“Plenty of time to do dastardly things” — Donald J. Trump
A few details before the 9am closed door appearance at the Intel Community Inspector General (ICIG) before the House Intel Committee. We’ll know more soon since there are implications for “Gang of Eight” notification, as well as the classified nature of the communication that included a “promise” by POTUS* in a phone call to a foreign leader.
This Asha Rangappa thread details the legal issues in this whistleblower complaint.
2. I'll first outline the best argument for Trump. The President enjoys wide latitude in foreign affairs. When it comes to the "outside world," the President represents the sovereign:He is basically the voice of the United States and can negotiate with world leaders on its behalf
3. I wrote about this very early on in the context of Trump's possible defense to obstruction charges involving Russia, which is also relevant here
4. There is a separation of powers argument here: The President should be able to have confidential and diplomatic communications with other heads of state without undue interference from Congress: World leaders should feel secure that their convos won't be made public
5. HAVING SAID THAT --
there are limitations. First, as
@jedshug has written (also in context of obstruction of justice),
the President has a fiduciary obligation to act in the *best interests of the United States*. In other words, he cannot abuse his powers for personal gain
6. Further, the "slice" of his "exclusive" Art. II powers is fairly narrow. Congress does have a say, for instance, whether we go to war in the absence of an emergency defensive action. It can also say that certain types of foreign policy actions are illegal
7. So, for instance, while President Reagan might have argued that his actions in Iran Contra were in the best interest of the U.S. (preventing spread of Communism), they were nevertheless in violation of the Boland Amendment and still illegal
8. In fact, much of the extensive congressional oversight over intelligence functions stems from things like Iran Contra -- you want to balance POTUS' foreign affairs/nat sec powers with transparency, individual rights (e.g., warrantless wiretapping after 9/11), and accountability
9. The ICWPA tries to balance these interests in the context of nat sec/classified information: It makes the whistleblower go to an independent entity (agency IG or ICIG) to basically "vet" the complaint and make sure it is urgent
10. The IG has to look at the complaint, determine that it is credible, and that it is urgent: That it is "[a] serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to to...an intelligence activity involving classified information"
12. Note that under the definition of "urgent," the complaint cannot simply be a difference in policy opinion. And the IG is an independent entity making the determination that it is serious enough to come to the attention of Congress
13. This IG is a *Trump appointee* as @EricColumbus astutely notes
14. Sooooo...we're basically left with the fact that a Trump appointee, found this complaint to be "urgent," meaning that it is not merely a policy dispute, beyond the broad Art. II foreign affairs authority POTUS enjoys, and likely illegal -- and which Congress must look at
28 July - Coates resigns effective August 15th
8 August - Coates interrupts meeting to tell Gordon she needs to resign.
8 August - Gordon resigns effective August 15th
12 August - Whistleblower files IC IG complaint
15 August - Coates and Gordon out.