"Ambiguity in the law"

UPDATE - among other things in the legal opinion, the letter the GC for ODNI sent to the committees said they believe the complaint in question didn't meet the statutory definition of an "urgent concern."

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 22, 2019

That "legal defense" (it isn't one, btw) that some reporters dutifully reported (good little stenographers that they are) is undermined by the letter referenced here.

As I understand the statute, it does not give DOJ or the DNI or anyone else in the hierarchy the authority to overrule a decision about a complaint being an "urgent concern."  That's the very point of such a statute:  to prevent the kind of corruption we are seeing here by making the process as automatic as possible, and as removed from political players as possible (appointees and elected officials, IOW).

There's no ambiguity here.  The statute says "shall" for what has to be turned over to Congress in a matter like this, and doesn't allow for some review process by political appointees to decide "shall not."

This is the constitutional crisis everyone has been looking for.  I knew when it came, no one would recognize it.  It's the made-up terror that every pundit wants to name but no one ever does because, you know, "ambiguities."

I'll retire to Bedlam....