This is not the deal you were looking for

White House is likely to release the whistleblower complaint, which is currently going through the declassification process, by the end of the week and as soon as tomorrow, ppl briefed on the matter said. https://t.co/f620gOhZ5E

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 25, 2019

The pertinent paragraphs, annotated:

White House and intelligence officials were working out a plan on Tuesday to release a redacted version of the whistle-blower complaint that helped ignite the impeachment drive against President Trump and to allow the whistle-blower to speak with congressional investigators, people briefed on the matter said. 

So, nobody from Congress, and a "redacted" version, which is not what the statute contemplates.  There is no security reason not to release the entire report as a classified document.  The entire report doesn't have to be released to the public.

I said this would be the Mueller report redux, didn't I?

The move toward disclosing more information demanded by Democrats was part of a broader effort by the administration to quell the growing calls for Mr. Trump’s impeachment, and became public after Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of a formal impeachment inquiry. 

The people are revolting!  Throw them a cake!  Let 'em eat that!

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that in a private call that she had with the president on Tuesday, he said he was not responsible for the whistle-blower complaint being withheld from Congress, according to Democrats.

He's just the President, it's not like he's in charge!

This part is just cute:

The appearance that they were stonewalling Congress, in their view, could prove more damaging than the whistle-blower’s account. Mr. Trump also believes that the allegations about him are not nearly as damning as they have been portrayed and that disclosing them will undercut the impeachment drive, people close to the president said. 

Let's let Judge Andrew Napolitano address that issue:

“It is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government,” said Napolitano.

“So, that to which the president has admitted is in and of itself a crime?” Smith asked.

“Yes, it is the same crime for which the Trump Organization was investigated by Bob Mueller, who decided not to seek an indictment because there wasn’t enough evidence,” Napolitano agreed.

“Well, no, he said he didn’t seek an indictment because he wasn’t charged because of the DOJ rule that said, ‘you can lay it out, but you can’t charge,'” Smith corrected.

“That’s on the obstruction of justice, whether or not there was a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump campaign,” Napolitano explained. “He said there’s some evidence but not enough to indict. It’s the same crime: an agreement or solicitation for assistance for an American campaign regulated by the Federal Elections Commission where you are seeking assistance from a foreign government. That’s a crime.”
....

He went on to say that the Trump administration is “on very thin ice” for blocking the inspector general from turning over a complaint to Congress because the statues dictate that it must be.

“He didn’t do that. He got a cockamamie —- I’ll tell you why I say that in a minute — ruling from the Justice Department that he didn’t have to bring it. The ruling from the Justice Department says, ‘Well, wait a minute. The complaint was filed with the inspector general of the intelligence community. The president doesn’t work for the intelligence community, he works for the American public, and therefore that complaint is moot.'”

Napolitano exclaimed his shock that it would be moot, saying that the president of the United States was accused of bribery, “How can that be moot!?”

Under the statute, Congress has every right to the complaint, he explained. Meanwhile, the president

“Bribery absolutely it is an impeachable offense, there’s no equivocation,” he said. “And why do I say that? It’s stated in the Constitution. The basis for impeachment: Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The president offered a bribe — if the president offered a bribe to the president of the Ukraine, that would be an impeachable offense.” 

Bribery is not just accepting the bribe, but offering it.  In Trump's mind. Biden committed bribery by withholding funds until Ukraine fired the corrupt former prosecutor.  But Biden did that on behalf of the U.S. government and its allies and the International Monetary Fund, trying to root out corruption in Ukraine and set that government on a firm footing.  He didn't do it to help his campaign against a GOP opponent.

If Trump doesn't understand that difference, he's going to be surprised that his ignorance is not a legal defense.

Of course, if the complaint is redacted, what the whistleblower can testify to is going to be similarly limited.  Which turns this deal into not much of a deal at all.