When and in our politics a lot of these legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else but i feel like you have a perspective when does a well see office of legislative Legal CounselLegal Counsel scuse me guidance override the laws passed by congress. The office of Legal Counsel does not override laws passed by congress what it does is it passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch and the office of Legal Counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. Good copy and i have 2 final questions im asking together to give you the time to answer them both. What is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode and when i say episode im referring to the media circus the political circus the technical issues that are related to this whistle blower revelation you alluded to it in some of your previous questions but i would i would like your your assessment of how this can impact intelligence operation in the future and i do believe this your 1st time testifying to congress in your position right. And i would welcome in the end i know this is off a little off topic what do you see our greatest challenges and threats to this country as the director of National Intelligence well. Let me answer that the lot of part of that i think that that the greatest challenge that we face is not necessarily from kinetic strike or with russia or china or iran or north korea i think the greatest challenge that we do have is to make sure that we maintain the integrity of our election system we know right now we know that there are foreign powers who are trying to get us to question the validity of whether or not our law our elections are valid so 1st and foremost i think that protecting the sanctity of our election but then the United States whether it be National City state local is perhaps the most important job that we have with the Intelligence Community side of that we do face significant threats id say the number one is not necessarily kinetic but cyber this is a cyber war we talk about whether or not the great competition is taking place with russia and china and we are you know building ships and weapons to do that but in my estimation the great competition with these countries is taking place right now and is doing that in the cyber at the moment my time is i think running outside the. Other implications on intelligence operations of this current whistleblower situation but i will tell you in light of this i clearly have a lot of work as the leader of this community to do you know to it reassure like to reassure that you know the Intelligence Community that in fact you know that we i have totally committed to the Whistleblower Program and i am absolutely absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual as well as making sure that Michael Atkinson who is our i. C. I. G. Continues to be able to his do his job and fed it but i think that with that i certainly have to be proactive in my communications with my team mr chairman i yield back the time i may just not have misconstrued thank you chairman thank you director mcguire for your testimony today i want to say thank you also to the whistleblower for having the courage in the bravery to come forward on behalf of the nation thank you mr achatz and also the Inspector General for his courage and coming forward to congress you mentioned that you believe that the whistleblowers report is is credible with the whistleblowers credible that the whistleblower acted in good faith you had a chance now as we have and i believe the American People have had an opportunity to review both the whistleblower complaint and the transcript that was released of the phone call between the president of the United States in the present ukraine youve read both documents by now havent you yes congressman would you say that the whistleblowers complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released i would say that the whistleblowers can complaint is an alignment with what was released yesterday by the of the president ok i want to read you a quick section of both to underscore exactly how accurate and consistent this complaint is. On page 2 of the whistleblowers complaint. The whistleblower says according to the white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call the president pressured mr selenski to and then theres a few bullet points the 1st one says an issue or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President joseph biden and his son hunter biden and the 3rd bullet point meet or speak with 2 people the president named explicitly as his personal envoy on these matters mr giuliani and attorney general barr to whom the president referred multiple times in tandem in the transcript that was released on page 4 of the 1st paragraph into what looks like the 3rd sentence President Trump says the former ambassador from United States the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news so i just want to let you know that the other thing theres a lot of talk about bidens son the biden stop the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution etc you have reason to doubt what the whistleblowers brought forward in back into michael at can since determination of whether or not was credible or urgent concern as the d. N. I. It is not my place to ensure that it is credible that is the i. C. I g. s job as the inspector he has determined that is credible my only trouble was that in fact it involves someone who is not in the Intelligence Community or in an organization under which i have authority and responsibility outside it at the director mcguire you agree that it involved Intelligence Matters it involved an issue of election interference it involved an investigation of u. S. Persons including a former Vice President if you had knowledge. Or the cia had knowledge that a government was going to investigate or drum up an investigation against a former Vice President would that not class about that would qualify as an intelligence matter would that qualify as an intelligence matter yes or no it well i dont mean to say thats kind of a hypothetical question sir and i dont think its hype and well if thats thats exactly whats in the transcript thats what hes asking for what the complaint the complaint but thats what the president is asking the the president of ukraine to do hes asking the president you k. Crane to investigate a former Vice President of the United States does that qualify as an intelligence matter that the cia would want to know the conversation was by the president to the president of ukraine as you know and is his i am not a mr magoo i understand but that cannot be that cannot be an ultimate shield against transparency it cant be an ultimate shield against accountability the president is not above the law one thing that you havent told us is if if if your office or the Inspector General is not able to investigate then who is able to investigate a congressman castro once again sure as i mentioned several times so far although it did not come to the committee the complaint was referred to did you dish will department for criminal investigation this was not swept under the rug i have i have one more question for you why did your office think you should appeal the i. G. Is determination about quote unquote urgent concern to the d. O. J. That has never been done before. Its never been done before this is unprecedented in that in the past that there has never been a matter that the Inspector General has investigated that did not involve a member of the Intelligence Community or an organization that the director of National Tell it one last point i would make with respect to you keep saying the president is not part of the Intelligence Community i believe he is the president you agree has the ability to declassify any single intelligence document you agree thats true the president has original Classification Authority how then how is that person outside of the Intelligence Community going to hes the president of the United States above the entire executive branch thank you thank you congressman mr cliff and chairman admiral good to see just again sir you served in the navy 36 years you commanded seal team 2 and you retired as vice admiral of the navy correct that is correct congressman and despite the fact that after that service you became acting d. N. I. 23 days after the trump zelinsky call and 4 days after the whistleblower made his or her complaint you were subpoenaed before this committee after being publicly accused of committing a crime correct yes congressman chairmanships wrote a letter on september 13th accusing you of being part of a quote unlawful cover up and then the speaker of the house took it one step further she went on national t. V. And said not once but twice that you broke the law that you committed a crime she said the acting director of National Intelligence blocked him meaning the i. C. I. G. From disclosing the whistleblower complaint this is a violation of the law. You were publicly accused of committing a crime you were also falsely accused of committing a crime as you have so accurately related you were required to follow not just an opinion of what the law is but the opinion from the Justice Department an 11 page opinion about whether or not you were required by law to report the whistleblower complaint correct thats correct congressman and that and that opinion says the question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the d. N. I. To forward to the Intelligence Committee we conclude that it does not read that accurately. You had better have right. Thats an opinion not from bill barr thats an opinion from the department of justice ethics lawyers not political appointees but career officials that serve republicans and democrats the ethics lawyers at the department of justice that determined that you did follow the law so you were publicly accused you were also falsely accused and yet here today i havent heard anything close to an apology for that welcome to the house of representatives with democrats in charge let me turn to the. Matter that were here for a lot of talk about this whistleblower complaint. The question is at this point given what we have why all the focus on this whistleblower the best evidence of what President Trump said to president zelinsky is a transcript of what President Trump said to president selenski im not casting aspersions on the whistleblowers good faith or their intent. But a 2nd hand account of something someone didnt hear isnt as good as the best evidence of what was actually said and to that point despite good faith the whistleblower is in fact wrong. In numerous respects and i know everyone is not going to have time to read the whistleblowers complain but the whistleblower says that i am deeply concerned talking about the president that there was a serious or flagrant problem abuse or violation of the law whistleblower then goes on to say i was not a direct witness to the events described however i found my colleagues accounts of this to be credible and then talking about those accounts of which this whistleblower complaint is based on the whistleblower tells us the officials that i spoke with told me and i was told that and i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that and white house officials told me that and i also learned from multiple u. S. Officials that in other words all of this is secondhand information none of it is firsthand information the whistleblower then goes on to cite additional sources besides those secondhand information those sources happen to include Mainstream Media sources that the whistleblower bases its complaints on include the Washington Post the New York Times politico the Hill Bloomberg a. B. C. News and others in other words much like the steel dossier the allegations in the whistleblowers complaints are based on 3rd hand Mainstream Media sources rather than 1st hand information whistleblower also appears to allege crimes not just against the president but says with regard to this scheme to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election that. Quote the president s personal lawyer mr Rudolph Giuliani is a central figure in this effort and attorney general barr appears to be involved as well but buried in a footnote a couple of pages later a couple pages later whistleblower admits i do not know the extent to which if at all mr giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on the ukraine with attorney general barr attorney general does know because he issued a statement yesterday saying there was no involvement. My point in all of this is again the transcript is the best evidence of what we have and so that the American People are very clear what that transcript relates his Legal Communications the United States is allowed to solicit help from my Foreign Government in an ongoing criminal investigation which is exactly what president dropped from did in that conversation so if the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct then be my guest i yield back thank you congressman reckless. Mr heck. Thank you mr chairman director thank you for being here sir thank you very much for your service i want to step back a little bit and kind of put into perspective i think whats at stake here obviously yesterday the white house released the transcript of the july 25th conversation between President Trump and president zelinsky and we know know that this phone call was indeed a part of the whistleblower complaint yesterday the chair at a press conference characterized the president s conversation and that call as a shakedown of the ukrainian leader he was not suggesting that it was a shakedown for either information or money but instead it was a shakedown for help to win a president ial election which is coming up next year so now lets fast for a wind to may 7th of this year when f. B. I. Director Christopher Ray testified before the United States senate that and im quoting now any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to the f. B. I. Any conversations with foreign actors about quote influencing or interfering with our election the director is of course the top cop in the United States of america you agree with director ray do you not sir. Congressman heck i do not disagree with the director a and is that the same thing as you agree with him sir yes ok im saying it let me go on it faster forward it was referred to the f. B. I. Let me fast forward it was it were furred to the f. B. I. By the president who actually engaged in conversation. The note was not let me fast forward to june 13th when thats 5 weeks in advance of that when the chair of the federal Elections Commission made the following statement follow me please let me make something 100 percent clear to the American Public and Anyone Running for Public Office it is either legal for any person to accept solicit or receive anything of value from a Foreign National in connection with the us election this is not a Novel Concept election intervention from Foreign Governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation do you agree with the f. E. C. Chair wind tribe mr director i agree that our elections are sacred and. Any and to fish from an outside source as is the now what we wanted to solicit or accept it as the legal i dont know about that im not a lawyer sure i dont need to be of a set but i cant you think it is ok for a public official to solicit or it may be ok you didnt know the law in this regard you think it may be ok for a candidate or to elected official to solicit foreign interference in our election i cannot believe youre saying that youre not really saying that right now im not saying that the congressman had at all so we should note that the f. E. C. Chair was prompted to say this because it was just literally. Literally the day before that the president of the United States sat at the resolute desk in the most iconic room in the United States the oval office and said that f. B. I. Director ray was wrong youre obviously disagreeing with that he also said that he he would consider accepting foreign help and of course yesterday we learned that the president did in fact did in fact. Do exactly that solicited that help director whether its this president or any president do you believe it is ok for the president United States to pressure a foreign country into helping him or her when an election congressman have i believe that no one is above the law and we discuss what we think applies to the law so it is illegal to solicit no i cant answer that i guess again sir i cant reconcile your 2 statements is it ok for a president to pressure any president to pressure a Foreign Government for help to win an election it is unwarranted it is unwelcome it is bad for the nation to have outside interference and a Foreign Court and by extension it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well. I mean all i know is that i have the transcripts as you have i have the whistleblower complaint as you have and i wasnt referring to the whistleblower complaint but if any president were to do this and i accept your answer i think its a bionic unacceptable director this or i think its wrong and i think we all know it i think we were taught this at a very young age and theres a voice within most of us unfortunately evidently not all of us that suggest that it is wrong it is he legal and it is wrong and i thank you sir and with that you about but congressman if i may just ask as a answer once again and ive run out of time sir no you have got you actually may answer thank you director. And director go ahead feel free to id respond once again it was referred to the federal bureau of investigation not by the president no by the by this office right and by the office of only by the i. C. I director raise said that any candidate or elected official should immediately report it he didnt say that the director of all and i should read reported although you should and you did a thank you but the person involved did not do what director spray said should occur period thank you congressman thank you mr welch thank you director i want to say thank you theres nobody in this room who can claim to have served their country longer and more valid valiantly and you and i heard in your opening remarks that your family before you has been committed to this country and i say thank you. Second i appreciate your candor when in your Opening Statement you acknowledge that the whistleblower acted in good faith. And 3rd i appreciated your acknowledgment that the Inspector General also acted in good faith and according to his view of the law. And i want to say this when you said youre an antique a unique position. Thats an understatement you got a complaint involving the presently that is states and also the United States attorney general. I disagree with some of the decisions you made but i have no doubt whatsoever that the same sense of duty that you applied in your long and illustrious career guided you as you made these decisions so thank you for that but i want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. The d. N. I. Has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections correct thats thats correct and of course youre aware as we all are of the muller report and his indictments against 12 forand nationals russians who actively interfered in our election correct i have read the report yet so its just a huge responsibility that your agency has correct. In this case. Because of the 2 things you mentioned that the president is the one person thats above the Intelligence Community in your sense about executive privilege you didnt for you did not forward the complaint to us correct i did not for that yes congressman welsh because i was still working with the white house no i and i understand that not us we have been very clear on that but let me just ask a hypothetical dish to show the dilemma that you were in lets say a u. S. Senator who is well connected or a private citizen really well connected had access to and had a conversation is a result of that with a foreign leader of a foreign country and asked that person for a favor the u. S. Senator lets say of providing dirt on a political opponent is that something that you would see that should be forwarded to this committee congressman i dont be dooby disrespectful but its very difficult to answer hypothetical questions im not sure i understand but i want to make it happen that it lets say instead of being a conversation between president and the president ukraine it was a u. S. Senator who lets say was the head of the Foreign Relations committee and was asking for the foreign leader i understand so we are you forward that to our Committee Sir that would not be once again i think i mentioned that a little bit early in our conversation that the United States senator is not a member of the Intelligence Community and the director of National Intelligence you know does not have the authority and responsibility for the u. S. Senate so any long wrongdoing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigation well i would respectfully disagree with you because obviously that would be a solicitation by that u. S. Senator for interference in our elections and thats in your jurisdiction correct. Well it all action election a difference is it did yes congressman walsh ok and but once again congressman although it is as far as what the legal responsibility to do in compliance with the intelligence reform. That the whistleblower protection act it does not this statute does not allow for that to be done well i disagree with that sir but here heres the dilemma that you are in and where and but were going to now be able to follow up because executive privilege if it existed was waived under your approach as you saw it it means that no one would be investigating the underlying conduct because in this case executive privilege applies or made it apply and number 2 the president who had the conversation is above the law so thats a dilemma for a democracy is it not the complaint was sent to the federal bureau of investigation totally disregarding any. Concern for oh i get a privilege but the federal bureau of investigation never did a follow up investigation right i believe that they have concluded the investigation of them but surely to dish into being involved with this matter here i also have other pressing matters and direct i apologize in the Justice Department led by mr barr who is the subject of the complaint is the department that provided the opinion that there is no action to be taken i believe that the attorney general was mentioned in the complaint not correct sort of the subject of the complaints or it will be he was made he was mentioned there so all right i yield back thank you i respond whilst i can thank you mr malone. Tried to mcguire what was your 1st day on the job. My 1st day on the job was friday the 16th of august and i think i set a new record in the administration for being subpoenaed before and yeah yeah yeah that you had a heck of a 1st week didnt and i got much more information or the complaint is dated august 12th. Whatever else youve done right in your career sure timing is its got to be something youre about congressman i think the dan coats timing is better than mine so to look at theres been a lot of talk here today about the process i just want to just summarize a couple of things thats ok so youre in your 1st couple days on the job search youre youre hit with this complaint and it says that the president of the United States pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponent son in fact. That president asked the foreign leader to work with a private citizen mr giuliani and the attorney general of the United States bill barr on that scheme the president at that time not dispute was withholding 391 1000000. 00 of assistance holding that over that ukrainian president s head that ukrainian president raises in the conversation u. S. Military assistance javelins defense weapons hes got Russian Troops in this country the wolf is at the door the president asked for a favor complains about ukrainian reciprocity not good enough from you thats what reciprocity is right and we got to get something from you if were giving something to you he names the political opponents by name the bidens ukrainian president says well do it it will do the investigation thats what youre here and you look at that complaint that in the 2nd paragraph alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States and the 1st thing you do. Go to the president s men at the white house and women and say should i give it to congress and in the 2nd paragraph of the complaints or it also suggest the attorney general could be involved and the 2nd thing you do is go to the attorney generals people at the Justice Department and ask them if you should give it to congress so i have no question about your character ive read your bio have some questions about your decision. And the judgment in those decisions see the conflicts here. Congressman loney ive got i have a lot of leadership experience i do and as you said it came to me very early on in this the fact that i was just i am the outgoing d. N. I. And i was still using garmin to get to work that this came to my attention involving the president of the United States and the important matter of this in the past as i said before i have always worked with Legal Counsel because of the magnitude of the Airport Service on the station i just sir is that as a as a naval officer for years i just thought it would be prudent i dont want to surf i may my life would have been a heck of a lot simpler without becoming the most famous man of the united only of saddles for my question is is when you were considering prudence did you think it was prudent to give a veto power over whether the congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the 2 people implicated by it is that prudent. I have to work with the situation as it is congressman maloney only the white house can determine a way of executive privilege there is no one else to go to and as far as a 2nd opinion my only avenue to of that was to go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and you understand you understand sir that if unchallenged by your own Inspector General your decision that prudence would have prevented these serious allegations from ever reaching the Congress Quick question in response to mr himes i think you left the door open that you spoke to the president of the United States about this whistleblower complaint started you speak personally to the president and states at any time about this complaint congressman once again i am the president s Intelligence Officer i speak to the president i cannot say what is in the record i know you speak to the present a lot its a simple questions are did you speak to him about this whistleblower complaint yes or no congressman maloney my conversation with the president United States is privileged so youre not denying that you spoke to the president not asking for the contents underspent i want the content by you do or did you not speak to the president about this whistleblower complaint i speak to the president about a lot of things and anything that i say to the president of the United States in any form is privilege not asking for the content are you denying that you spoke to the president i am just tell you once again i speak to the president and anything i say to the president is confidential thank you sir very government thats the way it is and stan thank you. And director you understand were not asking about your conversations with the president about National Security about Foreign Policy about the National Counterterrorism center. We just want to know did you discuss this subject with the president you can imagine what a profound conflict of interest that would be to discuss this subject this was a bore playing with the president you can say i did not discuss it with him if thats the answer but doesnt betray any privilege and you can say i did discuss it with him but im not going to get into the content of those conversations that question you can answer chairmanship of once again you know why conversation no matter what the subject is with the president of United States is privileged conversation between the director of National Intelligence and the president ms demings thank you so much mr chairman and director maguire thank you for being here with us today thank you for your service when in congress i know you said that you took your 1st oath in 1974 spam thats thats a long time but a long time to be proud of the service i took my 1st oath in 1984 when i was sworn in as a Law Enforcement officer and i thank you so much for saying that Public Service is a sacred trust because regardless of the circumstances or whos involved Public Service is a sacred trust ive had an opportunity as a Law Enforcement officer a member of congress now but to investigate internal cases. Involving other personnel ive had an opportunity to investigate numerous other cases criminal cases and never once just for the record director maguire did i ever go to the suspect of the defendant or the principal in those cases to ask them what i should do. In the case theres been a lot of talk this morning the whole discussion the whole reason why were here senator right centers around the u. S. Relationship with ukraine i think you would agree that ukraine is very dependent on the United States in terms of assisting them in defending themselves could you based on your many years of experience in the military and now in your new position talk a little bit about that relationship and how important it is for the United States to assist ukraine if theyre ever going to be able to to defend themselves yes congressman i think that the United States has been extremely supportive of ukraine i would say that they are relying on us there as they rely on other people in europe and i would also say that the United States is probably paying more of their fair share for the support of europe and of ukraine than the others the threats are real for the ukrainian people and the stake of freedom and democracy is also with even though its in the ukraine it is also a very much good show based on that you would say ukraine probably could never get there without the support in the assistance of the United States or from the United States of america i would say that if others were willing to step up and support they might be able to get there but they are not we are we are where they are and so i think youve said it would be difficult for ukraine to meet that goal of defending themselves without our support correct i would say it would be a challenge as congress will this complaint out game. By the president of the United States and im not really sure what to call Rudy Giuliani these days what his role is maybe hes the new fixer im not sure but either way it involves a scheme to coerce ukraine this country that you say is so very dependent on the United States to defend themselves to coerce ukraine into assisting the president s reelection efforts in 2020 and the report from your Inspector General the memo that was sent to you it says on july 18th the office of management and budget official informed the departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine neither o. M. B. Nor the say staff knew why this instruction had been issued during enter Agency Meetings on the 23rd of july and the 26 of july o. M. B. Officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assists and had come directly from the president but they were not aware that they were still unaware of a policy rationale. So the 23rd 26th the 18th this issue 1st came out with the president was that a recent they are suspending that assistance that you said ukraine so desperately depends on the director mcgregor we jail and whats reasonable here and i believe your Inspector General included that in the report because this whole issue of is about ukraines position relationship with the United States their dependency on the United States and the president s efforts to coerce ukraine and to engage in in an illegal and proper investigation do you believe thats why your Inspector General at it that about suspending their support to you crying i think that Michael Atkinson found it too to be credible and he viewed that it was a matter of urgent concern to forward to this committee you think its reasonable for the American People and for this committee on both sides to believe that there is a correlation or a nexus between the president s suspicion and they and the conversation that took place on the. Congresswoman follow up conversation is congresswoman that is the allegation that is made and i did not have access to the transcripts my only information was the i. C. I. G. s cover letter and the allegation whistleblower allegation the other information coming to light yesterday as released by the president because changes things in a different light mr chairman i just asked one more this quickly very or more quickly that i section my understanding is that the attorney the Inspector General is a career and teligent person hes worked in the department of justice hes received numerous awards for outstanding exemplary but formants did you have any reason to deny or not believe his conclusions in every area of this report that he was directly involved in congresswoman michael that could see him as a valued and trusted colleague i respect him tremendously the question came down to as we just over and over again urgent concern and whether or not the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act as written allows me to forward it to this committee thats where i got stuck and im sorry thank you director thank you congresswoman mr krishnamurthy. Mr mcguire thank you so much for your service to our country and thank you for your patriotism. I want to ask you a couple questions about the time surrounding july 25th to the time that you came into office as d. N. I. As you know the phone call between President Trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year correct i believe july 25th i believe at least one of them happened on july 25th at that time the d. N. I. Was dan coats and his deputy was sue gordon. As you know the whistleblower claim was filed on august 12th of this year and then you took office on august 16th 4 days later mr prior to taking your new job or since did you discuss the july 25th call or the whistleblower complaint with d. N. I. Coats and i wouldnt take on the job of what did you know sir and how about with sue gordon no not at all i dont believe up to the best of my ability i do not think that either director coach or our Principal Deputy sugo and have any sense whatsoever about this whistleblower complaint or that michael at consider had it before your current role did you discuss ukraine with President Trump no congressman i havent discussed you havent discussed ukraine with anybody let me put it to you that way you havent discussed ukraine with anybody in your current role as the acting d. N. I. Well as we have intelligence reports you know we weve got about 190. 00 countries out there so whatever the president s daily brief is and matters to pertain to that but as far as intelligence equities in that region right now this is just not been something that has come to my attention in the 6 weeks that i have been to the uk to get on. Now turning to the whistleblower and the Inspector General you dont know the identity of the whistleblower right congressman i do not and ive made it my business to make sure that i do her act and you dont know his political affiliation obviously i do not i do not know this to do or her a political affiliation and of course if you believe that the whistleblower was operating in good faith i do and without bias i dont know about that i dont not know about that i do believe that the but you have no reason to believe that he or she was acting with bias correct i just believe that the whistleblower was acting a good faith but you have no reason to believe that the person was biased i would not know whether he biased or not bias or i just dont know and of course he will do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempts to retaliate against him or her correct i will not permit the whistleblower to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for going to the i. G. I am absolutely committed to that and unlike the whistleblower you do know the Inspector General legislation i hold him in high esteem and like the whistleblower he also operated in the highest faith right i believe that by kalat consider. It yes yes and yes and interesting lee mr akon soon was actually appointed by President Donald Trump right. Yes he was hes a president ial appointee at what lens real credibility to the whistleblowers complaint is the fact that mr act can send an appointee of the president would actually bring forward a complaint against his boss and thats something that is especially courageous what i want to hear from you is that you also do everything you can to protect mr atkinson from potential retaliation congressman absolutely very good now the white house released a memorandum of telephone conversation from the july 25th 21900 call right i believe that was what was transmitted yesterday morning and they call that a telecon in the jargon of these memoranda is that right i im familiar with this the 1st time ive ever seen the transcript of a president ial conversation with a foreign leader ok have you been on would be joint for telephone conversation though exactly and have you been a party to a conversation between the president and a foreign leader on a phone call when i am in the office to provide the intelligence brief to the president some foreign heads of state might call in the president maybe the ask us to leave or just stay there for a brief call from time to time yes or and there are no takers who actually scribble down furiously whats being said on this call if they are no takers they would not be in the room oval office with us they might be listening or somewhere else or like from the situation room and in this forum where i dont know but somewhere within the white house and within this particular situation maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call it seemed like thats the allegation yes and they were all taking notes presumably. If theyre good Public Servants yes congressman were you to and were you. Ever a party to a call where the notes that you took were then. Given to someone at the white house for keeping i have never been party to any color other than my own i would take notes from my own at my level or as the director of National IntelligenceCounterterrorism Center but i have never been privy to a conversation of the president where i would be involved in taking notes it would just be happenstance i happened to be there and he felt comfortable enough to leave me for a brief conversation but its not anything that i would be in that office be took eulalie for that matter thank you for your service thank you congressman very much thank you and id like to recognize the Ranking Member for any final question stands for surviving the legal word challenge charade today. Expect hopefully well see you behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done and i would just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if theyd like to impeach the president they need to go to the floor of the house and actually call for a vote on the Intelligence Committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment so there is a process in the constitution but i would advise you all follow the meantime director mcguire i want to apologize to you for being accused of crimes that you have not committed its totally inappropriate behavior for anyone to accuse someone that served for decades like you i hope you do not have to go through this any longer and with that i yield back the balance of my time thank you reckon with very appreciative. Director. I have a few more questions. Just to follow up because i thought i heard you say a moment ago that. You had no communication with the president on the subject of ukraine. But i understand you to say that i have not particularly had any conversation with anyone on the subject of ukraine that did deal with the matter that we have right now in regard to the whistleblower complaint so i did not particularly with the office of Legal Counsel as far as making ukraine or as far as. The. Justice department all i did was send the documents forward the allegations are in there and just let the document speak for themselves so youre saying that you did not have any conversation the separate your crane that did not involve this complaint that thats i mean i mean ive been to the acting d. N. I. For 6 weeks i have im just trying to understand because that is suggested that you did have a conversation full of in the complaint with the president no no no. That is not what i said ok. Director i mentioned early on when we were on the subject of what the Inspector General was able to investigate or not investigate whether the president is within the Intelligence Community or subject to the Intelligence Community and by the way the statute doesnt require that the subject of the complaint be within the Intelligence Community it requires the whistleblower to be an employee or detail it doesnt require that the subject the person complained of be an employee of the Intelligence Community but you have adopted interpretation by the Justice Department that essentially says the president is above the director there prayer for therefore the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director therefore it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern therefore Inspector General is done. Character gen cant investigate anymore thats the Inspector Generals reading of the Department Opinion that he is no longer allowed to investigate this is that your reading as well chairman. Not necessarily the president but the allegation has to relate to the funding get administration an operation of an intelligence activity with the responsibility and the authority of the director of National Intelligence so im just trying to get not to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law does so little they dont know the mission in this country is beyond the real well im i thats the way it should be but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based on the opinion that you requested of the department of justice he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesnt meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. Is that your understanding of the Department Opinion as well that the Inspector General no longer has jurisdiction to look into this it is my understanding that both the Inspector General and i and my team are waiting for that that we were waiting for the resolution of executive privilege to be determined it is now no longer executive privilege im not sure exactly what the statute has as far as what michael can do but we also are looking for a way now executive if if if i did not send it forward as you know under urgent concern with the discovery days then the statute would allow the whistleblower to come to you and still be protected director. Because i have not had my mikoyan i omitted in my point is this. The department of justice has said because this doesnt meet the statutory definition because this involves the president the Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate now if this Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate because the president is above the agency no Inspector General has jurisdiction to investigate thats the that is the effect of that opinion which would you disagree i believe that the opinion was based on the reading of the statute and whether and not this situation here is compliant and comes underneath the statute the office of Legal Counsel opinion was that based on the criteria that you were required to have in order to support this legal statute it does not and he also said that because of that it is not a matter of the Intelligence Committee but once again as well that that that however you medical forward and ive seen enough thats the key issue director because it involves the president it does not involve the Intelligence Community that is the sum and substance and the effect of that is the Inspector General has told us that he no longer has to restriction to investigate and by the logic of that opinion nor does any other Inspector General now as you point out this was referred to the Justice Department referred to the f. B. I. And Justice Department that department under bill barr and with breathtaking speed decided theres nothing to see here decided that we dont believe that this constitutes a violation of the Campaign Finance laws and therefore were not authorizing an investigation the f. B. I. Is not authorized to investigate any of this any of this so the ids cant do it. According to the department of justice the f. B. I. Cant do it because it doesnt meet their threshold that makes it where the investigation so at this point only this committee and this congress is in a position to investigate and i want to ask you going to the whistleblower complaint whether you believe these allegations are where the investigation was a blow or says i have received information from multiple u. S. Government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u. S. Election you would agree that should be investigated would you not chairman the horses left the bomb you have all of the information you have the whistleblower complaint you have the letter from the i. C. I. G. You have the office of Legal Counsel opinion yes but and you know how we have to do it would you agree if i had if there is a serious and credible investigation that you agree there should be an investigation i believe that it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee well im asking you as a career. Military officer someone who i greatly respect and i admire your service to the country. Do you believe if there is a credible allegation by a whistleblower corroborated by apparently multiple u. S. Government officials that the president states is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 lection do you believe that should be investigated i dont believe it has corroborated by other folks the whistleblower says d that he spoke or she spoke to about a dozen other people this is secondhand information im not yes but im not criticizing the whistleblower yes but the Inspector General took those 2 weeks as you told us to corroborate that information that we dont know which if any of these officials that specter general spoke to and found it credible and youve told us that you have no reason to believe otherwise in my right. I had no reason to doubt a career Inspector General lawyer and his determination on whether or not it was credible that is something for michael to determine and let me ask you this the whistleblower also says over the past 4 months more than half a dozen u. S. Officials and for may of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference you would agree that we should speak to those half a dozen u. S. Officials would you not i think that you have all the material that ticket the committee needs and i think its up to the committee how they think they need to proceed but im asking your opinion it as the head of our intelligence agencies my do you think that we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistleblower is right by responsibility to his to get you the whistleblower letter of the complaint of the other information released i have done my responsibility that is on the shoulders of the legislative branch and this committee let me ask you mr rector the whistleblower also says i am also concerned that these actions pose risks to u. S. National security and undermine the u. S. Governments efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in u. S. Elections you would agree if theres a credible allegation on those lines that we should investigate it i agree that if there was an election interference the complaint do is not about election interference it was about a classified confidential diplomatic conversation involving election interference by the president sought by the president that doesnt take it out of the realm of seeking foreign assistance it makes it all the more pernicious wouldnt you agree. I said i dont disagree with the i. G. I. C. s assessment that it was a credible matter the whistleblower further says namely he. The president sought to pressure ukrainian leader to take actions to help the president s 2020 reelection bid you would agree that that should be investigated not necessarily sarah means as far as it was investigated by the federal bureau of investigation no it wasnt because it would want to know the day did the department of justice concluded that this wouldnt violate the election laws now no one and no can understand how they could reach that conclusion after the 2 years weve been through but nonetheless they didnt authorize the f. B. I. To investigate it you would agree someone should investigate this wouldnt you i refer to if i didnt i would not have referred it to the Justice Department and to the f. B. I. That im glad that were in agreement the whistleblower says they told me that there was already discussion ongoing with ways house lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood in the fishes retelling they had witnessed the president abused his office for personal gain you would agree that that should be investigated wouldnt you dont i know is that thats the allegation right or and its credible and therefore should be investigated right well its again it is heres a 2nd hand information it should come to this committee for further investigation thank you and i mean you have it you have the docket i just wanted to confirm that were in agreement that you think the committee should investigate it whistleblower also says donald trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian Government will be able to quickly improve ukraines image and complete the investigation of Corruption Cases that have held back cooperation between ukraine and the United States this is the whistleblower citing the ukrainian readout you would agree that if the ukrainian readout when theyre talking about Corruption Cases is talking about investigating biden and his son. And that has held back the failure to do that has held back cooperation between the 2 countries that should be investigated right thats of a national dont agree with with any of that what i did not agree that it should be investigated what i said was that i complied with my required to send you the documents and i and i his committee and that it is up to the chair and Ranking Member and this Committee Members to decide what to do with that information im in no position well the chair of the committee to do an investigation im not doing advised ok a i find it remarkable that the director of National Intelligence doesnt think credible allegations of someone seeking foreign assistance in a u. S. Election should be investigated. Let me ask you this the whistleblower further says in the days following the phone call i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that senior white house officials had intervened to lock down all the records of the phone call do you have any reason to believe that the whistle blowers allegation there is incorrect i have no idea whether it is correct or incorrect someone should find out the right excuse me someone should find out if its correct dont shouldnt it i dont know if that is a incorrect allegation i mean i just do not know again that that is the work that is the business of the executive branch of the white house and the office of the white house no corruption is not the business or shouldnt the white house or anyone at white house decides to do with their Privileged Communications and information i believe is the business of the white house you believe thats true even if that communication volves crime or fraud im sure where there is a there is an exception to any claim of privilege of privilege cant be used to conceal crime or fraud as it would be for any crime or fraud or instances of wrongdoing should be referred to the Justice Department for investigation as i did it was a lower further alleges that white house officials told the whistleblower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove electronic electronic transcript that is of the call from the computer system. In which such transcripts are typically stored and instead it was loaded into a separate Electronic System that is used over 3 hours of testimony so far in front of the house Intelligence Committee on capitol hill in washington d. C. Weve been listening to testimony from that man the acting director of National Intelligence joseph mcguire. A lot of questions from the committee over the whistleblower complaint and they let us know which was released before that as well its been pretty intense stuff fraught at times as well youve seen the partisan lines drawn between republican and Democrat Members of the committee and it will continue but were going to take a little break and talk to carry