Bill Barr’s behavior on this raise any red flags for you?

julian barnes

But what I was interested in is — what happened before the complaint was filed? What happened between July 25, when President Trump has the call with the Ukrainian president, and August 12, when the whistle-blower complaint was filed? It could have been a really simple story. A conscientious worker, finds out about wrongdoing, mulls what to do, learns that the whistle-blower system exists, and decides to submit a complaint. But that’s not what happened. We found out about a very different story.

michael barbaro

And what was that story?

julian barnes

Immediately after the July 25 call, there was concern in the White House. Officials who have heard it are worried about what they have heard. This is not right. This appears to be a potential abuse of power. And we learned that a C.I.A. officer, who used to work in the White House, had learned about something amiss in that July 25 call. At least a couple of people talked to the C.I.A. officer telling him about this call. And there enough of a level of concern here that the C.I.A. officer decides he needs to do something about it. And what he decides to do is to take the information to the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer. But to do that, He doesn’t want to go directly. He wants to stay anonymous. So he uses a colleague to bring the information to the lawyer’s office.

michael barbaro

And do we know, Julian, why the C.I.A. officer would do it this kind of indirectly? Through a colleague versus getting this complaint up to the top of the C.I.A. himself?

julian barnes

We don’t know exactly, but we have some evidence, and so we can make a educated guess here. It looks like because the C.I.A. officer worked in the White House, his identity could be quickly discovered. We know that anonymity was very important to him. And if the White House knew that a C.I.A. officer who had worked there was making the accusations, it would be very easy to identify him.

michael barbaro

And what is the information that the C.I.A. officer has his colleague communicate to the top lawyers at the C.I.A.?

julian barnes

It’s very vague. The initial information that the colleague brings to the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer is that something has gone wrong. There’s been some impropriety in a call between Mr. Trump and a foreign leader. There’s no date, there’s no name of the foreign leader, there’s no country.

michael barbaro

So what do the top lawyers at the C.I.A. do with this kind of vague information?

julian barnes

The top lawyer at the C.I.A., she needs to figure out if this information is credible. But that information lies in the White House. So to learn more, she picks up the phone and she calls her counterpart at the White House.

michael barbaro

And is that standard practice?

julian barnes

It is. It is the standard practice. That’s what the guidelines tell you to do.

michael barbaro

O.K., so what happens after she alerts the White House that there’s a complaint within the C.I.A. involving the president?

julian barnes

So it turns out that the lawyers in the White House have apparently also heard rumblings about the July 25 call. They don’t know how serious it is, but there are a series of calls on the week of August 5 between the C.I.A.‘s lawyers and the White House lawyers. And they’re trying to figure out what’s going on. And very quickly, they learn that a number of people within the White House have concerns about this July 25 call.

michael barbaro

So folks are taking this pretty seriously. I recognize that it’s complicated because the C.I.A. has just gone to the White House, but investigators are investigating.

julian barnes

Yes, that’s absolutely right. From the C.I.A. perspective, the folks at the White House are taking it seriously. They’re doing their due diligence, they’re learning concerning information.

michael barbaro

So meanwhile, how much of this do we think filters back to the C.I.A. officer who starts all this by asking his colleague to go to the top lawyers inside the agency? How aware is he of the kind of follow up that’s going on?

julian barnes

We don’t know exactly. Remember, the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer doesn’t know who he is. So the C.I.A. officer who has concerns is in the dark. But remember, he has sources at the White House.

michael barbaro

Right, where he used to work.

julian barnes

Right, where he used to work. And now the people who told him about the original allegations, they start to talk to him again, and they tell him they’re being questioned — questioned by lawyers. But not from the C.I.A., from the White House. And that’s not what he wanted.

michael barbaro

In his mind, the fox — and the people around the fox — are suddenly investigating who broke into the henhouse.

julian barnes

Exactly. The fox is in charge of counting the hens, and that’s not going to have a good result.

michael barbaro

And what does he make of that?

julian barnes

It spooks him. This is not what he was looking for. What we think is in the back of his head is that the White House is doing this investigation. And that means the White House could crush it, could brush it under the rug.

michael barbaro

So what does this suddenly spooked C.I.A. officer do next?

julian barnes

He decides to dramatically escalate the situation. Previously, he had the other officer bring the complaint to the C.I.A. lawyer. He now takes matters into his own hands. You know, it’s been about a week since his original complaint to the C.I.A. lawyer, the one delivered anonymously through a colleague. And he has gathered more information from White House colleagues, he’s learned more about the call, he’s learned more about how the White House lawyers handled the notes of that call, putting it into the White House’s most classified system. One meant for holding information about covert action, not banter between foreign leaders. And so he decides to take an important step — one that will change the direction of this. He’s going to file a whistle-blower complaint. And he’s going to file it with the Inspector General for the intelligence community.

michael barbaro

So this is the now famous whistle-blower complaint we all know.

julian barnes

Correct.

michael barbaro

And what’s different about this whistle-blower complaint with the intelligence community’s Inspector General from this internal C.I.A. complaint? I wonder if the process itself is any different between these two complaints.

julian barnes

It’s a very different process. The whistle-blower process is designed to protect the person making the complaint, to protect their identity, to protect them from reprisals. But it also allows for a independent investigation. Instead of the C.I.A. lawyer working with White House lawyers, the Inspector General is going directly to the witnesses. This time, it won’t be the White House lawyers asking questions. This time, it will be the Inspector General asking questions. And crucially, in this process, if a complaint is deemed credible, it goes to Congress.

michael barbaro

So this is like a turbo charged complaint process compared with the first one.

julian barnes

100 percent. It’s a very different process. This is what he wanted to see in the first place, we think. A neutral arbiter. An outside person looking at this. An outside person can look at it without a conflict of interest. And presumably, will not try to brush it aside or ignore it.

michael barbaro

So this would ensure that what he was most worried about that, the White House would be conducting this investigation, and possibly quashing it, that that can’t happen.

julian barnes

That’s right.

michael barbaro

So at this point, correct me if I’m wrong, there are basically two processes happening at the same time. The original report within the C.I.A. is working its way through the system. And now this more formal complaint filed by the C.I.A. officer himself to the Inspector General of the intelligence community, it’s starting to unfold. So what happens with that first complaint within the C.I.A.?

julian barnes

The C.I.A. doesn’t know there’s a whistle-blower complaint, not yet. And so the C.I.A.‘s top lawyer continues her work. And she finds there is a reasonable basis for this complaint. And under government policy, under the rules, she has to alert the Department of Justice. And she does. She does it on August 14, two days after the whistle-blower complaint is filed. So a lawyer from the Department of Justice goes to the White House and reads the original transcript, the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky.

michael barbaro

The one that has been placed in that special computer system, kind of hidden away from wider circulation that might embarrass the president.

julian barnes

Exactly. And the lawyer says, wow, this is serious. And so what does he do? He tells his bosses. And who’s the biggest boss? Attorney General William Barr.

michael barbaro

So the attorney general is alerted to the situation by the original C.I.A. complaint.

julian barnes

Right. The C.I.A. investigation, that original complaint, is at the Department of Justice where it enters a kind of legal purgatory. And ultimately, nothing happens.

michael barbaro

Huh. O.K., so they basically quash it. What happens to the other complaint, the whistle-blower complaint?

julian barnes

So the whistle-blower complaint goes from the Inspector General to the Director of National Intelligence. Now ordinarily, the intelligence chief would just send it on to Congress, but this involves the president. So the Director of National Intelligence decides he needs to consult with the Department of Justice.

michael barbaro

Hmm.

julian barnes

And so the whistle-blower complaint goes to the Department of Justice. But they already know all about this, because they got the C.I.A. complaint days before. And so they’re ready. So they do their review, and they say, it’s not a criminal matter. There’s nothing to see here, folks. Nothing needs to happen. And it doesn’t need to go to Congress.

michael barbaro

So because the Department of Justice has gotten a heads up about this through the C.I.A. complaint, when this official more formal, supposedly independent whistle-blower complaint arrives, the people inside the Department of Justice, they know what they’re going to do. And what they’re going to do is basically say, there’s nothing to see here, this ends here.

julian barnes

That’s right. They’re ready, and they make a critical decision that it doesn’t need to go to Congress.

michael barbaro

But of course, we all know it does get to Congress eventually. So how does that happen?

julian barnes

That happens because the Inspector General has notified the House Intelligence Committee that there is a complaint. And the House Intelligence Committee knows that it’s highly unusual to be notified of a complaint and then not to get it. And so they start making a stink.

michael barbaro

So it’s possible that if the whistle-blower had just left it at the first internal C.I.A. complaint, we might not have known any of this, because it appears that the Department of Justice, which of course works for the president, would have more or less kept it under wraps.

julian barnes

That’s right. Only because of the whistle-blower process, only because the Inspector General gave a hint to Congress that there was something to see, that’s the only reason this went forward.

michael barbaro

What’s so interesting about this one — I don’t think I understood it before — is that a lot of this is unfolding inside the executive branch. The C.I.A. answers to the Director of National Intelligence, who answers to the president. All of these entities work for the President of the United States. The only thing that’s different about the whistle-blower process is that it triggers communication to the legislative branch.

julian barnes

That’s right. The oversight process of the United States government is meant for mid-level officials, it’s meant for high level officials. It’s not meant for the president of the United States. What we’ve learned through all of this is that if the allegation of wrongdoing is against the commander in chief, the president of the United States, the systems break down. It can be blocked by a politicized department of justice. It can be brushed aside by political appointees in the White House. That’s what makes that whistle blower system, where there is a reporting line to an independent branch of government, so important.

michael barbaro

We’ll be right back. So in the end, it feels like this is above all, kind of the story of a very determined and persistent whistle-blower.

julian barnes

Absolutely. We learned a lot about the C.I.A. officer who made this complaint. He was very determined. He was nervous that his complaint wasn’t going to spark the right kind of investigation. And because he was nervous, he kept pressing, and he got the right kind of investigation going.

michael barbaro

Right. And Julian, at a certain point, you and our colleagues in the Washington bureau decided to publish details about the whistle-blower’s background. Not his name, but the fact that he worked for the C.I.A. and had spent time at the White House. Why did you feel that that was important to telling the story that you just laid out?

julian barnes

I really believe that you can’t understand how the whistle blowing process worked, and almost didn’t work in this case, unless you understand the role of the C.I.A. in the initial investigation. The role of the C.I.A. in telling the White House that someone from their organization had concerns. Look, this was not a decision we took lightly. The executive editor of the New York Times, Dean Baquet, weighed in on this. But he mentioned how much the president of the United States had put the credibility of the whistle-blower into question. And the president had called the whistle-blowers count a political hack job. We felt it was important to tell people about the credibility of the whistle-blower. And part of that is telling people how we learned the information, and what he did with it. And you can only understand that when that he came from the C.I.A..

michael barbaro

But my sense from what you’ve just told us is that the whistle-blower took steps to conceal his identity from the very beginning by asking a colleague to file his complaint. So how does that factor into your decision?

julian barnes

That’s true. But remember, there’s a lot of information in that complaint once Congress makes it public. We know he worked at the White House. We know he had a expertise in European affairs. And what’s really crucial to understand is that we didn’t tell the White House anything they didn’t know just days after the July 25 call. As soon as the top lawyer at the C.I.A. picked up the phone and called the White House, they knew the complaints were coming from the C.I.A. So I really believe it’s important to understand where the system worked and where it didn’t work. Because it almost didn’t work here. And we now know why it almost didn’t work. We know better why it didn’t work. And if we’re going to improve the systems so that you can make a complaint, even about the president of the United States, and it’s taken seriously, we need to understand the strengths and the weaknesses of the system. And this reporting really shows how it almost didn’t work.

michael barbaro

So in the end, the reason it’s important in your mind and in the mind of our colleagues to know that the whistle-blower was at the C.I.A., is because it’s important to understand this key sequence of events, which reveals just how vulnerable this whole system is when the alleged political wrongdoing is done by the president himself.

julian barnes

That’s right. The system is fragile. It almost didn’t work. And if we’re going to improve it, we need to understand those weaknesses.

michael barbaro

Julian, thank you very much.

julian barnes

Thank you.

michael barbaro

On Sunday, the White House intensified its attack on the whistle-blower. During an interview on Fox News, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser to the president, claimed without evidence that the whistle-blower was a partisan, intent on hurting the president.

archived recording (stephen miller) I know with the deep state looks like. I know the difference between a whistle-blower and a deep state operative. This is a deep state operative, pure and simple.

michael barbaro

After days of negotiations, the whistle-blower has reached an agreement to testify behind closed doors before the House Intelligence Committee.

archived recording Have you reached an agreement yet with the whistle-blower and his or her attorneys about coming before the committee and providing the information firsthand? Yes we have. That whistle-blower would be allowed to come in and come in without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistle-blower what they can and cannot say. We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistle-blower —

michael barbaro

Democrats continued to move swiftly to advance their impeachment inquiry, starting with a subpoena to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The subpoena demands that Pompeo provide documents relating to President Trump’s call with Ukraine’s president, including a full transcript of the conversation. And it warns that a failure to comply, quote, “shall constitute obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” In a letter attached to the subpoena, the Democrats demand that five State Department officials linked to the Ukraine episode sit for depositions beginning this week. The number of House members who now support an impeachment inquiry has reached 224. Over the weekend, the first House Republican, representative Mark Amodei of Nevada, indicated support for the inquiry.

archived recording (mark amodei) The complaints have been filed. Should be processed by all the committees that have a dog in that fight for oversight. I’m a big fan of oversight. So let’s let the committee get to work and see where it goes.

michael barbaro