Why did the ICIG evaluate this stupidity in the first place? Reporting on this matter does not appear to support a finding of “urgent concern” as defined in the statute. Even if the statements/actions attributed to POTUS occurred, it did not involve an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI. Why the ICIG would have determined otherwise is a mystery. Why the DNI would have disputed that finding is not.  If, however, the reporting is correct that the “whistle-blower” report was not based on first-hand knowledge of the conversation (either listening to the conversation live or a recording or reading a transcript), but rather on what he heard someone else claim took place, there should serious repercussions for filing a knowingly false IG report. Presumably, the IG’s initial investigation would have uncovered the fact that the initial report was based on hearsay. Once again, why the ICIG would have deemed the information credible is a mystery. Also, if the report was not passed on to the committees by the ICIG or DNI, how did they become aware of its existence in the first place? It would seem there is yet another leaker in the Intelligence Community.  (I think I may have answered my own question. 50 U.S.C. 3033 (k) (5) (D) The question then becomes whether the person making the report followed the law in going directly to the Congressional committee.) Interestingly, the decisions of the DNI and the ICIG regarding complaints/reports made to the Inspector General are not subject to judicial review. 50 U.S.C. §3033 (k) (5) (F) So to recap. Based on the available media reporting: •The initial ICIG report was based on hearsay and is therefore of questionable credibility; •The information reported did not involve an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI and could not be considered “of urgent concern” as defined in the statute; •Since the information reported did not involve an activity within the responsibility and authority of the DNI, the ICIG shouldn’t have taken the information in the first place (50 U.S.C. §3033 (g) (3)), much less investigated it. Even if, as reported, POTUS encouraged the Ukrainian president to investigate reported possible corruption involving the former Vice President of the United States and his son, in what way is that illegal? Shouldn’t world leaders encourage each other to combat corruption by government officials? None of the reporting I’ve seen has even alleged the offer of a quid pro quo (such as an offer of a billion dollars in loan guarantees if a particular prosecutor was fired.)