The legislation that protects whistle-blowers coming forward with sensitive intelligence information says that the whistle-blower complaint (which you can read here) had to be provided to Congress within seven days. But it's been a month since the whistle-blower complaint was given to the Director of National Intelligence. So what took so long? What was the hold-up?

That was the first line of questioning this morning before Congress after the opening statement by acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, a Trump appointee who's only been on the job for 42 days.

Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff carried out the questioning. The gist was: Did the White House attempt to stall or prevent the release the whistle-blower complaint that alleged the White House covered-up the illegal phone conversation between Trump and Ukraine President Zelenskyy? Was there an attempted cover-up of the cover-up?

A clip of Schiff's questioning of Maguire is below, along with a transcript I have lovingly created for you, the American people, while sitting in my underwear on the couch drinking untold quantities of coffee (there is no available transcript online yet).

The Whistle-Blower Protection Act says, as Nancy Pelosi emphasized two days ago, that if a complaint is credible and urgent, the acting DNI "shall" provide it to Congress within seven days. So why didn't Congress get it in seven days? Why did the acting DNI Maguire hold onto it until yesterday?

This turned out to be an interesting exchange.

Can we agree, Shiff asked Maguire, "that it was urgent that if the President of the United States was withholding military aid to an ally even as you received the complaint—and was doing so for a nefarious reason, that is, to exercise leverage over the president of Ukraine, to dig up manufactured dirt on his opponent—can we agree that [the whistle-blower complaint] was urgent while that aid was being withheld?"

"It was urgent and it was important," Maguire agreed, "but my job, as the Director of National Intelligence, was to comply with the Whistle-Blower Protection Act..."

"And to adhere to the meaning of the term 'shall,'" Schiff said.

"Yes, sir," Maguire said.

My transcript of what follows begins at 3:15 in that clip above. Because this is a lot of text, and because it's hard to read lots of text when it's in tiny blockquote formatting, I'm not going to use blockquote formatting here, but I'll set off the transcript with three stars.

***

SCHIFF: In this case, you sought a second opinion of whether "shall" really means "shall." By going to the White House.

MAGUIRE: No sir... It appeared that it also had matters of executive privilege. I am not authorized as the director of national intelligence to waive executive privilege.

SCHIFF: And at any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the White House assert executive privilege?

MAGUIRE: [Shaking head] Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored...

SCHIFF: I think that's a yes or no question. Did they ever assert executive privilege?

MAGUIRE: They were working through executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to exert executive privilege.

SCHIFF: So they never exerted executive privilege—is that the answer?

MAGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, if they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday and all the information that has been forthcoming.

SCHIFF: Now, the first place you went to was the White House, am I to understand that from your opening statement? It wasn't to the Department of Justice? The first place you went to for a second opinion was to the White House?

MAGUIRE: I did not go for a second opinion. The question was: Is the information contained here subject to executive privilege...

SCHIFF: So the first place you went to for advice as to whether you should provide the complaint, as the statue requires, to Congress, was the White House.

MAGUIRE: I am not authorized, as the Director of National Intelligence, to provide executive privileged information. I think it is prudent, as a member of the executive branch, to check to ensure that in fact it does not.

SCHIFF: I'm just asking about the sequencing here. Did you first go to the White House to determine whether you should provide this complaint to Congress?

MAGUIRE: No sir. That was not the question. The question was whether or not it has executive privilege, not whether or not I should send it on to Congress.

SCHIFF: Is the first party you went to outside of your office to seek advice/counsel/direction the White House?

MAGUIRE: I have consulted with the White House counsel, and eventually we also consulted with the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.

SCHIFF: And my question is: Did you go to the White House first?

MAGUIRE: I went to the Office of Legal Counsel for advice, yes sir.

SCHIFF: Well, I'm asking which you went to first. Did you go to the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel first, or did you go to the White House first?

MAGUIRE: I went to the Office—well, excuse me. My team, my office, went to the Office of Legal Counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege [protection]. They viewed it and said, "We've determined that it appears to be executive privilege." And until executive privilege is determined and cleared, I did not have the authority to send it to the [Congressional] committee. I worked with the Office of Legal Counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. It's a very deliberate process.

SCHIFF: Well, director, I'm still trying to understand the chronology. So you first went to the Office of Legal Counsel [at DOJ] and then you went to White House counsel?

MAGUIRE: We went—excuse me—and then to the—repeat that please, sir?

SCHIFF: I'm just trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the Office of Legal Counsel and then you went to the White House counsel?

MAGUIRE: No no no, sir. No, sir. We went to the White House first to determine, to ask the question—

SCHIFF: OK, that's all I want to know is chronology. So you went to the White House first. So, you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to Congress.

MAGUIRE: There were issues within this. A couple of things. One, it did appear that it had executive privilege. If it does have executive privilege, it is the White House that determines that. I cannot determine that as the Director of National Intelligence.

SCHIFF: But in this case, the president is the subject of the complaint. He's the subject of the wrongdoing. Were you aware when you went to the White House for advice about whether evidence of wrongdoing by the White House should be provided to the Congress, were you aware that the White House counsel has taken the unprecedented position that executive privilege applies to communications involving the president when he was president, involving the president when he wasn't president, involving people who never served in the administration, involving people who never served in the administration even when they're not even talking to the president? Were you aware that that is the unprecedented position of the White House—the White House you went to for advice about whether you should turn over a complaint involving the White House?

MAGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening statement, I believe that everything here in this matter is totally unprecedented... To me, it just seemed prudent, to be able to check and ensure, as a member of the executive branch, before I sent it forward...

SCHIFF: The second place you went to was the Justice Department, and you went to that department headed by a man, Bill Barr, who is also implicated in the complaint. And you knew that when you went to the Department of Justice for an opinion, correct? That Bill Barr was mentioned in the complaint?

MAGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, I went to the Office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the [inspector general], he was a part of that, to receive whether or not this met the criteria—

SCHIFF: Yes but that [inspector general] vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the Bill Bar Justice Department, did he not?

MAGUIRE: He still considered it a matter of urgent concern. However, as you know, opinions from Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch.

SCHIFF: Well let me ask you this. Do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who's the subject of the complaint to get advice, who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint? Did that conflict of interest concern you?

MAGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, when I saw this report, and complaint, immediately I knew that this was a serious matter. It came to me, and I just thought it would be prudent—

SCHIFF: Well, I'm just asking if the conflict of interest concerned you.

MAGUIRE: Well, sir, I have to work with what I've got, and that is the Office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch—

SCHIFF: Well what you also had was a statue that says "shall," and even then you said you had the discretion to provide it but did not.

MAGUIRE: Because [I believed] it did not meet the matter of urgent concern, that took away the seven-day timeline. I have endeavored to work with the Office of Legal Counsel in order to get the material to you, which we have provided to you yesterday. It is perhaps not at the timeline that I would have desired, or you, but the Office of Legal Counsel has to make sure they make prudent decisions. And yesterday, when the president released the transcripts of his call with the president of Ukraine, then executive privilege no longer applied, and that is when I was free to send the complaint to the [Congressional] committee.

In other words, Maguire's feeling that this was not urgent (which does not pass the smell test) and that he needed to make sure it was not protected by executive privilege (which would be a convenient excuse to let Trump conceal this from the public) is what prevented him from giving it to Congress within seven days. But once that transcript Trump released yesterday was out, the transcript that he thought was going to exonerate him of any wrongdoing—"It was a perfect call," he kept saying—executive privilege no longer applied to the substance of the whistle-blower complaint. Which is the reason we can now read the whistle-blower complaint.

The release of that transcript immediately put a stop to the White House being able to dither about whether they were going to be able to prevent the release of the complaint based on the assertion of executive privilege. Amazing.

It's like when a serial killer who's gotten away with crime after crime makes one wrong step and everything comes crashing down. Trump's impulsive move to try to get ahead of the news cycle yesterday—to try to retake control of the story by releasing a transcript he thought made him look good—is the very reason this just blew up in his face. Once he did that, the DNI could release the whistle-blower complaint without worrying about executive privilege, and once members of Congress started reading the whistle-blower complaint, the number of House members willing to impeach him crossed the 218-vote threshold for impeachment.