April 20, 2020
Jeffrey R. Ragsdale
Acting Director and Chief Counsel
Office of Professional Responsibility
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Ragsdale and Mr. Horowitz:
We write to request that you investigate whether recent public statements by Attorney
General William Barr regarding former Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG)
Michael Atkinson violated applicable Department of Justice (DOJ) policies and rules of
professional conduct.
In a televised interview on April 9, 2020, Mr. Barr blatantly mischaracterized Mr.
Atkinson’s conduct and DOJ’s own actions relating to the complaint filed last summer by an
Intelligence Community whistleblower.1 The complaint detailed President Trump’s efforts to
coerce Ukraine to announce a politically-motivated investigation of his rival in the 2020
presidential election. Mr. Barr’s remarks followed the President’s admission on April 4 that he
fired Mr. Atkinson in retaliation for Mr. Atkinson’s handling—in accordance with the law—of
the whistleblower complaint.2 The House of Representatives’ investigation independently
confirmed the whistleblower’s account of the President’s abuse of power, for which the President
was subsequently impeached. Mr. Barr’s misleading remarks appear to have been aimed at
justifying the President’s retaliatory decision to fire Mr. Atkinson.
As Senators Diane Feinstein and Mark Warner underscored in their April 17 letter to you,
Mr. Atkinson neither “ignored” DOJ guidance, nor acted contrary to his legal and professional

Interview with Attorney General William Barr, Fox News, April 9, 2020 (“I think the president did the right thing
in removing Atkinson. From the vantage point of the Department of Justice, he had interpreted his statute, which is a
fairly narrow statute, that gave him jurisdiction over wrongdoing by Intelligence people, and tried to turn it in to a
commission to explore anything in the government and immediately report to Congress without letting the Executive
Branch look at it and determine whether there was any problem. He was told this in a letter from the Department of
Justice, and he is obliged to follow the interpretation of the Department of Justice, and he ignored it. So I think the
president was correct in firing him.”).
1

2

The White House, Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task
Force in Press Briefing, April 4, 2020 (Remarks of President Trump) (“I thought he [Mr. Atkinson] did a terrible
job. Absolutely terrible. He took a whistleblower report, which turned out to be a fake report — it was fake. It was
totally wrong. It was about my conversation with the President of Ukraine. He took a fake report and he brought it
to Congress, with an emergency. Okay? Not a big Trump fan — that, I can tell you.”), available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-memberscoronavirus-task-force-press-briefing-19.

 obligations in handling the whistleblower complaint, as Mr. Barr alleged.3 To the contrary, Mr.
Atkinson faithfully discharged his legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector
General in accordance with federal law.
Then-acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Joseph Maguire affirmed this in his
sworn testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on September 26, 2019. Mr. Maguire
testified that Mr. Atkinson handled the Ukraine whistleblower complaint “by the book” and in
strict accordance with statutory requirements.4 Mr. Atkinson never transmitted the
whistleblower complaint to the House or Senate Intelligence Committees, nor did he reveal its
contents to Congress. Instead, Mr. Atkinson properly alerted the congressional intelligence
committees to the existence of the whistleblower complaint after he was unable to resolve a
difference with acting DNI Maguire about whether the complaint should be transmitted to
Congress.5 Mr. Maguire testified that he supported Mr. Atkinson’s decision to alert the
congressional intelligence committees. In short, President Trump fired Mr. Atkinson simply for
doing his job and following the law.
In maligning Mr. Atkinson and falsely portraying him as insubordinate, Mr. Barr
misrepresented DOJ’s legal opinion concerning the whistleblower complaint. Mr. Barr’s
remarks also ignored the impropriety of DOJ’s coordination with the White House to prevent a
whistleblower complaint concerning presidential misconduct from reaching Congress. In order
to keep Congress in the dark about the existence of the complaint, the White House and DOJ
collaborated to develop meritless justifications designed to circumvent the clear statutory
requirement that all such complaints “shall” be transmitted to the congressional intelligence
committees.6
Specifically, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a secret opinion that absurdly
concluded that the statute—contrary to its plain text—did not require acting DNI Maguire to

3

Interview with Attorney General William Barr, Fox News, April 9, 2020. See also Letter from Senators Dianne
Feinstein and Mark R. Warner to Jeffrey R. Ragsdale, Office of Professional Responsibility, and Michael E.
Horowitz, Inspector General, Department of Justice, April 17, 2020, available at:
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/4/74cc2af5-a011-41fe-b8a7af3fa9a1f97c/97EA40385B91689933EAC2099710A202.2020.04.17-df-mw-letter-to-opr-oig-re-ag-barr-misleadingstatements-final-pdf-.docx.pdf.
4

Testimony of Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, September 26, 2019, available at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190926/110027/HHRG-116-IG00-Transcript-20190926.pdf.
See 50 U.S.C. § 3033(k)(3)(A)(i) (“In the event that—the Inspector General is unable to resolve any differences
with the Director affecting the execution of the duties or responsibilities of the Inspector General; […] the Inspector
General shall immediately notify, and submit a report to, the congressional intelligence committees on such
matter.”) (emphasis added).
5

50 U.S.C. § 3033 (k)(5)(C) (“Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B), the
Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence
committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.”).
6

2

 forward the whistleblower complaint to Congress.7 For its part, the White House asserted that
the complaint involved information subject to executive privilege that acting DNI Maguire was
not authorized to release to Congress—even though executive privilege cannot be invoked to
shield misconduct and was, in fact, never invoked by the President.8
Contrary to Mr. Barr’s false assertion that Mr. Atkinson “ignored” DOJ’s legal guidance,
Mr. Atkinson explicitly acknowledged being bound by OLC’s opinion, while strongly
disagreeing with it. In a non-public letter to OLC, Mr. Atkinson highlighted the contorted
reasoning and troubling national security and oversight implications of OLC’s opinion that
“election interference by foreign actions … would not involve an activity or program of the
intelligence community under the DNI’s supervision.”9 Mr. Atkinson correctly observed that the
DNI is expressly charged by statute and executive orders—including one issued by President
Trump himself—to lead the Intelligence Community’s effort to protect the nation from foreign
election interference. After OLC’s opinion and Mr. Atkinson’s objections were made public, the
Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) sent a letter to OLC strongly
backing Mr. Atkinson’s position.10
Notwithstanding Mr. Atkinson’s meritorious objections, the coordinated efforts by the
White House and DOJ succeeded—temporarily—in preventing Congress from receiving the
whistleblower complaint. Only after immense public pressure and a subpoena issued by the
House Intelligence Committee did acting DNI Maguire produce the complaint to the
congressional intelligence committees in late September 2019. The role of Attorney General
Barr and other senior DOJ officials, in coordination with the White House, in attempting to
prevent the whistleblower complaint from reaching Congress—as required by law—warrants
your attention.
Moreover, Mr. Barr’s recent remarks are part of a disturbing pattern of misrepresenting
facts and falsely alleging misconduct by other government officials in order to defend the
Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, “Slip Opinion: ‘Urgent Concern’ Determination by the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community,” September 3, 2020, available at:
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1205711/download.
7

8

Testimony of Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire before the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, September 26, 2019, available at:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190926/110027/HHRG-116-IG00-Transcript-20190926.pdf.
9

Letter from Michael Atkinson, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, to Steven Engel, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, September 17, 2019, available at:
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/ICIG_letter_to_OLC.pdf.
10

See Letter from the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to Steven A. Engel, Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, October 22, 2019, available at:
https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/CIGIE_Letter_to_OLC_Whistleblower_Disclosure.pdf. (“This letter
from the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, on behalf of the undersigned federal
Inspectors General (IG), expresses our support for the position advanced by the ICIG and our concern that the OLC
opinion, if not withdrawn or modified, could seriously undermine the critical role whistleblowers play in coming
forward to report waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct across the federal government. Further, as addressed in detail
below, OLC’s interpretation regarding the ICWPA procedure in question, which mirrors the procedure that
Congress included in Section 5(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act), has the potential to undermine IG
independence across the federal government.”)

3

 President’s own misconduct. In the year since Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded his
investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, Mr. Barr has persistently
sought to mislead the American public in an effort to undermine the Special Counsel’s
investigation and findings, as well as those of the Department’s own Office of Inspector
General.11 Indeed, a federal judge recently examined Mr. Barr’s “lack of candor” and concluded
that Mr. Barr “distorted the findings in the Mueller Report,” which “cause[d] the Court to
seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public
discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump.”12
Public confidence in our system of justice depends on the integrity, fairness, and
impartiality of DOJ’s leadership. It is, therefore, imperative that the Attorney General be held to
the same high standard expected of all Department personnel, particularly in matters involving
the President’s own interests. We appreciate your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,


Adam B. Schiff
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

cc:

Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Devin Nunes, Ranking Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

11

For example, in the same April 9 interview, Mr. Barr claimed that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
initiated its 2016 investigation into the Trump campaign’s links to Russia “without any basis,” despite the Special
Counsel’s Office’s finding that “the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and
systematic fashion” and the Office of Inspector General’s exhaustive review, which found that the FBI in fact had an
authorized purpose and legitimate predicate for the investigation. See Department of Justice, Special Counsel’s
Office, Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, March 2019,
available at: https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf; Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General,
Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, December 2019,
available at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o20012.pdf. In a grave departure from DOJ practice and policy,
Mr. Barr has also prejudged a separate DOJ probe he initiated by insinuating criminal wrongdoing by officials
involved in identifying and defending the country against Russian interference in the 2016 election. See Interview
with Attorney General William Barr, Fox News, April 9, 2020.
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 19 Civ. 810 (RBW), 2020 WL 1060633 (D.D.C.
Mar. 5, 2020).
12

4