Well continue, mr. Connolly. Thank you very much mister chairman, and thank you for our panelist for being here. I have a long convoluted mark, thats why were coming back and forth. I show the Government Operations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over Inspector General. So, mr. Brian bulatao could you describe for us your understanding of the roles and functions of an ig an Inspector General . The Inspector General reports to the head of the agency, under the direction provision according to the ig. They have the responsibility to identify areas of fraud and abuse. They have the mission to conduct independent audits, to conduct inspections and to conduct investigations. And they have strong commitment to be independent of any and appropriate influence. Where that influences coming from within their agency, or from congress, or from any other place, there is a commitment to be independent from inappropriate influences. Would you, would you but do you believe that an ig is subject to a supervisors review and approval the subject matter that ig may be pursuing, by way of investigation . The igs have wide latitude to investigate lots of areas, thats my point. They are independent from any inappropriate influence. You, according to mr. Linen, had conversations about him in fact about the subject matter, he was proposing to or actively investigating, is that correct . Are you referring to a specific subject matter. I guess im starting with, the general and ill get to the particular. Im following up on your description. And their broad independence, were now in the territory of whats proper and whats not proper about a supervisor choosing to buy wave discussion, on the subject matter of a pending investigation by an ig. I asked you, we have testimony from mr. Linick that you did have conversations with him, about this subject matter. And im asking you to confirm if that is true. That you had conversations with him, about ongoing investigative matters. Mister congressman, many times the ig would ask other areas we should be looking at. Of course he asked for my input. On areas that he thought would be helpful, so he could help prioritize what his priorities for. In areas we thought we did not pay attention. Quite right, he approached you. To solicit the question here is, did you go to him . Because he described some of those conversations, that you initiated with him. From his perspective, bullying. That is a mischaracterization, i can recall the conversation, that i had with ig linick on that topic. The exact conversation along the lines of, mister linick if there are any areas that i could help him. Help him . Yes a system, i normally do that. Was one of those areas the issue of arms sales to the middle east . Yes and in that conversation mr. Linick he said we are complete with the arms sale report. This would have been in early 2020 timeframe. It may have been at the very end of the year. He said we are complete, we are done, we just need to finish it by interviewing the secretary. I said great, let me try to figure out when we can do that, how fast we can do that, help me understand how much time you need. The secretary is getting ready to go out of town, hes going to be traveling for multiple weeks straight. My endeavor was to help the ig complete whatever he needed on the arms sale. That was the first time i was made aware that there was any inspection ongoing, in january or the end of 2019. Just to be clear on the record, because my time is running out. Under oath, it is your testimony that you never bullied mr. Linick or sought to bully him, in respect to any ongoing investigation. Is that correct . Thats correct. If asking questions is bullying, theres no billion going on. And that you did not seek to derail or suppress, or influence in any undue way and investigation with respect to arms sales in the middle east, and mr. Linick was conducting or had completed. In fact, it is your testimony, not only did you not do that, you sought to facilitate his access to the secretary of state, in order to put the final touches on that report. Is that correct . That is correct, even in the igs testimony he says, no undersecretary did not try to stop me. He said it several times, he said it on page 2 06. My time is up. The gentlemans time has expired. Miss wild. Thank you mister chairman, id like to direct my questions to mr. Bulatao. My predicate for my questions is primarily going to be the affidavit about ambassadors on card, im not going to go through the contents of that in detail. I think weve all seen it i know whats in there. Its worth noting, his appointment was announced after mr. Linick was fired. But he resigned only a few months later, meaning mr. At cart resigned in august after being forced to recuse himself in the arms sales matter. And the investigation into the pompeo misuse of resources. My first question to you is. Who suggested that ambassador eckhart would be the one to replace mr. Linux . Congresswoman we wanted to understand who would be best qualified to serve in that world we looked to people folks in the department for at least 90 days. Or people who were already serving, im sure there was many people you would consider im going to reclaim might climb, who suggested that ambassador at cart be the one to replace mr. Linick . Myself and the deputy secretary who could a value potential candidates. And did you speak to mr. String about it . I dont recall a comment, only of that i would have generally asked mr. String when we look to replace what are the rules and the requirements that we need to follow. So that we are going in accordance with all legal matters. And it is correct that you contacted mister ambassador back in april, mid april, a full month before and told him that mr. Linick was going to be removed imminently . I dont remember the exact date, it would have been around mid april where i had a initial conversation. You admit that that conversation took place, yes . Yes sometime in april. Asking him about his interest. Mister ambassador told us he could expect a call from secretary pompeo to express his views of the office of the ig. Do you remember telling him that . I dont recall making that comment. And if you dont deny making that comment . I dont recall making a comment that you just stated. I dont have the benefit of transcripts, im not sure what context that statement was made. And if that comment were true, it would suggest to me that secretary pompeo was trying to influence the ig position before mr. Eckhart even started. Do you know anything about mr. Pompeo wanted to tell mr. A cart before starting at ig . There was no statement of that that i recall making to mr. Ambassador. I will tell you what i remember. When i said to him, there is a Huge Trust Deficit between the department and the ig. The leadership of the department including the deputy and the secretary, all of those leadership, really wants to find a person who can help to restore and build the bridges under that trust. And all of that that you just relate, is information that you would be able to relate, directly to mr. Eckhart. That would be something that the secretary would need to impart to mr. Eckhart. No. Do you know whether secretary pompeo, wanted to convey to mr. Subjects that should be stayed away from in terms of ig investigations . Secretary was not involved in any of these discussions regarding trying to find a replacement. He was not involved and i want to have a conversation, he has i have no recollection of those statements. Did he have any role at all in the choice of mr. Eckhart . At the very end we briefed him on our nomination, we explain to him that ambassador had served in several regions of the department. He was as Foreign Service officer, he had served as a consular officer. He had served as a political income officer in the eu are region. He served as executive assistance and the served as the acting chief of staff, and the eve euro for Economic Energy and environment, and that he would be a big choice to start the rebuilding the trust deficit. Your question suggested me that secretary pompeo had no awareness of who he was until you informed him of his credentials. Thats not what im suggesting. What im suggesting is what we described to the secretary was a rationale for nominating him as a replacement. There was also a suggestion that he should keep his job where he was one of your subordinates while taking on the role of ig. That is not correct. The conversation we had with ambassador accurate we absolutely need to divorce yourself from any other decision authorities or operations. As a matter of fact we need delegate your stories do your deputy. You should not have any operational or any daytoday contact with your team. You need to focus on being the fulltime acting ig. When that acting assignment is done we will then move those delegations and authorities to you. From an operational perspective, you need to separate and divorce yourself from that role. Gentlemans time has expired mister 11. Thank you mister chairman thank you gentleman for appearing. Mr. Cooper its good to see you again. Last year i asked you about the timing of the Emergency Declaration. Noting that when secretary pompeo briefed congress on may 21st of 2019, he made no mention whatsoever of any emergency. Heres what you said. Within three days of emergency was created that required that declaration. Congressman yes. Your testimony here is in those two or three intervening days an emergency arose that requires a declaration. Yes but an emergency did not pop up in those three days. The department was cooking up this emergency almost two months earlier. I give you the chance then to correct yourself and you double down. I read your letter laying out the long history of bad acts by iran to justify this Emergency Declaration. Now that changes the fact that your testimony of emergency arose from may 31st and 24th just was not true. Were you lying to the committee or did you have Bad Information . Congressman, as you said i cover this foley in my august 17th letter to there was a copy to the chairman. I appreciate the opportunity get again set the record straight here. I stand by my statements. They were faithfully summarizing everything. The actual basis for the emergency that reflected the secretary certification. To be clear, between may 21 and may 24, the secretary made the decision to exercise Statutory Authority due to the emergency circumstances described in the certification. Which we reiterated in my testimony, which you decide to not show the full video. I reject any attempts to make my remarks your remarks stand for themselves. Thats what we just played. Dont talk about the oig report. The state department in fact we understand it was you personally sir, demanded unprecedented redactions of this unclassified report. Those redactions deal with the timeline. The very information that contradicts your testimony. The report shows the Department First proposed, using this Emergency Authority on april 3rd. The first draft of that emergency were circulated on april 23rd. Then on may 4th, secretary pompeo and pick the day three weeks in the future on which he would send you appear to claim an emergency at suddenly appeared. Those dates are nowhere near the may 24th to may 21st window you testified. And you cover them up. You literally cover them up with a big black box in the redactions. Who asked for those redactions are . Who signed the letter to the oig pushing for them . Was it you yes or no . Did you asked for them sir . Now. Congress received a full unredacted report. Congress received a full report. Thats not what im asking you. You asked a question about redacted passages. I reclaim my time and asked mr. Strength did you ask for those redactions . Congressman i would like to ask you to answer the question sir. Its not a complicated matter. Did you ask for those redactions . The unclassified report that was provided to congress as i understand it, was fully non redacted. Who asked for the redactions in the report that was public. Youre not gonna answer the question. Mr. String did anyone in your office tell mr. Cooper, that he might have an ethics problem, if he pushed to redact in this report if you push to redact the timelines which contradicted his timelines in his testimony . Not to my awareness. Okay. When did you first see a draft of the declaration . What the redactions . Just to clarify the declaration . Let me ask mr. Cooper. What is the first day that you learned an emergency would be certified to congress on may 24th . Was it that first day, was it april 3rd, was it april 4th . What was the first day you learned of this . Congressman i was confirmed by the senate april 30th i was serving the additional capacity here in earlier april. Not at the state department. As far as the decision process it wouldve been before the secretary in the window between the 20 1 24. You never knew before may 21st . We had to provide him the opportunity to make that decision. So you did know before . Troubling. All right mister chairman. What is troubling the houthi threats and iranian threats to the u. S. And her partners. Sir we stand on our own of the state department and a three part of the executive branch. You cannot hide behind what we all agree is the very important Foreign Policy concerns that we all share with you cannot hide behind them sir. I reclaim my time. Yesterday the state Department Office of Inspector General sent four letters are part of a back and forth between the igs office in the state department. Ill begin with questions from mr. Cooper. On july 10th 2022 months after mr. Lanning was fired you sent a memo to the state Department Office of the Inspector General asking them to make redactions of the draft arm sales report is that correct . You are referring to we sent a memo to release the report maam. Office and the Inspector General interviewed you in this probe last november is that correct . So that again . They interviewed you as a witness is that correct . Yes. You are asking for redactions about an investigation of something you had personally been involved in. The arms sales that correct . No maam what is correct it would be part of any we were talking about those very arms sales neither telling me youre not involved in them . What im saying is we were part of the report that was being done. Its normal course of business for the Inspector General to sit down and interview all of us were part of the process. You are asking for redactions about something you are involved in. Who told you write that memo . There are not redactions in the report sent to congress. The redactions that were done were to protect on deliberate decisionmaking matters. The challenge there is that the oig disagreed with you. Im very concerned as we all should be about civilian casualties in with appears to be the administrations lacking commitment to reducing civilians thats. When it came to the section of the report on civilian casualties you recommended and im quoting here, the oig consider removing this element from the unclassified report in order to allow that report be released to the public. If the oig had taken your advice, the public would never have seen the part about the civilian casualties. Congress wouldnt talk about it and we would be in the dark is that correct . That is into my recollection. We supported the finding that we do more on civilian casualties. In response to your quest for that information to be classified, why she wrote back on july 21st and they did not mince words. You failed to quote properly invoke a claim of privilege that would justify withholding information. The further stated the departments redactions are brought in to not conform to u. S. Government practices. What is more you redactions would cover non privilege factual information about specific actions taken by the u. S. Government. They give you three days to get back to them with defensible redactions. Until i 27th, passed the deadline the deputy Legal Adviser road back to the guidance that you had received, and in the july 27th memo to the oig, mr. Dorsal wrote this. It claims that the Inspector General is subject to the supervision of the secretary. All those words to appear in the ig act he let the courts were very clear that it does not include any authority to compromise the investigatory rights to the Inspector General. The letter points to nixon that it has to defer to pompeo and these redactions. In response Mister Cooper, the oig gets back to you on august 3rd with their final version of the report. We know despite your best efforts that unclassified report still knows the administration did not do enough to mitigate civilian casualties. To recap what we are looking at. Mr. Bullock down mr. String tried and failed to shut down the investigation, pompeo got lennox fired, mr. Bledel puts one of his own subordinates that my colleagues have talked about, and then immediately starts to influence through your efforts Mister Cooper the arms sale report only to find out that would not be successful. Since then the department has tried and failed to get congress to drop its investigation. In the end you in a colleagues tried to cover up one of the most alarming reports with big black redaction boxes and put them in a classified annex. Mr. Cooper, if the department has done the Due Diligence to make sure these weapons were not being used to slaughter civilians, it seems like you all couldve saved yourself a lot of time trying to cover up the fact you are preventing that you are not trying to prevent these needless deaths. Doesnt appear that that was important to you. Instead families have suffered, and im glad and i appreciate that you come before congress today, rather than trying to keep this information out of the public view and certainly out of the hands of congress, youve done a disservice to the department. I yield back mister chairman. Think you. Mr. Thrown. Hello to mr. Malinowski. Im sorry no we wont. Miss houlihan. Thank you mister chairman. Mr. Undersecretary id like to go back to the problem with this state at the state department what appears to be politically motivated retaliation in his career in place. It seems to stretch back to 2017 in 2018 during secretary tillersons tenure. We certainly hope that secretary pompeo would not allow such conduct, but it seems that politicized retaliation is to off in the case of this administration. Is the environment which mr. Lanning was working when you demanded heat handover Inspector Generals report. With inclusions into the investigation of the state oig product that you wanted to get to the bottom of. That included who had been investigating the department for politically motivated retaliation. Mr. Linux certified i can certainly understand this having being involved in organizations just like this there was concern for staff when they sought out this report. He said i quote i can imagine the department using information in the report against them, and wanting to make sure there confidentiality was protected. My first question is a baseline question, do you think the politicized retaliation as occurred during this against Career Administration during or work for prior administrations . Congresswoman as is stated in my confirmation hearing, which was back in july. I said that once i was in place we would do everything in our power to make sure that there are only meritbased factors being used to evaluate so with the answer is, you do not think that this has happened . Because the ig has a report that says has in fact happened, historically. Do you think its wrong, it seems as though you do think its wrong and i agree. Four people four be targeted for those particular reasons either than performance. The ig report found out of the five Foreign Service officers investigated that were no fall found. So five minus four, i missing the point that youre trying to make. Are you trying to say theres never been a case where theres been discrimination . Im referring to the specific case, because it did contain Sensitive Information that was linked somehow. So im just going to reclaim my time i know that votes are going to be called and i want to move on. Secretary pompeo did say that there is no place in the state department to be targeting employees based on their national origin. Or because they were perceived as being not sufficiently loyal to the president. Have you ever personally participated in this sort of targeting . No i have not. So we know that mr. Linick was more than willing to prove to you, that staff had not been in the ig report. His concern, very well founded, was that the d. O. D. Ig report proving his staffs innocence would be target his on target his employees for doing their work. And it was actually done, im assuming that you know that on june 9th, a rightwing Media Outlets published the entire unredacted report, that concluded that mr. Linick did cross . I dont know who published it. The only person that had it at that time was the ig. And then the ig turned it over to congress. And thats kind of what im trying to get to the bottom of. Did you release, or authorized the release, of that unredacted information . We never received do you know who did . Can you tell me today that you are confident that this league of this lead to the report to the media, did not come from the state department . I need to verify sources on that unredacted version of that report. If you are not aware of where its coming from, are you trying to get to the bottom of where it might be leaks from . Its evident that it was not lead from the sources youre specifically blaming at this point in time. That is correct congresswoman, weve actually gone back to the council, city council, to look at this again. What came out from the d. O. D. Investigation, was a very superficial investigation. It was not a thorough investigation done. My understanding is why that was done, is the way the ig characterize that investigation to the d. O. D. Ig. It was not done properly, were asking the Integrity Committee to please look at that again. It just seems that this report, and its leaking and non redacted form, is further evidence of an administration that has a cultural vitality issue. It would she seem that you should be looking where this report leaked from and two. In order to be trying to give us the impression that this isnt a administration, its about retaliation against employees who have indicated and any sort of non allegiance to this president. Unfortunately im out of time, i appreciate you coming. But i am really surprised im disappointed, because it does feel as this administration has a pretty consistent course of firing people who dont appear to agree with them. For one reason or the other. And thats a disappointment to me. I yield back. Mr. Malinowski. Thank you mister chairman, mr. Cooper how does the provision of pave way, bombs for bombing targets and yemen. Or how did it help saudi arabia meet emergency imminent threat from iran . To its oiled feels, shipping in the gulf, targets in iraq and lebanon that you mention. All the threats that you mentioned. Thank you for that question. The key word there is precision guidance. Theyre available not just for defenses of what you enumerated, but also to actually address targets. To mitigate, any targeting on anything that would be of none of those things were being hit from yemen. Those were direct iranian threats against saudi oil fields, painfully bombs are not defensive weapons against those types of fronts. Threats. In a classified form, i would like to further provide information on specificity, on threats. Not just infrastructure, civilians as well. What share of those passive waves have been delivered at this point . Anything direct commercial would have been delivered. I would note that at the time, the oig concluded the report that they had asked to update, their data of information was old. It was in the pave way was delivered within two or three weeks of the Emergency Declaration . I could tell you, they were delivered. Were they were ready for delivery. Okay. Anything that was Foreign Military sales that would require Additional Development why did you spend two months deliberating, and executing a decision to use this Emergency Declaration. When you could have gotten a sales through in a month by going through the normal congressional notification. Spacing speaking of notification, all the sales, i notified congress. This was part of the open and transparent process that we have. Its a feature, not a bug, it does show that we are stronger against our adversaries who dont have transparent process ease. To your question, on meeting those conditions, some of those conditions that we laid out. The secretary of the United States, providing confidence and assurance to our partners, saudi arabia and united arab era merits. In particular, sending a message to iran. That is a policy goal that is over president , its not a emergency. Let me go to civilian casualty mitigation. Spring of 2017, Trump Administration made a real effort to outlay actual conditions to saudi arabia. For the receipt of these weapons. Those conditions were not about trainings, they included the provision there would be no strike lifts. With 33,000 specific targets. Are you aware that the Saudi Air Force has continued to strike specific coordinates on the no strike list . That the United States gave them since that was handed over, repeatedly handed over. Yes or no . I can speak fully in another form about the target integrity, challenges that the partners have had to meet from the rebels and others. I look forward to that, they have precisely continued to strike targets that we have precisely identified them as being on a no strike list. If you were teaching me to drive, for five years, and i continued to hit passengers by. Continue to total my car, would you continue to give me the keys . Sir we have a partner, that is under extreme threat, and continuous threat and a developing one. Those include our interests we remain steadfast. Shoulder to shoulder in our partnership. You know what, i dont think under those circa weve gone from actually providing conditions to the saudis, from serious people like general jim mattis, to having you sit here and tell us the new and improved policy is were giving them a tool kit. Were giving them a suite of technical solutions, when they have continued to deliberately and precisely hit targets we have asked him not to hit. Mr. String one of the recommendations in the ig report, reportedly was, the department quote update its analysis of legal policy risks related to selling these arms to saudi arabia. Why was that recommendation move to the classified annex of the report . Why is that classified . If i understand your question correctly, youre asking about a classified recommendation. Im asking about a report that was moved to the classified annex, why was that classified . I dont have specific recollection of the deliberations by the ig that went into that. Im not comfortable talking here about anything classified. Let me just finally ask you, i dont care whether you saw a memo from 2016. I saw it, i was assistant secretary at that point. You are the acting Legal Advisor. Is it still the view, is it still your view, is it still the view of the office of the Legal Advisor, the state Department Officials intentionally face personal legal liability, if they provide weapons to a partner country, without adequate safeguards, as to mitigating civilian casualties . When you have this five year record of war crimes being committed and documented by our partner. Is that still the view of your office . Congressman thank you for that question. We are very aware of the issues that you raised, we take the issue very seriously. All of the legal work that we do in the office of the Legal Advisor, ensures to the maximum possible that the risk is reduced as close to zero as possible. Thats a mission statement, thats not an answer. Is it still is it still your view that u. S. Officials face potentially personal legal liability, if adequate safeguards are not met . Im not asking you whether those safeguards have been met, thats a much more controversial question. But as a legal matter, is that still the view, or have you changed it . Because that was the view of the office. Congressman again, our legal work, our legal analysis ensures that the u. S. Government takes every possible effort to address the serious issue. I can assure you, we take it very seriously. The office of the Legal Advisor and other bureaus and the department if they do not, do they face legal liability . Congressman ive answered your question. Specific legal conclusions, i can tell you we take the work seriously. That work continues. Let me just say, if we find out at some point, that you or any other official in the state department, has changed that analysis. It would be an incredibly serious matter. And personally, i would consider you to face personal legal liability for that decision. With respect mister chairman can i offer clarification on the statement for the record. When i was making the statement that i had not received the modi report, i may not have received it from linick. The department did receive a copy of that report, the same Times Congress received it prior to the nixon to be on the committee. Okay thank you, that concludes the questioning of our witnesses. Let me make an announcement since were voting. In a change of plans in agreement with the state department, were going to council the classified session that we had originally scheduled. Department has indicated its willingness to schedule to last a five calls, any members who wish to follow up on this matter. This will wrap up our proceedings for today. I think our witnesses for our time, without objection the committee is adjourned