The Washington Post, definitely among one of President Donald Trump’s least favorite news outlets, published a story on Wednesday night that made tremendous waves. The president’s Thursday response sparked a lot of commentary and rapid reaction among legal experts.

The story regarded a whistleblower complaint that “triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress.” According to WaPo, that complaint involves a “promise” Trump made to an unknown foreign leader that was deemed “so troubling” that an unnamed whistleblower filed a complaint with the U.S. intelligence community’s inspector general — a complaint the IG “determined […] is both credible and urgent,” per House Intel Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). It’s also a complaint Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire declined to hand over to Congress. It’s also a complaint that the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advised Maguire to withhold.

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

President Trump reacted to the story on Thursday by calling it “Fake News,” and dismissing as “dumb” anyone who believed something “inappropriate” had occurred. The tweets when combined:

Another Fake News story out there – It never ends! 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! Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially “heavily populated” call. I would only do what is right anyway, and only do good for the USA!

These tweets were not received well.

It’s not “fake news.”

The existence of the whistleblower complaint is not fake news. The IG’s conclusion that it’s “credible” is not fake news. The (Acting) DNI’s refusal to comply with his statutory obligation to forward the complaint to the congressional intelligence committees is not fake news. https://t.co/BKgoF1fJOD — Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) September 19, 2019

Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said that three key aspects of the reporting were “not fake news”: 1) that the whistleblower complaint exists; 2) that the IG concluded the complaint was “credible”; 3) that the DNI did not forward the complaint to congressional intelligence committee.

Vladeck noted earlier — and others have highlighted this as well — that for this matter to “qualify as an ‘urgent concern’ under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(5)(G),” the IG “had to conclude that the complaint identified conduct that meets the following statutory definition.”

This was the statutory definition Vladeck and other legal scholars pointed to:

The key phrase is “relating to.” https://t.co/OXzaCKVFJH — Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) September 19, 2019

3/ … and authority. And it's hard to imagine how a POTUS commitment to a foreign leader of such concern *wouldn't* at least "relat[e] to" intel activities. Which is presumably why the IG concluded that it did. But who knows? Would need more details to assess w/confidence. — Marty Lederman (@marty_lederman) September 19, 2019

A chilling effect?

National security lawyer Mark S. Zaid, who frequently represents whistleblowers but not this whistleblower, said that the way this was handled by the Office of the DNI is “undermining the existing [whistleblower] protections” and is “contributing to potential future harm to our [national security].”

The existing #whistleblower system was designed to prevent future #Snowdens. How @ODNIgov has handled this current matter is undermining the existing protections & contributing to potential future harm to our #natsec. https://t.co/iLxhNBZYmc — Mark S. Zaid (@MarkSZaidEsq) September 19, 2019

CNN law enforcement and national security analyst, former FBI agent Josh Campbell, argued that the White House’s “obstructi[on] [of] alleged reports of abuse” will have a chilling effect on whistleblowing in the future.

By obstructing alleged reports of abuse, the White House will chill future whistleblower reporting. This should worry us all. There are real consequences to playing politics with the intel community. I write about it at length in #CrossfireHurricane: https://t.co/BH6hCVMO70 pic.twitter.com/LlA3KHUVC9 — Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) September 19, 2019

Another protracted legal slugfest on the horizon?

CNN legal analyst and attorney Ross Garber suggested that this may be yet another situation “in which the directive of a statute (here that Congress be alerted to certain whistleblower complaints) may conflict with the Executive Branch’s assertion of its Constitutional powers and privileges.”

He, and others, noted that the Obama Administration took the same Executive Branch position.

3/ Let's also assume that a statute REQUIRES the DNI to arrange for that report to get to Congress.

BUT, as both Presidents Clinton and Obama have stated, the statute can't impair the President's authority to control what classified information goes to Congress. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) September 19, 2019

5/ Also, in US v. Nixon, the Supreme Court said executive privilege is at its zenith when information concerns military, diplomatic and national security issues. It's hard to see how a call between the President and a foreign leader wouldn't qualify. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) September 19, 2019

7/ Bottom lines: (1) The Trump administration's refusal to send the info to Congress is not shocking. It's actually consistent with the positions of Presidents Obama and Clinton. — Ross Garber (@rossgarber) September 19, 2019

In closing, Garber said that if Congress takes this to court, which we have seen time and again, it would be on “very shaky ground given that the information it is seeking relates to the President’s authority to conduct diplomacy and almost certainly will be considered diplomatic, national security, and/or military in nature.”

Other commentary:

The IC Inspector General you appointed believes you did. https://t.co/YFXuY7wQs0 — Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) September 19, 2019

The President is refuting reports that he said anything inappropriate to a foreign leader. It remains unclear why whistleblower reporting would be withheld from Congress if the White House was confident the conversation was totally innocent. https://t.co/gWgomwHa4Z — Josh Campbell (@joshscampbell) September 19, 2019

"President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting" https://t.co/SJEt9WDF28 https://t.co/VmEInjRwem — Mark Berman (@markberman) September 19, 2019

"I just fired the head of the FBI. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” He added: "I'm not under investigation." One of the most memorable stories in the Trump White House: https://t.co/o5srYf0gwL https://t.co/Mfjk25rv1c — Josh Dawsey (@jdawsey1) September 19, 2019

Do you expect us to believe this? No president could possibly be stupid enough to say something that inappropriate if they knew people could find out. C’mon. Fake News. https://t.co/QonpokwyZb — George Conway (@gtconway3d) September 19, 2019

[Image via Jeff J Mitchell, Pool /Getty Images]

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]