President Donald Trump's acting intelligence chief, Richard Grenell, has rebuffed a request from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff for details about his efforts to reorganize the leadership of the office he is temporarily running.

In a Monday letter to Schiff, obtained by POLITICO, Grenell chides Schiff for asking about the leadership changes without acknowledging the appointment of two women as acting leaders of the National Counterterrorism Center.

"Diversity of the IC workforce should always be celebrated, and I am proud that we increased diversity within the ODNI's senior ranks, to include more women and members of the LGBT community," said Grenell, who is openly gay.

But Grenell's sharply worded missive is not responsive to any of Schiff's requests for details about the acting intelligence chief’s efforts to remake aspects of the intelligence community while serving in his role. Schiff said wholesale changes to the operation of the crucial national security apparatus would be inappropriate without a Senate-confirmed leader in place. He asked for details about the changes Grenell has reportedly imposed, as well as justification for the decisions.

"President Trump did not nominate you for confirmation as permanent DNI, and it would be inappropriate for you to pursue any additional leadership, organizational, or staffing changes to ODNI during your temporary tenure," Schiff wrote in an April 7 letter.

Grenell is seen as a diehard Trump loyalist, and his installation as acting DNI came amid Trump's fury at intelligence community leaders for their role in the investigation of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia in 2016, as well as their handling of the evidence that Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political adversaries, including former vice president Joe Biden.

Since Grenell's appointment, other senior DNI officials have been pushed out or resigned, a high-level personnel shift that has accelerated as Trump tightened his grip on the intelligence community in the aftermath of his Feb. 5 acquittal in the Senate's impeachment trial. Trump's abrupt removal of Atkinson earlier this month has left the agency without any Senate-confirmed officials in its leadership ranks. In his letter, Grenell attributed the shakeup to his efforts to implement recommendations from career officials.

"Career IC officials have conducted four studies in the last two years calling for reforms at the ODNI, and the career officials are eager to implement the recommendations. It is my duty to listen to these ODNI career employees who have ideas on how to improve the work we do for the American people," Grenell wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, Schiff ripped Grenell's letter as insufficient and unresponsive.

“In his letter, Acting Director Grenell did not respond in any way to our oversight requests regarding the decision to fire the IC IG, sudden staffing changes at the NCTC, and his pursuit of structural and personnel changes at the ODNI without the approval of Congress," Schiff said in a statement. "And the Acting Director failed to respond to important questions about whether [DNI inspector general Michael Atkinson] was investigating matters that may go uninvestigated as a result of his firing by Trump. The simple fact he was not willing to respond to a reasonable request from his agency’s oversight committee raises new basis for our concerns, particularly given this Administration’s history of covering up blatant misconduct."

“The Office of the Director of National Intelligence owes us, and the Senate as well, answers to these questions," Schiff continued, adding. "We remain ready to work with ODNI to ensure compliance with our oversight requests, consistent with its legal obligation to keep the Committee fully and currently informed of its activities.”

Amid growing alarm over these changes in Congress, Schiff in his April 7 letter also asked Grenell for confirmation that Atkinson was never prohibited from conducting any investigations or audits before he was ousted. He also asked Grenell to certify that he would not allow any agency officials to be retaliated against for perceived disloyalty to Trump, particularly if they share evidence of misconduct to Congress.

Schiff also asked for details about whether any agency officials were blocked from sharing candid assessments with Congress about election security and potential foreign efforts to undermine the integrity of the 2020 election. He cited reports that "one or more members of your staff" might be interfering with the evidence provided to Congress.

Grenell rejected Schiff's characterization and said he felt "compelled to defend these career officers from unsubstantiated indictments of their motivations and judgment."

"Many are offended by the accusations that they did not share unvarnished assessments," Grenell said, asking Schiff to provide more evidence of his assertions.

Grenell also told Schiff "to think of the relationship between your committee and the IC as that between the legislative and executive branches of government, rather than that between a hedge fund and a distressed asset, as your letter suggests." And he needled Schiff for sending the letter without a Republicans co-signer.

Schiff and his committee's top GOP lawmaker, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), have had a toxic relationship in recent years, with Nunes emerging as one of Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress while Schiff ramped up investigations into Trump's conduct and ultimately led the House's effort to remove the president from office.

"I strongly agree with your statement of a bipartisan legislative commitment to the IC," Grenell wrote. "I would hope to see this commitment reflected on the signature line of your future letters.

(Bloomberg) -- Joe Biden raised $46.7 million in March, his best monthly haul of the U.S. presidential campaign, even though the coronavirus pandemic shut down large swathes of the U.S. and prevented in-person fundraising.Biden ended March with $26.4 million cash on hand, according to his latest filing with the Federal Election Commission. He still lags behind President Donald Trump’s fundraising juggernaut, but coupled with a strong showing by the Democratic National Committee, he has started to gain ground.Biden and the DNC brought in $79.4 million, topping the $63 million that Trump, the Republican National Committee and two supporting committees raised. The GOP still has more cash on hand -- $240 million at the end of March -- than the combined $62.2 million Biden and the DNC had.The DNC raised $32.7 million, topping the RNC’s $24 million and besting its monthly total for the first time in the 2020 election cycle.The strong showing for the Democrats comes after a month in which Biden confirmed his status as the presumptive Democratic nominee with a string of primary victories that forced his remaining rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, to drop out of the race.Throughout the nominating contest, Biden was one of the weakest fundraisers among the major Democratic candidates. Through the end of February, he’d raised less than Sanders, the Democrat’s top fundraiser to that point, as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg.Democratic-aligned super political action committees also released their March numbers on Monday. Unite the Country, formed last October to shield Biden from attacks by Trump and his allies during the House impeachment inquiry, raised $10 million, its biggest month of fundraising. That was more than the $9.4 million that Trump’s super-PAC, America First Action, raised in the first quarter.Top donors to Unite the Country included hedge fund manager James Simons, who gave $3 million, Choice Hotels International Chairman Stewart W. Bainum, who gave $2 million, and Baupost Group’s Chief Executive Officer Seth Klarman, who gave $500,000. It spent $4.6 million and started April with $6.9 million in the bank.Priorities USA, which Biden designated last Wednesday as his campaign’s preferred destination for big donors, raised $4 million, spent $4.4 million and ended the month with $21.1 million in the bank.Federal candidates can’t coordinate spending with super-PACs, but they can solicit donations of up to $5,000 for them. Investor Bernard L. Schwartz, an early backer of Unite the Country, donated $100,000 to Priorities in March. The League of Conservation Voters Victory Fund, which gave $2 million, was the biggest donor.Pacronym, which is focusing on digital ads, raised $1.6 million in the same period, spent $1.1 million and ended March with $7.4 million cash on hand. It got a $1.5 million donation from Democracy PAC, a super-PAC whose sole donor is hedge fund manager George Soros.Sanders raised $33 million in March while spending $35 million and ending the month with $16 million cash on hand, his FEC filings show.‘Family Guy’Overall, Sanders took in $201 million for his second presidential run, making him the top fundraiser among Democrats. Most of the money came from contributors giving $200 or less. But Biden’s resurgence in South Carolina and the narrowing of the field before and after Super Tuesday, combined with uncertainty over the resumption of primary season amid the coronavirus pandemic, led Sanders to exit the race on April 8.The DNC’s strong month of fundraising came as it moved to Zoom to host virtual fundraisers amid the coronavirus crisis. It also received a boost from Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the TV series “Family Guy,” who donated $865,000 to a committee that supports the DNC and state parties, and Schwartz, who gave $250,000.The DNC’s biggest contribution was the $18 million transfered to the party by Michael Bloomberg, who put $1 billion into his short-lived Democratic presidential bid, a record-shattering amount for any campaign. The former New York mayor spent $176 million in March as he wound down his operation. His campaign ended the month with $11 million in the bank and $14.8 million in debts.Biden appeared to be on track for the best fundraising month of his career when the pandemic struck, upending campaigns and the primary season. The former vice president said he’d raised $33 million in the first half of March before the virus put the country, including political campaigns, into quarantine.The campaign said 70% of its donations came online, with the average donation coming in at $40.(Disclaimer: Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.)For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

Two top House Democrats are asking internal Justice Department watchdogs to investigate Attorney General William Barr for recent comments they say misrepresented the facts about President Donald Trump's decision to fire Michael Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community.

Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) say Barr's comments, in an April 9 interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham, may have violated DOJ's code of professional conduct, which requires officials to operate with "candor."

The two lawmakers asked Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz to investigate whether Barr violated professional responsibilities in his comments about Atkinson and also whether he improperly interfered in Atkinson's efforts to alert Congress to alleged misconduct by Trump last fall.

"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," they wrote, referring to the complaint that sparked Trump’s impeachment trial.

Trump abruptly fired Atkinson earlier this month, citing Atkinson's decision to inform Congress about the existence of a whistleblower complaint alleging that Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his Democratic adversaries. Atkinson deemed the complaint "urgent" and credible, which triggers a legal requirement to inform Congress. However, the White House and Justice Department intervened, overruling Atkinson's determination and blocking him from sharing it with Congress.

Ultimately, Atkinson did not share the complaint with Congress but the public pressure surrounding the incident led the administration to share the details with lawmakers in September.

Yet Barr, in his Fox interview, suggested Atkinson deserved to be fired because he violated Justice Department protocols, a characterization that Nadler and Schiff say falsely impugns his actions.

Justice Department officials acknowledged receiving the letter from the Democratic chairmen.

A senior DOJ aide said despite the allegations, Barr's assessment of Atkinson's conduct was correct. Atkinson, the official said, should have deferred to the Justice Department's legal opinion that Congress was not entitled to the substance of the complaint and was incorrect to inform lawmakers of its existence and that that he disagreed with DOJ's opinion to bar them from receiving it.

Schiff and Nadler noted that Atkinson's decision to inform Congress of the existence of the complaint was subsequently blessed by the acting intelligence director Joseph Maguire, who told lawmakers the same month that Atkinson handled the matter "by the book."

It's unclear if Horowitz will consider the lawmakers' request — he received an identical one from Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Mark Warner of Virginia last week as well. But the veteran watchdog has tangled with Trump repeatedly in recent years. Most notably, Horowitz defended Atkinson's actions surrounding the whistleblower report after Trump's decision to remove him.

"Inspector General Atkinson is known throughout the Inspector General community for his integrity, professionalism, and commitment to the rule of law and independent oversight," Horowitz said at the time. "That includes his actions in handling the Ukraine whistleblower complaint, which the then Acting Director of National Intelligence stated in congressional testimony was done 'by the book' and consistent with the law."

Horowitz also issued reports sharply critical of the FBI's handling of both the Clinton email investigation and Trump-Russia investigation, simultaneously providing fodder for Trump and his allies while also debunking a string of conspiracy theories about the handling of both probes.

In their letter, Nadler and Schiff also copied Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handle internal disciplinary matters.

Representatives Adam Schiff (D., Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D., N.Y.) requested that Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz investigate attorney general William Barr for defending President Trump’s decision to fire the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) Michael Atkinson.In a Monday letter, the heads of the House Intelligence and House Judiciary committees accused Barr of violating Department of Justice “policies and rules of professional conduct” during an interview with Fox News' Laura Ingraham earlier this month, in which he said the president “did the right thing” in firing Atkinson, who filed the whistleblower complaint that dealt with Trump’s conduct on a call with the Ukrainian president and touched off the president’s impeachment.“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 into a commission to explore anything in the government and immediately report it to Congress without letting the executive branch look at it and determine whether there was any problem,” Barr explained.Schiff and Nadler said that Barr “blatantly mischaracterized” the firing, and suggested he was “justifying the President’s retaliatory decision to fire Mr. Atkinson.”“To the contrary, Mr. Atkinson faithfully discharged his legal obligations as an independent and impartial Inspector General in accordance with federal law,” they argue.The two point to “the coordinated efforts” between the DOJ and the White House to keep the whistleblower complaint from being reported, as part of Barr’s “disturbing pattern of misrepresenting facts and falsely alleging misconduct by other government officials in order to defend the President’s own misconduct.”Following initial news of the whistleblower complaint in September, Schiff threatened to sue the White House for access to the complaint, explaining that “we have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” In October, The New York Times revealed that the whistleblower had communicated with Schiff’s staff before submitting the formal complaint.Schiff and Nadler, who in October warned that Barr’s elevating of John Durham’s Russiagate probe amounted to “a vehicle for President Trump’s political revenge,” also cite U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton’s decision last month for the DOJ to hand over an unredacted Mueller Report, over “grave concerns” about Barr’s “objectivity,” as further proof of bias.“Public confidence in our system of justice depends on the integrity, fairness, and impartiality of DOJ’s leadership,” they close. “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.”

Lawmakers handed President Donald Trump $2 trillion in coronavirus relief — and then left town without activating any of the powerful new oversight tools meant to hold his administration accountable.

But with little fanfare, Congress’ independent, in-house watchdog is preparing a blizzard of audits that will become the first wide-ranging check on Trump’s handling of the sprawling national rescue effort.

And even as Trump has gone to war against internal watchdogs in his administration, the Government Accountability Office remains largely out of the president’s grasp because of its home in the legislative branch.

The GAO has quickly taken advantage of its perch, exploring the early missteps inherent in launching a multitrillion-dollar law that touches every facet of American life. By the end of April, at least 30 CARES Act reviews and audits — "engagements," per GAO lingo — are expected be underway, according to interviews with senior investigators.

Topics will range from the government’s handling of coronavirus testing to its distribution of medical equipment, and from the nation’s food supply to nursing home infections and any missteps in distributing the emergency cash payments that began landing in millions of Americans’ bank accounts this week. The office’s top fraud investigator said it’s already received a complaint about a check landing in the account of a deceased person.

“We’re moving forward very quickly,” said Angela Nicole Clowers, chief of the GAO’s health care unit. “We’re an existing institution and have a lot of institutional knowledge about all these programs. It gives us sort of a leg up.”

At a time when Trump has sought to undermine nearly every independent review of his administration’s conduct, the GAO is likely to dispatch most of its 3,000 investigators, experts and analysts into an arena that could make it a target for the president’s fury. And its quiet early work could soon become very loud: The office is required under the new law to brief Congress every month and issue a bimonthly public report on its findings.

But as an independent agency that works for Congress — not the president — the GAO has far more protection from Trump. A nonpartisan entity responsive to both Democratic and Republican requests for investigations, the office is also more insulated from partisan attacks than the traditional congressional committee investigations that Trump has stonewalled to the brink of irrelevance.

The office's head, U.S. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, first started in the role in 2008 and was confirmed unanimously to the position in 2010 for a 15-year term, a lengthy tenure meant to protect against politics seeping into the post.

And the GAO will enter the fray with reinforcements at its disposal: The CARES Act provided a $20 million funding boost and the agency is now deciding where to target the funds to add auditors and experts who can aid its work.

“Within GAO, we have everyone from policy analysts or public policy people like myself,” Clowers said, “we have nurses, we have scientists, we have engineers, we have lawyers. You sort of name an occupation, we have ’em.”

With other oversight mechanisms established in the CARES Act languishing — or stymied by Trump — the GAO, at least for now, is on its own.

The GAO also has the benefit of having analyzed the federal response to the 2008-09 financial collapse, a similarly far-reaching effort whose successes and failures are now informing the office’s handling of coronavirus oversight.

“Things are always shifting and changing as the agencies shift and change to the evolving pandemic needs,” Clowers said, comparing it to the breakneck pace of the response to the financial meltdown. “We have experience doing that. We try to be as nimble as possible.”

Trump has already tangled with the GAO during the most perilous moment of his presidency, and the agency does face some hurtles in investigating him.

The office probed his decision to delay $400 million in military aid to Ukraine and found that he violated the law by failing to inform Congress of the move. It was a politically explosive finding even if Republicans largely ignored it during the impeachment trial. GAO also noted that the White House budget office and State Department were largely uncooperative in the probe — and the administration could impose similar limitations in its coronavirus work.

Clowers argued the GAO’s strong relationships with the agencies it oversees should minimize similar resistance to coronavirus relief oversight. The office has already been coordinating its efforts with internal agency watchdogs to ensure they bolster, and don’t duplicate, one another’s efforts. Clowers said she’s spoken with the inspectors general at the departments of Health and Human Services and of Veterans Affairs.

That’s allowed audits and investigations to begin even as the other policing bodies set up in the CARES Act are stuck in neutral.

Congressional leaders have yet to appoint a chair to lead a five-member commission meant to monitor a new $500 billion Treasury fund for distressed industries and companies. Trump nominated a White House lawyer to fill a newly created watchdog post to oversee the same $500 billion fund, but the choice has generated controversy and is unlikely to see confirmation for weeks.

And earlier this month, Trump upended a newly created committee of existing inspectors general — granted broad power to oversee the massive rescue package — when he effectively ousted its chairman and left the panel scrambling to regroup.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed creating a new bipartisan House committee to conduct oversight of the CARES Act, but it likely will need a House vote to be established and won’t launch for weeks since Congress is recessed until early May at least. Other congressional committees are holding telephone conferences with senior federal officials and attempting to wrest crucial information from the notoriously tight-lipped administration. But they’re finding it extremely challenging to put the squeeze on Trump from afar.

That’s left the GAO, which has existed in its current form since the Nixon era, standing as the only fully functioning oversight mechanism empowered to watch Trump’s handling of the new law. And it’s taking requests: The agency prioritizes reviews required by laws such as the CARES Act but it also handles asks from congressional committees — giving equal weight to requests from either party.

And in a rare example of unity, Republicans and Democrats have both hailed the office as a valuable nonpartisan overseer that has served both parties well.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who requested the office’s review of Trump’s handling of Ukraine aide, said the GAO is as important as ever in its role as coronavirus relief monitor. Notably, it has subpoena power as well as routes to circumvent Trump blockades by pursuing records from states, companies and other entities that receive coronavirus funds, not just agencies that dole it out. And Van Hollen said Congress might even consider empowering GAO further.

“We may need to strengthen GAO’s arsenal going forward,” he said. “They can bring lawsuits and seek court orders to provide information but those can be a long process. We may need to allow them to expedite that process to enforce their subpoenas.”

Other lawmakers emphasize that the real-time work by GAO is a slight shift from its normally long-term top-to-bottom reviews. The office is slated to confer with the House Energy and Commerce Committee about how it will provide its analyses and reports to Congress and what details they’ll include.

“GAO is always significant,” said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the top Republican on Energy and Commerce. “Their expertise and resources is a major asset that our committee taps often.”

In the early weeks of CARES Act implementation, the office’s fraud unit is counting on witnesses to potential fraud to come forward proactively. That was the case, said Howard Arp, the office’s fraud unit chief, when someone recently reported the delivery of a coronavirus cash payment to the account of someone who died in 2019. The one-off error is already prompting a wider look at whether this could become a systemic issue.

“Thankfully, that family was nice enough to return the fund,” Arp said in an interview. “That then causes us to start asking questions. How could that happen? What control was missed? That is already starting.”

There is anecdotal evidence that the matter has cropped up more than once: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) indicated he was told of a similar error from a friend, and similar stories made the rounds on Twitter.

In fact, under the structure of the law, the IRS is set to send money to anyone who filed a 2018 or 2019 tax return, so more dead people are likely to be receiving funds. Tens of thousands of the departed also received aid under the Obama-era recovery package because of a similar setup, though many checks were returned.

GAO relies on its anonymous reporting network known as FraudNet to receive tips and complaints about fraud or mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. Arp said GAO will aggressively market its existence in the early days of the CARES Act, and he said his unit will focus on areas of government that received massive infusions of funding and a short timeline to start spending it.

“Our pace has picked up,” Arp said.

GAO has already encountered one early, unavoidable roadblock to its investigations — one it hasn’t had experience with despite its long history. The agencies it oversees are largely working remotely because of the coronavirus threat. Arp said that this “environment of adjustment” may result in slowdowns in responses to GAO inquiries.

Clowers, too, underscored that widespread telework would limit one of GAO’s classic functions: site visits where “we go observe, we touch, we feel, we see.”

“Right now, we’re not able to do that,” she said, “but we’re leveraging technology to the extent we can.”

The Utah senator was the only GOP member to vote for the president’s impeachment in February.