Transcripts For CSPAN3 Acting DNI Director Maguire Testifies On Whistleblower Complaint 20240714

Committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair reserves the right to recess the hearing at any time. The president ial oath of office requires the president of the United States to do two things, faithfully execute his or her office and protect and defend the constitution. That oath cannot be honored if the president does not first defend the country. If our National Security is jeopardized, if our country is left undefended, the necessity to faithfully execute the office becomes moot. Where there is no country, there is no office to execute. And so the duty to defend the nation is foundational to the president s responsibilities. But the second responsibility to defend the constitution, what does that really mean . The founders were not speaking, of course, of a piece of parchment, they were speaking of the president to defend our system of checks and balances that the constitution enshrines, to defend the rule of law, a principle on which the idea of america was born that we are a nation of laws, not men. If we do not defend the nation, there is no constitution. But if we do not defend the constitution, there is no nation worth defending. Yesterday, we were presented with the most graphic evidence yet that the president of the United States has betrayed his oath of office. Betrayed his oath to defend our National Security and betrayed his oath to defend our constitution. For yesterday, we were presented with a record of a call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine in which the president our president sacrificed our National Security and our constitution for his personal political benefit. To understand how he did so, we must understand how overwhelming dependent ukraine is on the United States, militarily, financially, diplomatically and in every other way. And not just on the United States, but on the person of the president. Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor, by our common adversary, by Vladimir Putins russia. It remains occupied by Russian Forces in a long, simmering war. Ukraine needs our help and for years we have given it and on a bipartisan basis. That is until two months ago when it was held up by President Trump. It is in this context, after a brief call from President Trump to president zelensky on april 21st, and after the president s personal emissary Rudy Giuliani made it clear to ukrainian officials that the president wanted dirt on his political opponent, it is in this context that the new president of ukraine would speak to donald trump over the phone on july 25th. President zelensky eager to establish himself at home as a friend of the president of the most powerful nation on earth had at least two objectives, get a meeting with the president and get more military help. And so what happened on that call . Zelensky begins by ingratiating himself and he tries to enlist the support of the president. He says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. And what is the president s response . Well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. In not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates, weve been very good to your country, very good, no other country has done as much as we have, but you know what, i dont see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor i want from you, though. And im going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good, i want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that, im going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, im going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States bill barr, hes got the whole weight of the american Law Enforcement behind him and im going to put you in touch with rudy. Youre going to love him, trust me. You know what im asking, and so im only going to say this a few more times in a few more ways, and by the way, dont call me again, ill call you when youve done what youve asked. This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of ukraine. It would be funny if it wasnt such a graphic betrayal of the president s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, theres nothing the president says here that is in americas interest after all. It is the most consequential form of tragedy. This matter would not have come to the attention of our committee or the nations attention without the courage of a single person, the whistleblower. As you know, director maguire, the Intelligence Committee is dependent on whistleblowers to reveal wrongdoing when it occurs, when the agencies do not selfreport because outside parties are not allowed to scrutinize your work and to guide us. If that system is allowed to break down, as it did here, if whistleblowers come to understand that they will not be protected, one of two things happen, serious wrongdoing goes unreported or whistleblower take matters into their own hands and divulge classified information to the press in violation of the law and placing our National Security at risk. This is why the whistleblower system is so vital to us and why your handling of this urgent complaint is also so troubling. Today we can say for the First Time Since we have released this morning the whistleblower complaint that you have marked unclassified that the substance of this call is a core issue, although by no means the only issue raised by the whistleblowers complaint which was shared with the committee for the first time only late yesterday. By law, the whistleblower complaint which brought this gross misconduct to light, should have been presented to this Committee Weeks ago, and by you, mr. Director, under the clear letter of the law, and yet it wasnt. Director maguire, i was very pleased when you were named acting director. If sue gordon was not going to remain, i was glad that you were chosen, a navy s. E. A. L. For 36 years and director of the National Terrorism center since 2018. Your credentials are impressive. You have struck me as a good and decent man which makes your actions over the last month all the more bewildering. Why you chose not to provide the complaint to this committee as required by law. Why you chose to seek a Second Opinion on whether shall really means shall. Why you chose to go to a department and believes hes to serve the president. Why you chose to allow the subject of the complaint to play a role in deciding whether congress would ever see the complaint. Why you stood silent when intelligence professional under your care and protection was ridiculed by the president , was accused of betraying his or her country. When the whistleblower by the very act of coming forward as shown more dedication to country, more of an understanding of the president s oath of office than the president himself. We look forward to your explanation. Ranking member nunez. I thank the gentleman. I want to congratulate the democrats on the rollout of their latest Information Warfare operation and their extraordinary ability to once again list the Mainstream Media in their campaign. This operation began with media reports from the prime instigators of the russian collusion hoax. That a whistleblower is claiming that President Trump made promises to a foreign leader. That central assertion has already been debunked. The democrats moved the goalpost and began claiming there sunt need to be a quid pro quo for this conversation to serve as the basis for impeaching the president. Speaker pelosi went further when asked earlier if she would put brake on the impeachment if the transcript turned out to be benign. She responded, there you go, if the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the we have candidates quote, we have many candidates for impeachable offenses. That was her quote. So there you go. If the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats and their media assets can always drum up Something Else. And what has also come to light, the complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by the whistleblower. The Inspector General did not know the contents of the phone call at issue. The Inspector General found the whistleblower displayed arguable, political biassed against trump. The department of justice investigated the complaint and determined no action was warranted. The ukrainian president denies being pressured by President Trump. So, once again, the supposed scandal ends up being nothing like we are told and once again the democrats and leakers are ginning up a fake story with no regard for the damage theyre causing to our Public Institutions and to rest in government. And without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past, including countless allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia to hack the 2016 election. Were supposed to forget about all those stories, but believe this one, in short, what we have with this story line is another steel dossier. In the democrats mania to aver turn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized, with the russia hoax, it was our intelligence agencies and now today the whistleblower process is the causality. Until about a week ago, the need to protect that process was the was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. But if the democrats were really concerned with defending that process, they would have pursued this matter with a quiet, sober inquiry as we do for all whistleblowers. But that would have been useless for them. They dont want answers. They want a public spectacle and so weve been treated to a parade of press releases, press conferences and fake news stories. This hearing itself is another example, whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. Their hearing with mr. Maguire is behind closed doors, but, again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. The current hysteria has Something Else in common with the russia hoax. Back then they accused the Trump Campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians and preparing the steel dossier. Today, they accused the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. Yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. Joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating bidens own son. Three Democratic Senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian prosecutor to reopen the investigation into former Trump Campaign officials. Another democratic senator went to ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations on involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials, the Democratic National committee, contractor tried to get ukrainian officials to provide dirt on Trump Associates and tried to get the former ukrainian president to comment publicly on alleged ties to russia. Ukrainian official was a source for nellie orr as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted by fusion gps and funded by the democrats. Of course democrats on this very committee negotiated with people who they thought were ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of trump. People can reasonably ask why the democrats are so determined to impeach this president when in just a year, theyll have a chance. In fact, one democratic congressman, one of the first to call for trumps impeachment, gave us the answer when he said, quote, im concerned that if we dont impeach the president , he will get reelected, unquote. Winning elections is hard and when you compete, you have no guarantee youll win. But the American People do have a say in this and they made their voices heard in the last president ial election. This latest by the democrats is unhinged and dangerous. They should end the entire, dishonest, grotesque spectacle and get back to work on solving problems. Judging by todays charade, the chances of that happening any time soon are zero to none. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Director, would you rise for the oath and raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you will give today shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you you may be seated. The record will reflect that the witness has been duly sworn. Director maguire, would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . Mr. Chairman, the whistleblower actually, i apologize, director, let he recognize you for your Opening Statement and you may take as much time as you need. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Chairman schiff, Ranking Member nunez and members of the committee, good morning. Id like to begin by thanking the chairman and the committee for agreeing to postpone this hearing for one week. This provided sufficient time to allow the executive branch to successfully complete its consultations regarding how to accommodate the committees request. Mr. Chairman, ive told you this on several occasions and i would like to say this publicly, i respect you, i respect this committee, and i welcome and take seriously the committees oversight role. During my confirmation process, i told the Senate Select committee of intelligence that congressional oversight of Intelligence Community is critical. Having served as the director for eight months and as the acting director of National Intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. As i pledge to the senate, i pledge to you today, that i will continue to work closely with congress while im serving hereto in this capacity as acting director or when i return to the National Counter terrorism center. To ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities, to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the Intelligence Community. The American People expect us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without this committee support. Before i turn to the matter of hand, there are a few things i would like to say. I am not partisan and i am not political. I believe in a life of service and i am honored to be a public servant. I served under eight president s while i was in uniform. I have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times. The first time when i was sworn into the United States navy in 1974 and nine times during my subsequent promotions in the United States navy. Most recently, former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director to have the National Counter terrorism center. I agree with you, the oath is sacred. Its a foundation of our constitution. The oath to me means not only that i swear faith to that sacred document, but i view it as a covenant i have with my workforce that i lead and every american that i will discharge the duties of my office. I come from a long line of Public Servants who have stepped form during the most difficult times to support and defend our country. When i took my uniform off in july of 2010, it was the first time in 70 years that an immediate member of my family wasnt wearing the cloth of the nation. I had the honor of commanding at every level in the s. E. A. L. Community. It was at times very commanding but the rewards of serving in americas special Operations Community more than make up for the demands. After my retirement, i was fortune to work for a great private sector firm. I left the Business World after three years to lead a nonprofit charity. Some question why i would leave a Promising Business career to run a charity. The answer was quite simple, it was another opportunity to serve. I led a foundation dedicated to honoring the sacrifice of our fallen operators. The foundation i led enabled hundreds of our children of the fallen to attend college. In the winter of 2018, i was asked by former director dan coats to return to Government Service to lead the National Counter terrorism center. This request was totally unexpected and was not a position i sought. But then again, it was another opportunity to serve my country. In particular, i knew that many of the young sailors and Junior Officers that i had trained were now senior combat veterans, deploying and still sacrificing. I decided if they could continue to serve, returning to Government Service was the very least i could do. And now, here i am, sitting before you as the acting director of National Intelligence. With last months departure of dan coats, i was asked to step into their big shoes and lead the Intelligence Community until the next director of National Intelligence is confirmed. I accepted this responsibility because i love this country. I have a deep and profound respect for the members of our Intelligence Community and the mission we execute every day on behalf of the American People. Throughout my career, i have served and led through turbulent times. It must be legal, it must be moral, and it must be ethical. No one can take an individuals integrity way, it can only be given away. If every action meets those criteria, you will always be a person of integrity. In my nearly four decades of Public Service, my integrity has never been questioned until now. Im here today to state that as acting dni, i will continue the same faithful and nonpartisan support that adheres to the constitution and the laws of this great country, as long as i serve in this position. I want to make it clear that i have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to state my support for the whistleblower and the rights and the laws. Whistleblowing has a long history in our country. This is not surprising because as a nation, we desire for good government. Therefore, we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace. We are reminded that Public Service is a public trust. As Public Servants we have a responsibility to do whats right which includes reporting concerns of waste, fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of congress under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistleblower come complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case, the complainant raised a matter with the Inspector General. The Inspector General is properly protecting the complainants identity. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and the workforce is my number one priority. Throughout my career, i relied on the men and women of the Intelligence Community to do their jobs so i could do mine. And i could personally attest that their efforts saved lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. On august 26th, the Inspector General forwarded a complaint to me from an employee in the Intelligence Community. The Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern, a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length and led us to the committee on september 16 and 17. Before i turn to the discussion about whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, i first want to talk about an even more fundamental issue. Upon reviewing the complaint, we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another foreign leader. Such calls are typically subject to executive privilege. As a result, we consulted with the White House Counsels Office and were advised that much of the information was in fact subject to executive privilege, a privilege that i do not have the authority to waive. Because of that, we were unable to share the details of the complaint with this committee but continued to consult with the white House Counsels in an effort to do so. Yesterday, the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the Inspector Generals letter transmitting to us. As a result i have provided the house and senate Intelligence Committees with the complaint and letter. When transmitting a complaint to me, the Inspector General took the legal position because the complaint is of urgent concern and he found the allegations to be credible, i was required under the whistleblower protection act to forward the complaint to our Oversight Committees within seven days of receiving it. As we have previously explained in our letters, urgent concern is a statutorily designed term. The allegations must be, in addition to being classified, assert a flagrant problem, abuse or violation of law and relate to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. However, this complaint concerns conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community, unrelated to funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. Because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework, my office consulted with the United States department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and included the Inspector General in those consultations. After reviewing the complaint and the Inspector Generals letter, the office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaints allegations do not meet the statutory requirement concerning urgent concern and found that i was not legally required to transmit the material to our Oversight Committee under the whistleblower protection act. An unclassified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publicly released. As you know, for us in the executive branch, office of Legal Counsel opinions are binding on all of us. In particular, the office of Legal Counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the Intelligence Community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. While this opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees, it did leave me with the discretion to forward the comlaplaint to t committee. Given the executive issues i discussed, neither the Inspector General nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. When the Inspector General informed me that he intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint, mr. Chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process. I want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. First, i want to stress that i believe that the whistleblower and the Inspector General have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law. Respecting the privileged nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved. Wherever possible, we have worked in partnership with the Inspector General. While we have differing opinions, i believe in the role of the Inspector General. I value the independence he brings and his role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Second, although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint, this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. The Inspector General in consultation with my Office Referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. Finally, i appreciate that in the past whistleblower complaints may have been provided to the congress regardless of whether they were deemed credible or satisfied the urgent concern requirement. However, i am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistleblower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues, including executive privilege. I believe that this matter is unprecedented. I also believe that i handled this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and im committed to doing so, sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, director. Would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . The whistleblower complaint involved the allegation of that. It is not for me in the Intelligence Community to decide how the president conducts foreign policy. Im not asking you to opine on how the president conducts foreign policy. Im asking you whether as the statute requires this complaint involved serious wrongdoing, in this case, by the president of the United States, an allegation of serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States. Is that not the subject of this complaint . That is the subject of the allegation of the complaint and two things let me ask you about that. The Inspector General found that serious allegation of misconduct by the president credible. Did you also find that credible . I did not criticize the Inspector Generals decision on whether it not was credible. My question was whether it not whether it not it meets the urgent concern in the sevenday time frame that would follow my question i have no question in his judgment that he considers it a serious matter. The issue you would concur, would you not, director, that this complaint alleging serious wrongdoing by the president was credible . Its not for me to judge, sir. What it is for you to judge. I agree its not for you to judge. You shall provide it to congress. But you did judge whether this complaint should be provided to congress. Can we at least agree that the Inspector General made a sound conclusion that this whistleblower complaint was credible . That is correct. I believe thats also made public, the decision and the recommendation by the Inspector General that in fact the allegation was credible. Can we also agree that it was urgent that if the president of the United States was with holding military aid to an ally even as you received the complaint and was doing so for a nefarious reason, that is to exercise leverage over the president of ukraine to dig up dirt on his opponent, can we agree that it was urgent while that aid was being withheld . There are two things im talking about the common understanding of what urgent means. This was urgent as everyone understands that term. Can we agree that it was urgent. It was urgent and important. But my job as the director of National Intelligence was to comply with the whistleblower protection act and adhere to the definition of urgent concern which is a legal term. And to adhere to the meaning of the term shall . Yes, sir. In this case you sought a Second Opinion of whether the term shall means shall by going to the white house . No, sir. There were two things, one, it appeared that it also had matters of executive privilege. I am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to waive executive privilege. And at any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the white house assert executive privilege . Mr. Chairman, i have endeavored i think thats a yes or no question. Did they ever assert executive privilege. They were working through the executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to exert privilege. They never exerted privilege, is that the answer . If they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday and all of the information thats been forthcoming. The first place you went was to the white house. It wasnt to the department of justice. The first place you went for a Second Opinion was to the white house . I did not go for a Second Opinion. The question was, is the information contained here subject to executive privilege, not whether it not meant urgent concern. So the first place you went for advice as to whether you should provide the complaint as the statute requires to congress was the white house . I am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to provide executive privileged information. I think it is prudent as a member of the executive branch to check to ensure that in fact it does not. Im asking about the sequencing here. Did you first go to the white house to determine whether you should provide a complaint to congress . No, sir. That was not the question. The question was whether or not it has executive privilege, not whether or not i should send it onto congress. Okay. Is the first party you went to outside of your office to seek advice, counsel, direction, the white house . I have the white House Counsel, and eventually, we also consulted with the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. And my question is, did you go to the white house first . I went to the office of Legal Counsel for advice, yes, sir. Well, im asking which you went to first. Did you go to the department of Justice Office Legal Counsel or the white house . Excuse me. My team, my office went to the office of Legal Counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. They viewed it and said, weve determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. I worked with the office of Legal Counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. Its a very deliberate process. Well, director, im still trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the office of Legal Counsel then white House Counsel . Excuse me. Repeat that please, sir. Im just trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the office of Legal Counsel, then you went to the white House Counsel . No, no, no, sir. We went to the white house first to determine, to ask the question thats all i want to know, is chronology. You went to the white house first. So you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress. There were issues within this, a couple of things. One, it did appear that it has executive privilege. If it does have executive privilege, it is the white house that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of National Intelligence. But in this case, the white house, the president is the subject of the complaint. Hes the subject of the wrongdoing. Were you aware when you went to the white house for advice about whether evidence of wrongdoing by the white house should be provided to the congress, were you aware the white House Counsel has taken the unprecedented position that the privilege applies to communications involving the president , when he was president , involving the president , when he wasnt president , involving people who never served in the administration, involving people who never served in the administration, even when theyre not talking to the president . Were you aware thats the unprecedented position of the white house, the white house you went to for advice about whether you should turn over a complaint involving the white house . Mr. Chairman, as i said in my Opening Statement, i believe that everything here in this matter is totally unprecedented, and that is why my former directors of National Intelligence forwarded them to you, whether or not it meant urgent concern or whether it was serious. This was different. And to me, it just seemed prudent to be able to check and ensure as a member of the executive branch before i sent it forward. A couple more questions then ill turn it over to the Ranking Member. He may consume as much time as i did. The second place you went to was the Justice Department, and you went to that department headed by a man, bill barr, who was also implicated in the complaint. And you knew that when you went to the department of justice for an opinion, correct . That bill barr was mentioned in the complaint. Mr. Chairman, i went to the office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the icig. He was a part of that, to receive whether or not this met the criteria yes, but that icig vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the bill barr Justice Department, did he not . He still considered it a matter of urgent concern. However, as you know, opinions from department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think its appropriate that you go to a department run by someone whos the subject of the complaint to get advice or who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that to congress . Did that conflict of interest concern you . Mr. Chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. It came to me, and i just thought it would be prudent to ensure im just asking if the conflict of interest concerned you. Well, sir, i have to work with what ive god, and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch. What you also had is a statute saying shall. Even then, you had the discretion to provide it but did not. Because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern. That took away the sevenday timeline. I have endeavored to work with the office of Legal Counsel in order to get the material to you which we have provided to you yesterday. Now, i have to tell you, chairman. It is not, perhaps, at the timeline that i would have desired or you, but the office of Legal Counsel has to make sure they make prudent decisions. And yesterday when the president released the transcripts of his call with the president of ukraine, then executive privilege no longer applied, and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint to the committee. Director, you dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . I dont know who the whistleblower is, mr. Chairman, to be honest with you. Ive done my utmost to protect his anonymity. That doesnt sound like much of a defense of the whistleblower here, someone you found did everything right. You dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you, director . I believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith. Then they couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack, could they . Mr. Chairman, my job is to support and lead the entire Intelligence Community. That individual works for me. Therefore, it is my job to make sure that i support and defend that person. You dont have any reason to accuse them of disloyalty to our country or suggest theyre beholden to some other country, do you . Sir, absolutely not. I believe that the whistleblower followed the steps every step of the way. However, the statute was one in this situation involving the president of the United States who is not in the Intelligence Community or matters underneath my supervision did not meet the criteria for urgent concern. Im just asking about the whistleblower right now. I think the whistleblower did the right thing. I think he followed the law every step of the way, and we just got stuck then why, director, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she might be disloyal to the country, why did you remain silent . I did not remain silent, mr. Chairman. I issued a statement to my work force telling committing my commitment to whistleblower protection and ensuring i would provide protection to anyone within the Intelligence Community who comes forward. But the way this thing was blowing out, i didnt think it was appropriate for me to be making a press statement so that we counter each other every step of the way. I think it was not only appropriate, but theres nothing that would have given more confidence to the work force than hearing you publicly say, no one should be calling this professional who did the right thing a hack or a traitor or anything else. I think that would have meant a great deal to the work force. Mr. Nunes, youre recognized. Welcome, mr. Director. Its a pleasure to have you here, and youre going to be part of a charade of legal word games that are going to try to get you to Say Something that can be repeated by the media that is here that wants to report this story. I just want to get one thing straight because one of the quotes theyre going to use from you is you saying that this was a credible complaint. That will be used and spun as youre saying it was true. I want to give you an opportunity to you do not you have not investigated the voracity or truthfulness of this complaint. Thats correct, Ranking Member. The determination on credible was made by the ic Inspector General. He made the determination that it is credible, and he also made the determination of urgent concern. My question was not i did not question his judgment there. The question i had was, does, in fact, this allegation of wrongdoing meet the criteria, the statutory criteria of urgent concern . And the other issue, as i said, that complicated things, did it, in fact, the allegations within this whistleblower complaint involve executive privilege. Thank you for clarifying that. You mentioned it a little bit in your testimony, but have you ever or are you aware of any former dnis who have testified about whistleblower complaints in the public . Not to my knowledge, Ranking Member. I do not know. Are you aware of any cases like this that were put into the spotlight . Would this be the way to handle it, out in the public like this . I am not aware of any, but i want to say once again, i believe that the situation we have and why were here this morning is because this case is unique and unprecedented. So why are cases normally not handled out in the public . All the other cases that came before either this committee or the senate committee, whether or not they met the criteria of urgent concern were forwarded because they involved members of the Intelligence Community who were, in fact, in organizations underneath the dnis authority and responsibility. This one just didnt come that way because it involved a member an individual who is not a member of the Intelligence Community or an organization underneath the authority of the dni. So this one is different from all others in the past that i am aware of. So i want to get into how this all got out in the public over the last this has basically been an orchestrated effort over two weeks. If you we were first told about it, i dont know, a week and a half ago. We were told very specifically that the whistleblower did not want to get any of this information out, they didnt want it to leak out. So there were only a few potential groups of people that would have known about this complaint. You and your people within your office. Yes, sir. The people within the Inspector Generals office and the whistleblower and whoever that whistleblower gave this information to. So what im trying to ascertain is, how would it run in all the Mainstream Media outlets . Even though they got a lot of it wrong but they had the basics of it, that it involved the president of the United States talking to a foreign leader. So did anybody, you or anybody in your office leak this to the Washington Post or nbc news . Ranking member, i lead the Intelligence Community. We know how to keep a secret. As far as how that got into the press, i really do not know, sir. I just know its all over the place, and as you said, its been reported by different media for the past several weeks. Where they get their information from, i dont know. So that but it was not from the Intelligence Community, from me, or from my office. Thank you, director. So this is not the first time this has happened to this president. It happened with a call between the mexican president , the australian prime minister. So its happened twice before, that pieces of transcripts leaked out. And of course, this time it was leaked out again, and the president , thankfully he was able to put this out because of the actions of this of the situation, as you said, thats unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have their conversations leak out . This is the third time. I would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that, Ranking Member. But to me, the president of the United States conversation with any other head of state, i would consider privileged conversation. Clearly, those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies. Not necessarily, sir. I mean, if the president i should say this. Theyre captured and disseminated. Captured and disseminated to the intelligence agencies. I have to be careful in this open hearing about how i respond to that. The Intelligence Community and the National Security agency, obviously they collect things to protect i just want to make sure because are we just going to were not going to have the president of the United States not talk to foreign leaders, or lets just publish all the transcripts because thats whats happening here. Ranking member and somebody is leaking this and its likely coming from the agencies that you oversee. Ranking member, no, sir im not saying you dont know. We had the transcript with the mexican president , the australian prime minister, and now contents of a call with the ukrainian president leak out. Ranking member, the allegation in the whistleblower complaint was that there were about 12 people who listened in on the conversation. Members of the National Security council and others. Others were briefed from state department as well. They have an area of responsibility and a regional responsibility, then they would be informed on the interaction. So there are a number of people from the white house briefed on the call. This would not be something well, im quite sure of this. The white house probably didnt leak this out. I wouldnt say the white house, but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not. I dont know. But it would not be from an intelligence intercept. I will say that. Right. Im not im just saying, the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right . And it is important for the state department and the appropriate agencies to get. Im not saying its all in the intelligence agency. But when a president talks to a foreign leader, its confidential. Those contents are confidential. There could be some facts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the ic. I want to be clear about that. But this is now the third time. Im not aware of this ever happening before, of contents of calls like this getting out. I really dont know, Ranking Member. Im not aware. I dont have the numbers. It just seems to me, though, that it is unprecedented, and i would also say i think that the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of the ukraine is probably unprecedented as well. Well, we appreciate you being here, and have fun. Be careful what you say, because theyre going to use these words against you. I tell you what, Ranking Member, either way, im honored to be here and to be leading the intelligence well, i appreciate your service to this country for a long time. Im sure well be talking again soon, hopefully not in the public. Hopefully behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you, chairman. Director maguire, thank you for being here, and thank you for your profound service and the service of your family to this country. Director, what i find bewildering about this whole conversation is that we are not sitting here today and the American Public is not aware of the allegations of the president asking for a favor of investigation into his political opponent, were not aware of the murky decision to withhold aid, were not aware of mr. Giulianis apparent establishment of a personal state department. We are not aware of a possible retaliation against a u. S. Ambassador. None of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, a man who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by a republican senate, to come to this committee seven days after the complaint was required by law to be transmitted to us. It was his decision, personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of conspiracy theories the Ranking Member thinks is happening here, but it was the decision of Michael Atkinson, an appointee of this president , to come to this Committee Following not advice from you or any law but following his own conscience. Without his decision to do this, none of this is happening, correct . I applaud michaels the way hes done this. Hes acted in good faith. He has followed the law every step of the way. The question is, congressman, does it did it or did it not meet the Legal Definition no, sir. I asked a very different question, which was, without his decision, none of this is happening. Is that correct . We got to back up to the whistleblower as well. Okay. And i should have noted that the whistleblower also deserves the same accolades that mr. Atkinson does. Director, were you ever advised by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason . No, congressman. Okay. And as i understand it, the opinion was that you were not obligated to convey, despite the very clear wording of the law, to convey the complaint to congress. So the decision was taken to defy a subpoena of this congress, the subpoena of september 17th, to turn over the complaint. Who made the decision to defy that subpoena of september 17th . Congressman, urgent concern sir, im asking a very simple question. Who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena . Somebody said, we will not abide by this subpoena, and id like to know who that somebody was. Congressman, nobody did. I endeavored once we no longer had urgent concern with the sevenday timeline, you know, to work to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was to get work through the executive privilege hurdles with the office of Legal Counsel at the white house. Although, this was the most important issue to me. You know, the white house has quite a few other issues that they were dealt with. I would have liked to have had a as i said to the chairman, that perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process, and finally, you know, it came to a head yesterday. So when i received the information on the 26th of august, we had seven days based on the whistleblower protection act. All we did was lose those seven days. It may have taken longer than we would have liked or you would have liked, but you have the information. So sir, just so im focused on the subpoena. The subpoena is on your desk. Its a subpoena of the congress of the United States. Its pretty clear in what it asks for. Youre saying that a decision was never taken not to comply with that subpoena, and yet somehow it wasnt complied with. Im again looking for the Decision Making process to ignore a legal congressional subpoena. Congressman, i did not ignore i dealt with the chairman of this committee and asked to have one more week to be able to do what i needed to do to get this information released. He was gracious enough, and this committee was also very supportive. It wasnt something that was ready to go, but i was committed, fully committed to this committee and to the chairman to get that information. And i finally was able to provide that yesterday. Okay. Thank you, director. Director, did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint . Congressman, im the president s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times throughout the week. Let me repeat my question. Did you ever speak to the president about this complaint . My conversations with the president , because im the director of National Intelligence, are privileged, and it would be inappropriate for me, because it would destroy my relationship with the president in intelligence matters, to divulge any of my conversations with the president of the United States. But just so we can be clear, for the record, you are not denying that you spoke to the president about this complaint. What im saying, congressman, is that i will not divulge privileged conversations that i have as the director of National Intelligence with the president. As the white house instructed you to assert that privilege . No, sir. Thats just a member of the executive committee i mean, executive branch. As a member of the National Security council and also the homeland committee. You know, i just have to maintain the discretion and protect the conversation with the president of the United States. Thank you, director. I appreciate that answer. Apparently the clock is broken, but ill yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conaway. Thank you for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither of us are lawyers. That might be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff, sir. I do, congressman. And your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and have given you advice. Yes, congressman. If the black letter law was so clear in black letter, how is it that weve got different attorneys giving you and i different opinions . Thats a rhetorical question, with respect to this issue. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was in front of us last week, did a very good job of telling us what he did, what he didnt do. We now know for sure what it is that he was able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president. The reason he did is he cited the difficulty of working through all of that would have probably meant he couldnt comply with the 14day time frame. So even he did not try to overrun the white houses executive privilege over the conversation that the president had with the president. He also said in his letter, i also determine this is quoting michael i also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. Now, thats a different statement than a flat out its credible. Just again, a rhetorical statement. Is there anything, a statute from your lawyers advising you, that says that the determination of urgent concern lies solely with the icig . No, sir, i was never advised by my Legal Counsel to that effect. All right. To your knowledge, has the Justice Department ever weighed in to say that the fact that dni cant make a separate decision with respect to the sevenday frat that the matter is not of urgent concern, as your team decided . The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. Its pretty much either yes or no. Thats not the case, admiral. Ig said it was, and youre saying its not under that Legal Definition because it involved the president. Last time i checked, youre pretty familiar with chains of command, i know. Hes not youre not hes not in your chain of command. So for very definite reasons that appear to be credible, it doesnt mean the definition with concern to the whistleblower protections of the ig, and your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. No, sir. It was the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that made the determination that it was not urgent concern. All we wanted to do was just check and see. And to me, it just seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now to be able to just make sure that, in fact, it did. And when it didnt, i want to say once again, i endeavored to get that information to this committee. Okay, sir. Just to clarify the role that the Inspector General had with respect to the department of justice, i heard you say that he was involved in the conversations, allowed to make his case, but also said you gave him the letter, gave the Justice Department the letter. What was his exact involvement in making his case to Justice Department to his decision . Was he there physically or his lawyers there . To the best of my knowledge, the icigs transmittal letter as well as the complaint from the whistleblower were forwarded to the office of Legal Counsel for their determination. I believe that is what they based their opinion on. Okay. So you dont think he if im incorrect, ill come back to the committee and correct that, sir. Okay. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. Appreciate your long, storied history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens in this arena a lot, sometimes justified and most of the time not. Your integrity was not justified. The fact we have differences of opinion, when we start losing those differences of opinion, we start to attack each other, call each other names and those kinds of things. My experience is when youve got a legal matter, ive got lawyers i pay, youve got lawyers you pay. Typically stick with the lawyers im paying. You had good legal advice on this issue in a really tough spot, wanting to make sure this whistleblower was protected but at the same time if, in fact, there was something awry here, that it would get the full airing its clearly getting. So thank you for your service, and i yield back. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director maguire, thanks so much for being here. I want to turn to what i fear may be one of the most damaging, longterm effects of this whistleblower episode, and that is the Chilling Effect that it will have on others in government who may witness misconduct but now may be afraid to come forward to report it. Sir, im worried that Government Employees and contractors may see how important this situation has played out and decide its not worth putting themselves on the line. The fact that a whistleblower followed all of the proper procedures to report misconduct and then the department of justice and the white house seems to have weighed in to keep the complaint hidden is problematic, sir. I want to know whether or not you see how problematic this will be in having a Chilling Effect on members of the ic that you are sworn to represent and ostensibly protect. Congresswoman, i think thats a fair assessment. I dont disagree with what youve said. I have endeavored to transmit to the Intelligence Community my support to whistleblowers, and im quite sure that for at least two hours this morning, there are not many people in the Intelligence Community who are doing anything thats productive besides watching this. Right, and so my concern i think is a valid one, that in fact, what has happened with this whistleblower episode will have a Chilling Effect. I also want to ask you, have you given direction to this whistleblower that he can, in fact, he or she, can, in fact, come before congress . Director, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she was potentially disloyal to the country, you remained silent. Im not sure why, but i also think that adds to the Chilling Effect. The statute seems pretty clear that you shall everybody has a role to play. The process seems pretty clear. And part of it also includes you directing the whistleblower of his or her protected rights. Can you confirm that youve directed that whistleblower that he or she can come before congress . Well, congresswoman, there are several questions there. One, i do not know the identity of the whistleblower. Two, now that the complaint has come forward, we are working with his counsel in order to be able to provide them with security clearance. So sir, i think its pretty my question is pretty simple. Can you assure this committee and the American Public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections of the whistleblower act . Can you confirm that . Thats a yes or no question. Right now im working through that with the chair, and to the best of my ability, i believe the chair was asking to have the whistleblower come forward. Im working with counsel, with the committee to support that. Can you assure the American Public that the end result will be that the whistleblower will be able to come before this committee and congress and have the full protections of the after all, what is the whistleblower statute for if not to provide those full protections against retaliation, against litigation . Congresswoman, i am doing everything to endeavor to support that. Will the gentlewoman yield . Yes. Director, do i have your assurance that once you work out the security clearances for the whistleblowers counsel that that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge that concerned wrongdoing by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the white house or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or not answer. Do i have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law . Yes, congressman. Thank you. I yield back to the gentlewoman. So mr. Director, i also want to understand what youre going to do to try to ensure the trust of the employees and contractors that you represent to assure the American People that the whistleblower statute is, in fact, being properly adhered to and that no further efforts would be to obstruct an opportunity for a whistleblower who has watched misconduct to actually get justice. Congresswoman, supporting and leading the men and women of the Intelligence Community is my highest priority. I dont consider that they work for me. As the director of National Intelligence, i believe that i well, sir, i just want to say and go on record being very clear that this will have a Chilling Effect, and that is exactly not what the statute was intended for. It was intended for transparency. It was intended also to give the whistleblower certain protections. And i think the American People deserve that. Thank you. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Turner. Director, thank you for being here. Morning, congressman. Thank you for your service and the clarity at which you have described the deliberations that you went through in applying the laws with respect to this complaint. It is incredibly admirable in the manner in which you approached this. Now, i read the complaint, and ive read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the ukraine. Concerning that conversation, i want to say to the president , this is not okay. That conversation is not okay. I think its disappointing to the American Public when they read the transcript. I can say what else it is not. It is not whats in the complaint. We now have the complaint and the transcript, and people can read that the allegations in the complaint are not the allegations of the subject matter of this conversation. What else its not, its not the conversation that was in the chairmans Opening Statement. While the chairman was speaking, i actually had someone text me, is he just making this up . And yes, he was. Because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the text. Luckily the American Public are smart, and they have the transcript. Theyve read the conversation. They know when someone is just making it up. Now, weve seen this movie before. Weve been here all year on litigating impeachment, long before the july 25th conversation happened between the president and the president of ukraine. Weve heard the clicks of the cameras in this Intelligence Committees room where weve not been focusing on the issues of the National Security threat but instead of the calls for impeachment, which is really an assault on the electorate, not just this president. The complaint we now have, mr. Director, is based on hearsay. The person who wrote it says i talked to people, and they told me these things. The American Public has the transcript and the complaint, so they have the ability to compare them. Whats clear about the complaint is its based on plolitical issues. He or she is alleging that the actions of the president were political in nature. Now, thats my concern about how this is applied to the whistleblower statute. The whistleblower statute is intended to provide those in the Intelligence Community an opportunity to come to congress when theyre concerned about abuses of powers and laws, but its about the Intelligence Community. Its about abuse of surveillance, about the abuse of the spy mechanisms that we have. This is about actually the product of surveillance, someone that had access to surveillance that related the president s conversations and has brought it forward to us. Id like for you to turn for a moment and tell us your thoughts of the whistleblower process and the concerns as to why it has to be there so that the Intelligence Community can be held accountable and we can have oversight. Because it certainly wasnt there for oversight of the president. It was there for oversight for the Intelligence Community. So if you could describe your thoughts on that. Then i was very interested in your discus on the issue of executive privilege. Theres been much made of the fact the law says on the whistleblower statute that you shall. Clearly you have a conflict of laws when you have both the executive privilege issue and the issue of the word shall. So first, could you tell us the importance of the whistleblower statute with respect to accountability of the Intelligence Community and our role of oversight there . Then your process, your effects of being stuck in the middle where you have these conflicts of laws, mr. Director. Congressman, the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act is to apply to the Intelligence Community. It pertains to financial, administrative, or operational activities within the Intelligence Community under the oversight and responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. It does not allow a member of the Intelligence Community to report any wrongdoing that comes from anywhere in the federal government. So with that, i do believe that that is about the intelligence whistleblower protection act was the best vehicle the whistleblower had to use. It came to me, and discussion with our icig, who is a colleague, and the determination was made, you know, by the well, that he viewed that it was, in fact, credible and that it was a matter of urgent concern. And i just thought it would be prudent to have another opinion. I have worked with lawyers my whole career. Whether it was the rule of armed conflict, admiralty claims or rules of engagement or just the uniform code of military justice. And i have found that different lawyers have different opinions on the same subject. We have nine justices of the supreme court. More often than not, the opinions are 54. That doesnt mean that five are right and four are wrong. Theyre differences of opinion. But when this matter came to me, i have a lot of life experience. I realized the importance of the matter that is before us this morning. And i thought it would be prudent for me to ensure that, in fact, it met that statute before i sent it forward in compliance with the whistleblower protection act. And i hope that responds to your question, sir. I yield back. As an aside, i want to mention that my colleague is right on both counts. Its not okay, but also, my summary of the president s call was meant to be at least part in parody. The fact thats not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the president never said if you dont understand me, im going to say it seven more times. My point is thats the message that the ukraine president was receiving in not so many words. Mr. Carson. Thank you, chairman, schiff. Thank you, director maguire, for your service. Director maguire, this appears to be the first Intelligence Community whistleblower complaint that has ever, ever been withheld from congress. Is that right, sir . Congressman carson, i believe that it might be. Once again, i said in my statement, it is, in fact, as far as im concerned, unprecedented. It is unprecedented, sir. Do you know why its unprecedented . I think its because the law that congress at this very committee drafted really couldnt be clearer. It states that upon receiving such an urgent complaint from the Inspector General, you, the director of National Intelligence, quote, shall, end quote, forward it to the intel committees within seven days. No ifs, ands, or buts. Even when the ig has found complaints, not to be an urgent concern or even credible, your office has consistently and uniformly still transmitted those complaints to the Intelligence Committee. Is that true, sir . Congressman carson, in the past, even if they were not a matter of you aurgent concern o whether they were not credible, they were forwarded. In each and every instance prior to this, it involved members of the Intelligence Community who were serving in organizations underneath the control of the dni. This one is different because it did not meet those two criteria. Director, does executive privilege or laws that regulate the Intelligence Community preempt or negate the laws that safeguard the security of americas democratic elections and her democracy itself, sir . No, chairman carson, it does not. Not withstanding, director, this ambiguous mandate and the consistent practice of your office that you withheld this urgent complaint from congress at the direction of the white house and the Justice Department, you follow their orders instead of the law. And if the Inspector General had not brought this complaint to our attention, you and the Trump Administration might have gotten away with this unprecedented action. Sir, you released a statement yesterday affirming your oath to the constitution and your dedication to the rule of law. But im having trouble understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here. Can you explain that to us, sir . Congressman carson, a couple things. The white house did not, did not direct me to withhold the information. Neither did the office of Legal Counsel. That opinion is unclassified and has been disseminated. The question came down to urgent concern, which is a Legal Definition. It doesnt mean, is it important, is it timely . Urgent concern met the certain criteria that weve discussed several times here. So it did not. All that did, sir, was just take away the seven days. Now, as i said before, just because it was not forwarded to this committee does not mean that it went unanswered. The icig and the Justice Department referred it to the federal bureau of investigation for investigation. So that was working while i was endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed so that it can then be forwarded. It was not stone walling. I didnt receive direction from anybody. I was just trying to work through the process and the law the way it is written. I have to comply with the way the law is, not the way some people would like it to be. And if i could do otherwise, it would have been much more convenient for me, congressman. And lastly, director, as you sit here today, sir, do you commit to providing every single whistleblower complaint intended for congress to the Intelligence Committee as required by the statute, sir . If its required by the statute, congressman carson, yes, i will. Thats good to know, sir. I certainly hope so because i think the unprecedented decision to withhold this whistleblower complaint from congress, i think it raises concerns, very serious concerns, for us and for me, and i think that we need to get to the bottom of this. I yield the balance of my time, chairman. Thank you. Thank you, congressman carson. Thank you. How much time does the gentleman have remaining . 27 okay. Director, you were not directed to withhold the complaint. Is that your testimony . Yes, that is absolutely true. So you exercise your discretion to withhold the complaint from the committee. I did not, sir. What i did was i delayed it because it did not meet the statutory definition of urgent concern, and i was working through and director, youre aware we spent a lot of time focusing on the definition of urgent concern. Youre aware that the practice of your office has been that regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, regardless of whether Inspector General finds it credible or incredible, the complaint is always given to our committee. Youre aware thats the unbroken practice since the establishment of your office and the Inspector General . Are you aware of that . Chairman, every previous whistleblower complaint that was forwarded to the Intelligence Committee involved a member of the Intelligence Community and an organization under which the director of National Intelligence had authority and responsibility. But youre aware that the past practice has been were talking about urgent concern here that whether you or the Inspector General or anybody else believes it meets the statutory definition, the past practice has always been to give it to this committee. Youre aware of that, right . Im aware this is unprecedented, and this has never happened. With that, sir, i agree. This has never happened before, but again, this is a unique situation. But you, director, made the decision. You made the decision to withhold it from the committee for a month when the white house had made no claim of executive privilege, when the department of justice said you dont have to give it to them but you can. You made the decision not to. Not true, sir. What the office of Legal Counsel said, that it does not meet the Legal Definition of urgent concern. So it said youre not required. It didnt say you cannot provide it. It said youre not required. That is, if you dont want to, were not going to force you. Youre not required, but it didnt say you cant. Am i right . What it allowed me and i said that in my Opening Statement, but even so, it was referred to the fbi for investigation, and i was endeavoring to get the information to you, mr. Chairman, but i could not forward it as a member of the executive branch without executive privileges being addressed. And i feel that the white House Counsel was doing the best that they could in order to get that, and it took longer than i would have liked. Thats for sure. But that came to a conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts, and because the transcripts were released, then no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was then free to send both the Inspector Generals cover letter and the complaint to you. But at no time was there any intent on my part to withhold the information from you as the chair, this committee, or the senate Intelligence Committee. Director, i wish i had the confidence of knowing that but for this hearing, but for the deadline we were forced to set with this hearing, that we would have been provided that complaint. But i dont know that we would have ever seen that complaint. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank you, mr. Maguire, for being here today. I think its a shame we started off this hearing with fictional remarks, the implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting words into it that did not exist. Theyre not in the transcript. I will contend that those were intentionally not clear, and the chairman described it as parody, and i dont believe this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts. Nor do those that were involved with the conversation agree with the parody that the chairman gave us. And unfortunately today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv, and the medias only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say. But im also glad to know that Many Americans have seen this movie too many times, and theyre tired of it. But let me get to some questions, sir, if i can. Lets go to the word credible. Credible does not mean proven true or factual. Would that be correct in this situation . I find no fault in your logic, congressman. Okay. So the interpretation that was credible, but also was that decision made by the ig before seeing the transcript of the conversation . I believe that the icig conducted to the best of his ability the investigation, and he found, to his ability, that based on the evidence and discussing it with the whistleblower that he thought that, in fact, it was credible. But the ig didnt necessarily have the transcript of the conversation. He did not, no. Okay. Thats my question. So to another point, you know, one of the issues that arose out of the russia investigation last congress was a question over the latitude provided to the u. S. President to conduct foreign affairs. In 2017, i asked then cia director brennan how he viewed statements made by president obama to russian president medvedev regarding more flexibility to negotiate after his 2012 election. And president medvedev replied he would transmit the information to vladimir and that medvedev stood with president obama. That was in an open hearing. Director brennan wouldnt entertain my question and insisted on not answering, due to the fact that the conversation was between the heads of government. Thats what he said. He further claimed he was avoiding getting involved in political partisan issues, which brings me to a similar question related to this whistleblower complaint. One, you said this executive privilege is unwaverable. I think thats consistent with cia director brennan. Congressman, only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. The president exerts executive privilege, and only the white house and president can waive that. Director brennan gave me the impression then that was the rule, thats the law. So im going to have to go with that. But do you believe the president s entitled to withhold his or her communications from congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblower case . I think that the president , when he conducts diplomacy and deals with foreign heads of state, he has every right to be able to have that information be held within the white house and the executive branch. Yesterday, i think the transmission of the call is unprecedented, and its also i think that other future leaders, when they interact with our head of state, might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction that they have with the president because of that release. So we may need to change our process here because i guess if a decision regarding executive privilege maybe it should be made prior to submitting the communication to congress. Well, either that i believe that this committee wrote the law. Based on what were doing today, you know, perhaps it needs to be relooked. I dont know. I leave that to the legislative branch. So also, we may need to change process. The 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. So i think maybe, you know, this is special circumstance, unprecedented, maybe there should be some leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. And i dont know if you know, did you feel or did the ig ever say that they felt rushed to making a decision because of the 14day process . No, congressman. I believe hes a very experienced Inspector General. Hes used to dealing with the 14day process. And when you work under a timeline like that, he worked with his staff, and i think endeavored to the extent because he was following the statute as he believed it was written. So i would think any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to be able to collect the facts and do other things, but mike the atkinson was under the 14day timeline, and he did the best of his ability to comply with that. Did you feel rushed in any way, sir . I did not. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, director maguire, for your extraordinarily long service to our country. Ed a any point during this process, did you personally threaten to resign if the complaint was not provided to the committee . No, congressman, i did not. And i know that that story has appeared quite a bit, and i issued a statement yesterday. All right, thank you. When you read the complaint, were you shocked at all by what you read . Congresswoman, as i said, i have a lot of life experience. I joined the navy i understand your record. Could you just answer it . Well, i realized full well, full and well, the importance of the allegation, and i also have to tell you, congressman congresswoman, when i saw that, i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee sometime to discuss it. All right. The complaint refers to what happened after the july 25th conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the United States. The white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location in order to lockdown, and that was the term used in the complaint, all records of the phone call. Did you did that reaction to the transcript seem to you like a recognition within the white house that the call was completely improper . Congresswoman, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. All i have is the knowledge that the whistleblower alleges in his allegation, the whistleblower complaint. I dont know whether, in fact, that is true or not. My only knowledge and Situational Awareness of that is from the whistleblowers letter. So knowing that the whistleblower appeared to be credible based on the evaluation by the Inspector General and knowing that effort was undertaken by the white house to cover it up, why would you then, as your first action outside of the Intelligence Community, go directly to the white house to the very entity that was being scrutinized and complained about in the complaint . Why would you go there to ask their advice as to what you should do . Congresswoman, the allegation that is made by the whistleblower is secondhand information, not known to him or her firsthand. Except, mr. Maguire, it was determined to be credible. There was an investigation done by the Inspector General. Let me go on to another issue. President trump, over the weekend, tweeted, it appears that an american spy in one of our intelligence agencies may have been spying on our own president. Do you believe that the whistleblower was spying on one of our intelligence agencies or spying on the president . As i said several times so far this morning, i believe that the whistleblower complied with the law and did everything that they thought he or she thought was responsible under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. But you did not speak out to protect the whistleblower, did you . Congresswoman, i yes or no, sir. I did, yes. I did within my own work force. I thought there was enough stuff that was appearing out in the press that was erroneous, that was absolutely incorrect, and i didnt think that i needed to respond to every single statement that was out there that was incorrect. So what i did is all right, thank you. My loyalty is to my work force. I respect that. Thank you. The president on monday said, who is this socalled whistleblower . Who knows the correct facts . Is he on our countrys side . Do you believe the whistleblower is on our countrys side . I believe that the whistleblower and all employees who come forward in the icig to raise concerns of fraud, waste, and abuse are doing what they perceive to be the right thing. So working on behalf of our country. Are you aware of the fact that whistleblowers within the federal government have identified waste, fraud, and abuse of over 59 billion that has had the effect of benefitting the taxpayers and keeping our country safe as well . Congresswoman, im not familiar with the dollar value, but having been in the Government Service for nearly four decades, i am very much aware of the value of the thank you. Let me ask you one final question. Did the president of the United States ask you to find out the identity of the whistleblower . I can say, although i would not normally discuss my conversations with the president , i can tell you emphatically, no. Has anyone else within the white house or the department of justice asked you . No, congresswoman. No. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Maguire, thank you for being here today. I want you to know the good news is im not going to treat you like a child, and im going to give you a chance to answer your questions if i ask you something. I want to thank you for your service, and id like you to remind me you said it earlier how many years of service, military service do you have . I have 36 years of service in the United States navy, 34 of those as a navy s. E. A. L. Thats great. 36 years, 34 years as a navy s. E. A. L. I had a mere 14 years as an air force pilot. I proudly wear these air force wings. These are actually my fathers air force wings. He served in the military as well, as did five of his sons. For someone who hasnt served in the military, i dont think they realize how deeply offensive it is to have your honor and your integrity questioned. Some on this committee have done exactly that. Theyve accused you of breaking the law, and im going to read just one part of many that i could from the chairman. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the department of justice and possibly the white house, have engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the president. And theres others that i could read. As i believe theyve sought to destroy your character. Im going to give you the opportunity to answer very clearly. Are you motivated by politics in your work or professional behavior . Excuse me, sir . Are you motivated by politics in your work or your professional behavior . No, congressman. Not at all. Im just going to leave it there. I am not. I am not political. I am not partisan. And i did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of National Intelligence. I thought that there were perhaps other people who would be best and more qualified to do that, but the president asked me to do this, and it was my honor to step up, and forever how long im doing it, to lead and support the Intelligence Community. Okay, thank you. Do you believe you have followed the laws and policies in the way youve handled this complaint . I do. I know i do. Have you in any way sought to protect the president or anyone else from any wrongdoing . I have not. What i have done is endeavored to follow the law. Thank you. Do you believe you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of Legal Counsel . The opinion of the office of Legal Counsel is binding on the executive branch. Thank you. Now, theres been a big deal made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that has been made that this is the first whistleblower complaint withheld from congress but its also true, isnt it, that its the first whistleblower complaint that potentially falls under executive privilege and its the first time that it included information outside of the authority of the dni, is that true . To the best of my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. I will say to my colleague sitting here, youre nuts if you think youre going to convince the American People that your cause is just by attacking this man and by impugning his character when its clear he felt theres a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law, he was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. Yet the entire tone here is that somehow youre a political stooge who has done nothing but try to protect the president. And i just think thats nuts. And anyone watching this hearing is surely going to walk away with the clear impression that you are a man of integrity that you dill what you felt was right regardless of the questions and innuendo cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today. One more thing before i yield my time. I think we can agree that leaks are unlawful and leaks are damaging, and for heavens sakes weve seen plenty of that over the past three years and theres a long list of leaks that have had clear implications for our National Security, meaningful implications for our National Security. I want to know, who is feeding the press information about this case, and have you made any referrals to the department of justice for unlawful disclosures . Yes, sir. Do you know who is feeding information about this case . No. Do you think it would be appropriate to make a referral to department of justice to try to determine that . I believe that anybody who witnesses or sees any wrong doing should refer any wrong doing or complaint to the department of justice for investigation. Including investigation about leaks . That is correct. Of classified information . Yes, congressman, any wrong doing. I dont know what time it is because our clock isnt working. I suppose my time is up. I would conclude by emphasizing one again, good luck convincing the American People this is a dishonorable man sitting here. Good luck convincing the American People he has done anything other than what he thinks is right. If you think it scores political points, then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. I would only say, director, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. No one has said so, no one has suggested that. Youve accused him of breaking the law, mr. Chairman. But it is certainly our strong view, and we hope it would be shared by the minority, when the Congress Says that something shall be done, it shall be done. And when that involves the wrong doing of the president its not an exemption to the requirement of the statue and the fact that the whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind for weeks and attacked by the president should concern all of us, democrats and republicans, that this was allowed to come to be that allegations this serious were withheld from this committee. That should concern all f of us. No one is suggesting that there is a dishonor here, but nonetheless, we are going to insist that the law be followed mr. Chairman, will yield . Mr. Quigley. Thank you, sir, for your service and being here. As you know those in public life who deal with other countries, ambassadors, those in the intelligence field, theyre vetted, go for approval before the senate, you understand the po policy reason for that, correct . Yes, sir. Do you have any problem with civilians without vetting, approval taking on those roles. Yes, i do, congressman. Why would you have those concerns . Well, in order to be in order to be able to handle Sensitive Information, whether it be diplomatic or certainly intelligence information, one must be vetted. This is the important part of protecting National Security. And in order we just cant bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand to put security clearance on them, its a matter of vetting. For me to come into government the fbi went back for 15 years in my background, examined all of my financial records to make sure that i was, in fact, worthy of having an intelligence clearance. And we do the same thing with the Intelligence Community. Everybody who is subject or everybody who is privileged to have access to intelligence information is a sacred trust. The American People expect us to keep them safe as i said earlier. In order to do that we need to ensure that any person who has access to this Sensitive Information of the United States has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are able to handle that information. Its not just the intel issues, its the issues of National Policy that people have an official role they carry out on behalf of the the United States and we know what their role is, correct . Yes, congressman. What is your understanding right now of what mr. Giulianis role is . Mr. Congressman, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal lawyer. Okay. So so far what ive gleaned is you see hes his personal lawyer. But read in the complaint, we read in this modified transcript, hes mentioned five times. Your reaction to the fact that this civilian, without any of this vetting has played this role . No, sir, all im saying is i know what the allegations are. Im not saying that the allegations are true, and thats where the committee i dont think theres any question the credibility of the complaint in that its in the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. Giuliani, highly respected man, the mayor of new york, i would like him to call you, i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Your reaction to a civilian dealing with these, in the complaint it talks about our National Security. The Inspector General talks about this as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has, and obviously mr. Giuliani is playing this role. To your knowledge, does he have security clearance . I do not know. Congressman, im neither aware or unaware whether or not mr. Giuliani has a security clearance. Before this happened, were you aware of his role or understanding what his role was doing what you do . Congressman quigley, my only knowledge of what mr. Giuliani does, i have to be honest with you, i get from tv and the news media. Im not aware of what he does, in fact, for the president. Are you aware of any communication by mr. Giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with this role given the classified nature, the National Security implications that are in the complaint, that are in the transcript in the role that he is playing . I have read the transcripts just as you have. So my knowledge of his activity in there is just limited to the conversation that the president had with the president you on ukraine. Sir, we respect your role and while we have differences of opinion, we continue to respect your integrity and your honor. But we have this vast amount of experience you have and we need to understand how it plays juxtaposition with the complaint. Reading an omb official informed departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that . Thinking that has to do with the president s lawyer in these matters should be referred to the white house. Im reading the complaint. I lead, and i support, the Intelligence Community and the 17 different departments and agencies underneath my leadership. I do not lead the president , and i have no authority or responsibility over the white house. But you are aware of with all of your experience the fact we have this relationship with ukraine that they are dependent upon us and this complaint doesnt concern you . You cant say publicly that it concerns you . There are a lot of things that concern me, im the director of National Intelligence. This one here i have to defer back to the conversation that the president had is his conversation. How the president of the United States wants to conduct diplomacy is his business, and i its not whether or not i approve it or disapprove of it, that is the president s business on how he wants to conduct that, sir. The issue is whether it commits a crime, and that bothers you. The time of the gentleman has expired. Director you may complete your answer if you wish. Excuse me . If you wanted to respond you may. No, im fine. Thank you for being here, we appreciate your life of Public Service. My question relates to prior to the Trance Mission on august 26th from the ig to the dni. Were there any conversations that you with the ig prior to august 26th related to this matter . Congressmwoman, theres beena lot thats happened in the last several weeks. As far as the timeline is concerned, id like to take that and give back to you and give you a full cron olg if i may, on the actual timeline of events. That would be helpful to this committee in terms of if there were any preliminary conversations, what was discussed and if there was any action taken as a result of those conversations. I want to be turn to the complaint itself, which is made public for the American Public to read. And let me preface this by saying i greatly appreciate your statement that you believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith. I think thats very important for americans to hear. But on page 1, im not going to improvise for parity purposes like the chairman of the committee did. Im going to quote it directly. On page 1 the complaint reads quote i was not a direct witness to most of the events described. This seems like a very important line to look into, and i think the American Public will have questions in particular about that line. So my question to you is, for the record, did the ig fully investigate the allegations into this complaint at this time . Has the ig fully investigated the allegations in this complaint . As i said earlier, congresswoman, i believe the Intelligence Community Inspector General did a thorough investigation with the 14day time frame that he had. And under that timeline to the best of his ability made the determination that it was both credible and urgent. I have no reason to doubt that Michael Atkinson did anything but his job. Sure. So when you talk about a full investigation, were the veracity of the allegations in the complaint looked into . There were many references to white house officials. Do you know if the ig spoke with those white house officials . If he investigated the truthfulness of these allegations or was it a preliminary investigation . Id have to defer to the ig to respond to you on that. All i do know although i do not know the identity of the whistleblower, i know that Michael Atkinson had, in fact, you know, discussed this with the whistleblower and found his complaint to be credible. As far as who else he spoke with, i am unaware of what went on in Michael Atkinsons investigation into this matter. So as of today, the only individual that we know the ig spoke with is the complainant, the author and the whistleblower . Congresswoman what im saying is im unaware who else Michael Atkinson may have spoken to. Im just unfamiliar with his investigative process and everybody he spoke to in this regard. Thank you for the answer on the record. Again for the American Public theyre going to have many questions as they read this complaint today because on page 1 it says no direct knowledge i think its very important that we conduct that we have questions answered for individuals that do have direct knowledge and with that i yield back. Thank you. Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Maguire do you agree the definition of a cover up is the attempt to prevent people from discovering a crime . Id say thats close. Im sure theres others but i dont disagree with that. In the whistleblower complaint, the whistleblower alleges that immediately after the president s call with the president of ukraine on july 25th, white house lawyers moved quickly to direct white house officials to move electronic transcripts from one Computer System where it was normally stored to a secret classified information system, is that right . Congresswoman excue me, sir, i apologize is that what was alleged in the whistleblower complaint . Congressman yes or no . All i know is that is the allegation. Im asking you that. Thats whats alleged. Thats the allegation. You read that allegation and the first people you go to after reading that allegation are the white house lawyers who are telling the white house officials who see this transcript and move it to a secret system . Those are the first people you go to . Lets say a couple things. Is that yes or no . Yes. Im going to keep going here. You get this complaint, Inspector General says urgent, credible, you have no wiggle room to not go to congress, and instead, you send your concern to the subject of the complaint, the white house . So did the white house tell you after you sent your concern about privilege did they tell you to go to the department of justice next . We my team, my counsel, in consultation with the Intelligence Community Inspector General went to the office of Legal Counsel. So and we were not directed to do that. We mr. Maguire you said this did not involve ongoing intelligence activities however the whistleblower says this is not the first time that the president s transcripts with foreign leaders were improperly moved to an Intelligence Community code word system, is that part of the allegation . I believe thats in the letter and ill let the letter speak for itself. What can also speak for itself is if the transcript of a discussion with a foreign leader is improperly moved to a classification system that would involve your responsibilities, is that right . Not necessarily. I do not it is not underneath my authority and responsibility. And once again, this is an allegation that has been made. Does not necessarily mean that that is a true statement. The allegation was determined to be urgent and credible by the Inspector General, is that right . Yes, it was. Would you want to know, considering you are the director of National Intelligence and transcripts are being moved into a secret system whether other transcripts perhaps maybe the president s phone calls with Vladimir Putin with mbs of saudi arabia or kim jongun, would you want to know if those were also being improperly moved because the president is trying to cover up something . Congressman, how the white house, the office of the the executive office of the president and the National Security council conduct their business is their business. Its your business to protect americas secrets, is that right. Its all of ours, this committee as well. If theres activity that a president is working improperly with a Foreign Government that can compromise it, right. Theres an allegation of a cover up. Im sure an investigation might lead credence or disprove that, but right now all we have is an allegation from secondhand information from a whistleblower. I have no knowledge on whether or not that is true and accurate statement. The department of justice opinion that you relied upon said that you are not responsible for preventing foreign election interference, is that right . That was in the opinion . What the office of Legal Counsel did was, over 11 pages no, they said in an opinion, defining and explaining their justification for it not complying with urgent are you responsible for preventing election interference . Election interference by a Foreign Government. I hope you know this answer is yes nor. Are you responsible for preventing election interference . Election interference. I really hope. Its a top priority in the Intelligence Community. Is it your priority, though . Yes, it is. This complaint alleges a shakedown with a Foreign Government by the United States president involving a rogue actor who has no clearance, no authority under the United States, and an effort by the white house to move the transcript of this call to a secret system, is that right . Thats at least whats alleged. Congressman, i believe a Election Security is a fundamental priority however this focussed on a conversation with the president with another foreign leader not Election Security. I yelled back, thank you. Thank you, congressman. If that conversation involved the president requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election . Chairman, once again, this was sent to the federal bureau of investigation i understand that. But youre not suggesting, are you, that the president is somehow immune from the laws that preclude a u. S. Person from seeking foreign help in a u. S. Election, are you . What i am saying chairman schiff, is that no one, none of us is above the law in this country. Mr. Herd. Thank you, chairman, admiral, its a pleasure to be with you. I tell my friends all the time that ive gotten more surveillance as a member of congress than i did as an undercover officer in the cia. You had more arrows shot at you as dni than your four decades on the battlefield. A specific question, the letter contained in the whistleblower package its dated august 12th i recognize this may be a better question to ask the icig, that letter is dated august 12th and its to the chairman of the Senate Select committee on intelligence and the chairman of this committee. Do you know if the whistleblower provided that letter to the two chairman concurrently with the icig . No, congressman. As i said earlier, i believe the whistleblower and the icig acted in good faith and followed the law every step of the way. Good copy. Weve talked about the way the law on the whistleblower statue is says you shall share if its decided to be an urgent concern. However, best practices has always been to share regardless of whether that urgent concern. Do you see any reason, negative impact on the Intelligence Community, if that legislation was changed to say all whistleblower complaints should be shared with the committees . Thats correct. And in addition to that, congressman, lets say the allegation was made against a member of this committee, you know, members of this committee, although you are the Intelligence Committee are not members of the Intelligence Community and as the dni i have no authority or responsibility over this committee. My question is, do you think that if every whistleblower complaint that was brought to the Intelligence Community Inspector General was always shared with this committee, would that have any impact on intelligence equities . And i ask that because i dont know why when the statue was written it didnt say all shall be shared rather than only urgent concern my question to you as the head of the Intelligence Community, do you think if we changed the law would it have impact on the equities . I dont think the law could be changed to cover all things that might happen. I think we have a good law, it is well written, however as i said, congressman, this is unprecedented and a unique situation, why were sitting here this morning. I hope were not in this position again. However if we find ourselves in this position again i want to make sure theres not any uncertainty in when information should be shared with this committee. Was the odi under you or your predecessor aware of a decision to suspend ukraine aid as was alleged in the complaint . As far as im aware personally, no, i have no knowledge of that, and im not sure if anybody in the odni is wae aware of that, i just dont have the answer to that. I apologize for a lot of these legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else, when was the olc, office of legislative Legal Counsel. Excuse me, Legal Counsel override laws made by congress . The office of Legal Counsel does not override laws made by congress. It passes legal opinion for those of us in the executive branch and the opinion is behindibehin binding to everyone within the executive branch. I have two final questions ill ask them together to give you time to answer both. What is your assessmentment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode . When i say episode im referring to the media circus, political circus, technical issues related to this whistleblower revelation, you eluded to it in some of your previous questions but i would like your assessment on how this can impact intelligence operations in the future. I believe this is your first time testifying before congress in your position. I know this is a little off topic, what do you see the greatest challenges and threats to this country as the director . I think the greatest challenge we face is not necessarily from a strike with russia or china or iran or north korea. I think the greatest challenge we have is making sure to maintain the integrity of our election system. We know there are foreign powers trying to get us to question the validity on whether or not our elections are valid. So first and foremost. I think that protecting the sanctity of your elections, whether its city, state, local is protected. Outside of that we face significant threats. Number one is cyber. This is a cyber world. We talk about whether or not the great competition is taking place with russia and china, and we are building ships and weapons to do that, but my estimation the greatest competition with these countries is taking place now, and doing it in the cyber world. The broadest implications on intelligence operations in this current whistleblower situation . In light of this, i clearly have a lot of work as the leader of this community to reassure my to reassure that, you know, the Intelligence Community that, in fact, you know, i am totally committed to the whistleblower program. And im absolutely, absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual, as well as making sure that Michael Atkinson, who is our icig, continues to be able to do his job unfeted. But i think with that i certainly have to be proactive in my communications with my team. Mr. Chairman i yield back the time i may or may not have. Mr. Castro. Thank you. I want to say thank you also to the whistleblower for having the courage and bravery to come forward on behalf of the nation. Thank you to mr. Atkinson, the Inspector General, for his courage in coming forward to congress. You mentioned that you believe that the whistleblowers report is credible, the whistleblower is credible, the whistleblower acted in good faith. Youve had a chance now, as we have and i believe the American People have, had an opportunity to review the whistleblower complaint and the transcript that was released of the phone call between the president of the United States and the president of the ukraine. You read both documents by now, havent you . Yes, congressman. Would you say that the whistleblower complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released . I would say that the whistleblower complaint is in alignment with what was released yesterday by the president. Okay. I want to read you a quick section of both to underscore exactly how accurate and consistent this complaint is. On paige on page 2 of the whistleblower complaint, the whistleblower says according to the white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call the president pressured president zelensky to initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President joseph biden and his son hunter biden. And the third point, meet or speak with two people the president named as his personal envoy osthese 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 first paragraph, the third sentence, President Trump says, the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news so i want to let you know that. The other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son, that biden stopped 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, et cetera. Do you have reason to doubt what the whistleblower has brought forward . Getting back into Michael Atkinsons determination on whether or not it was credible or urgent concern, as the dni, it is not my place to ensure that it is credible. That is icigs job as the inspector, he determined that it is credible. My only trouble was that, in fact, it involved someone who is not in the Intelligence Community or in an organization under which i have authority and responsibility. Outside of that director maguire you agree that it involved intelligence matters, an issue of election interference, 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 the former Vice President , would that that wouldnt qualify as an intelligence matter . Would that qualify as an intelligence matter . Yes or no . Well, i dont mean to say thats kind of a hypothetical question, sir. I dont think its hypothetical. Thats whats in the transcript. Thats what hes asking for. The complaint, the complaint but thats what the president is asking the president of ukraine to do. Hes asking the president of ukraine 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 it is his i am not 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 your office or if the Inspector General is not able to investigate, then who is able to investigate . Congressman castro, once again, sir, as i mentioned several times so far, although it did not come to the committee, the complaint was referred to the Judicial Department for criminal investigation. This was not swept under the rug. I have one more question for you. Why did your office think you should appeal the igs determination about quote unquote urgent concern to the doj . That has never been done before. Its never been done before. This is unprecedented in that in the past 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 one last point i would make with respect to you say 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, do you agree thats true . The president has original classification authority. Then how is that person outside of the Intelligence Community . He is the president of the United States above the entire executive branch. Thank you. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Radcliffe. Thank you, chairman. Admiral, good to see you. You served in the navy 36 years, commanded seal team two correct. Despite the fact that after that service you became acting dni 23 days after the trump zelensky call and 24 days after the whistleblower made his or her complaint, you were subpoenaed before this committee after being publically accused of committing a crime, correct . Yes, congressman. Chairman schiff wrote a letter accusing you of being part of, quote, an unlawful cover up and the speaker of the house went on national tv and said not once but twice that you broke the law, you committed a crime. She said, the acting director of National Intelligence blocked him, meaning the,cig from d disclosing the whistleblower complaint, this is a violation of the law. You were publicly accused of committing a crime, 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 11page opinion about whether or not you were required by law to report the whistleblower complaint, correct . Thats correct, congressman. And that opinion says, the question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the dni to forward to the Intelligence Committee. We conclude that it does not. Did i read that accurately . Yes. I better have, right. Thats an opinion not from bill barr, thats an opinion from the department of justice ethics lawyers, not political appoin e appointees but career lawyers that serve republicans and democrats that determined that you did follow the law. You were publicly accused and 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 if 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 zelensky is a transcript of what President Trump said to president zelensky. Not casting aspersions on the whistleblowers good faith or their intent, but a secondhand 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. I know everyone is not going to have time to read the whistleblower complaint, but the whistleblower says i am deeply concerned talking about the president that there was a serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law. The 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 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 main stream media, the sources that the whistleblower bases the complaints on include the Washington Post, the New York Times, the hill, bloomberg, abc news and others. In other words, like the steele dossier, the allegations are based on thirdhand main stream media sources rather than firsthand information. The 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. Rudy 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, the 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. The attorney general does know because he issued a statement yesterday saying there was no involvement. My point in all of this 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 is legal communications, the United States is allowed to solicit help from a Foreign Government in an ongoing criminal investigation which is what president did in that conversation. So if the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct be my guest. I yelled back. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Heck. 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 that july 25th conversation between President Trump and president zelensky. And we now 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 in 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 rewind to may 7th of this year. When fbi director Christopher Wray testified before the United States senate that and im quoting now any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to the fbi any conversations with foreign actors about, quote, influencing or interfering with our election. Director wray is, of course, the top cop in the United States of america. You agree with director wray, do you not, sir . Congressman heck, i do not disagree with director wray. Is that the same thing as you agree with him, sir . Yes. Thank you, let me go on it was referred to the fbi. Let me fast forward. Yes, sir. Was it referred to the fbi by the president who engaged in the conversation . The no, it was not. Let me fast forward to june 13th when thats five weeks in advance of that. When the chair of the federal Elections Commission made the following statement, let me make something 100 clear to the American Public and Anyone Running for public office, it is illegal for any person to accept, solicit, or receive anything of value from a Foreign National in connection with a u. S. 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 fec chair, mr. Director . I agree that our elections are sacred and we any interference from an outside source is just not what we want to do. And to solicit or accept it is illegal. I dont know about that. Im not a lawyer. I dont mean to be evasive. So you think it is okay for a public official to solicit or it may be okay . You do not know the law in this regard you i think it may be okay for an official to solicit information, youre not saying that, right . Im not saying that at all. We should know the fec chair was prompted to say this because it was just 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 fbi director wray was wrong, youre obviously disagreeing with that. He also said this that he would consider accepting foreign help. And, of course, yesterday we learned that the president did, in fact, do exactly that, solicited that help. Director, whether its this president or any president , do you believe it is okay for the president of the United States to pressure a foreign country into helping him or her win an election . Congressman heck, i believe that no one is above the law and we discussed what we think applies to the law. So it is illegal to solicit. I cant answer that. I cant reconcile your two statements. Is it okay 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, any foreign power. Thank you. 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. I wasnt referring to the whistleblower complaint, but if any president were to do this. I accept your answer. I think its unacceptable, director, 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 it is wrong, it is illegal and wrong, and i thank you, sir, and what that i yelled ba yield back. If i can answer once again no, i ran out of time. Director, you may answer. Feel free to 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 and by the icig. Director wray said that any candidate or elected official should immediately report it. He didnt say that the director of oni should report it although you should and did, thank you. But the person involved did not do what director wray should occur, period. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, sir. Mr. Welch. Thank you. Director, i want to say thank you. Theres nobody in this room who can claim to have served our country longer and more valiantly than you. I heard in your opening remarks that your family before you has been committed to this country. And i say, thank you. Second, i appreciated your candor when in your Opening Statement you acknowledge that the whistleblower acted in good faith. And third, i appreciated your acknowledgement 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 you were in a unique position, thats an understatement. You got a complaint involving the president of the United 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 the decisions, so thank you for that. But i want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. The dni has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections, correct . Thats correct. Youre aware, as we all are, of the Mueller Report and his indictments against 12 Foreign Nationals, russians, who interfered in our elections, correct . I have read the report. Its a huge responsibility that your agency has, correct . And in this case, because of the two things you mentioned, that the president is the one person thats above the Intelligence Community and your sense about executive privilege, you did not forward the complaint to us, correct . Yes, because i was still working with the white house i understand that. Youve been clear on that. Let me ask a hypothetical. Just to show the dilemma you were in. Say a u. S. Senator well connected or a senator well connected had a conversation with the 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 . I dont mean to be disrespectful but its difficult to answer hypothetical questions. Im not sure i understand. Lets say instead of being a conversation between president and the president of ukraine, it was a u. S. Senator who say was the head of the Foreign Relations committee and was asking for the foreign leader i understand. So would you forward that to our committee . Once again i mentioned earlier in our conversation that the United States senator is not a member of the Intelligence Community. And the director of National Intelligence does not have the authority and responsibility for the u. S. Senate. So any wrong doing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigation. Id 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 . Election interference, yes, congressman welsh. Once again, congressman, although it is, as far as what the legal responsibility to do in compliance with the intelligence reform act, the whistleblower protection act, it does not the statue does not allow for that to be done. I disagree with that. Yes, sir. But heres the dilemma that you were in and were in 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 may apply, and number two, 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 executive privilege. I but the federal bureau of investigation never did a followup investigation, right . I believe that they have concluded the investigation, im not sure, in addition to being involved with this matter here, i also have other pressing matters, i apologize. And the Justice Department, led by mr. Barr, a subject of the complaint, is the department that provided the opinion theres no action to be taken. I believe that the attorney general was mentioned in the complaint correct. Not necessarily subject of the complaint, sir. He was mentioned. Yes, sir. I yield back, thank you. Congressman welsh, thank you, sir. Mr. Maloney. Director maguire what was your first day on the job . My first 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 any day care. Yeah, huh a heck of a first week didnt you, sir. I have that much going for me. The complaint is dated august 12th, whatever else youve done right in your career, sir, your timing is has got to be something you worry about. I think dan coats timing is better than mine. Theres been talk here today about the process. I want to summarize a couple things, if thats okay. Yes, sir. In your first couple days on the job youre hit with this complaint. It says the president of the United States pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponents son, in fact. That that president asked the foreign leader to work with private citizen mr. Giuliani and the attorney general of the United States, bill barr on that scheme. The president at that time, not in dispute was withholding 391 million of assistance, holding that over that ukrainian president s head. That awe cukrainian president r in the conversation u. S. Military assistance, he has Russian Troops in his country, the wolf is at the door, the president asks for a favor, complains about ukrainian reciprocity, not getting enough from you thats what reciprocity is, right . We have to get something from you if were gettiiving somethio you. He names the political opponents by name, the bidens. The aukrainian president said hell do it, investigate the bidens. Thats what youre hit with. Youre looking at the complaint in the second paragraph alleges serious wrong doing by the president of the United States and the first thing you do is go to the president s men at the white house and women and say, should i give it to congress . And in the second paragraph of that complaint, sir, it also suggests the attorney general could be involved and the second thing you do is go to the attorney generals people at the Justice Department and ask them if you should give it to congress. Sir, i have no question about your character, ive read your bio. I have some questions about your decision. And the judgment in those decisions. Do you see any conflicts here . Congressman maloney, i have a lot of leadership experience, i do. As you said, it came to me very early on in this. The fact that i was just i am the acting dni and i was still using garmin to get to work, 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 and the importance of this decision sir, if i may sir, as a naval officer for years i thought it would be prudent. I understand the prudent point. I want to say if i may, my life would have been simpler without being becoming the most famous man in the United States i dont doubt that. Did you think it was prudent to give veto power over whether congress saw this allegation of wrong doing to the two people implicated by it, is that prudent . I have to work with the situation the way it is. Only the white house can determine or waive executive privilege. There is no one else to go to. As far as a Second Opinion, my only avenue of that was to go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and you understand, sir, that if unchallenged by your own Inspector General, your decision, that prudence would have prevented these serious allegations from 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. Did you speak personally to the president of the United 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 i know you speak to the president a lot. Its a simple question, sir. Did you speak to him about this whistleblower complaint . Yes or no . Congressman maloney my conversation with the president of the United States is privileged. Youre not denying you spoke to the president , i dont want the content. Did you 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 privileged not asking for the content. Are you denying you spoke to the president . I am telling you i speak to the president and anything i say to the president is confidential. Thank you. Thats the way it is. I understand. Director, you understand were not asking you 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, did you discuss this subject, this whistleblower complaint with the president . You can say i did not discuss it with him, if thats the answer, that 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. Chairman schiff, once again my conversation no matter what the subject is with the president of the United States is privileged conversation between the director of National Intelligence and the president. Ms. Democrings. Thank you mr. Chairman and director maguire, thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for your service. Morning, congresswoman. I know you said you took your first oath in 1974. Yes, maam. Thats a long time, but a long time to be proud of the service. I took my first oath in 1984 when i was sworn in as a Law Enforcement officer. I thank you for saying that Public Service is a sacred trust because regardless of the circumstances, or whether or nots involved, Public Service is a sacred trust. Ive had an opportunity as a Law Enforcement officer, im 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 or 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 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 defend themselves . Yes, congressman. I think the United States has been extremely supportive of the ukraine. I would say they are relying on us as they rely on other people in europe. I would also say the United States is paying more than their fair share of the support of ukraine than the others. The threats are real for the ukrainian people and the stake of freedom and democracy, even though its in the ukraine, is also a concern. So based on that you would say ukraine could probably never get there without the support and assistance from the United States of america . I would say if others were willing to step up and support they might be able to get there. But they are not. Were there, 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, yes, congresswoman. This complaint outlines a scheme by the president of the United States, and im not really sure what to call Rudy Giuliani this 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 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 omb nor the nsc staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on the 23rd of july and the 26th of july, omb officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend the assistance had come directly from the president but they were not but they were still unaware of a policy rationale. So the 23rd, 26th, on the 18th this issue first came up where the president was rescinding or suspending that assistance that you said ukraine so desperately depends on. Director maguire, we deal in whats reasonable here, and i believe your Inspector General included that in the report because this whole issue is about ukraines position, relationship with the United States, their dependency on the United States and the president s efforts to coerce ukraine into engaging in an illegal and improper investigation, do you believe thats why your Inspector General added that about suspending support to ukraine . I believe that Michael Atkinson found it to be credible and he viewed it was a matter of urgent concern to forward to this committee. Do you think its reasonable for the American People and this committee on both sides to believe that there is a correlation or a nexus between the president suspending the aid and the conversation that took place on the followup conversation . Yes, congresswoman. That is the allegation that is made. I did not have access to the transcripts. My only information was the icigs cover letter and the whistleblower allegation. The other information coming to light yesterday, as released by the president , changes things in a different light. Mr. Chairman, may i just ask one more just quickly . Without objection. My understanding is that the Inspector General is a career intelligence person. Hes worked in the department of justice. Hes received numerous awards for outstanding exemplary performance. Did you have any reason to deny or not believe his conclusions in ef avery area of this report that he was directly involved in . Michael atkinson is a valued and respecttrusted colleague. I respect him tremendously. The question came down to 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, maam, and im sorry. Thank you. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Chrmurthy. 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 dni. As you know, the phone call between President Trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year. I believe july 25th, i believe. At that time the dni was dan coates and his deputy was sue gordon. The whistleblower claim was filed on august 12th of this year and then you took office on august 16th, four days later. Yes, sir. Prior to taking your new job or since, did you discuss the july 25th call or the whistleblower complaint with dni coates . I wouldnt have taken the job if i did. No, sir. How about with sue gordon . No, not at all. To the best of my ability, i do not think director coates or sue gordon have any sense what receiver abo soever about this whistleblower complaint. Did you discuss ukraine with President Trump . No. I 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 dni. Weve got about 190 countries out there, so whatever the president s daily brief is and matters that pertain to that. As far as intelligence acqui in this has not come to my attention in the six weeks that ive been acting dni. You dont know the identity of the whistleblower . I do not. You dont know his or her political affiliation. I do not. You believe that the whistleblower was operating in good faith and without bias . I dont know about that. You have no reason to believe they were acting in good faith . You have no reason to believe that the person was biassed . I would not know whether biassed or not biassed. I just dont know. Of course you will do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempts to retaliate against him or her, correct. I am committed to that. Unlike the whistleblower, you do know the Inspector General . Yes. I hold him in high esteem. Like the whistleblower, he acted in the highest faith, right . I believe that Michael Atkinson yes, yes. Mr. Atkinson was actually appointed by President Trump. Yes, he was. Hes a president ial appointee. What lends real credibility to the whistleblowers complaint is the fact that mr. Atkinson, 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 youll 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, 2019, call, right . I believe that was what was transmitted yesterday morning, sir. They call that a telcon in the jargon of this memoranda . 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 head of state might call in. The president may either ask us to leave or just stay there for a brief call from time to time, yes, sir. And there are note takers who actually scribble down furiously whats being said on those calls . If they are note takers, they would not be in the oval office with us. They might be listening from somewhere else. Like from the situation room . Right. I dont know where, but somewhere in the white house, yes. In this particular situation, maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call. Thats the allegation, yes. They were all taking notes presumably . If theyre good Public Servants, yes, congressman. Were you ever a party to a call in which the notes that you took were then given to someone at the white house for keeping . I have never been party to any call other than my own. I would take notes for my own at my level or as the director of the National Counter terrorism 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 more a brief conversation. But its not anything that i would be in that office particularly for that matter. Thank you for your service. Thank you, congressman, very much. Thank you. Id like to recognize the Ranking Member for any final questions he would have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Maguire, i just want to thank you for your attendance today. Congratulations for surviving legal word charade today. I expect well see you behind closed doors like this is to be done. I would just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they would like to impeach the president , they need to go to the floor of the house and actually call for a vote. The Intelligence Committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment. There is a process in the constitution that i would advise you all follow. In the meantime, director maguire, 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 thats served four decades like you. I hope you do not have to go through this any longer. With that, i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Ranking Member, i appreciate it, sir. 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. Did i understand you to say that . I have not particularly had any conversation with anyone on the subject of ukraine that didnt deal with the matter that we have right now in regard to the whistleblower complaint. So not particularly with the office of Legal Counsel as far as mentioning ukraine or as far as the Justice Department. All i did was send the documents forward. The allegations are in there. Ive just let the documents speak for themselves. So youre saying you did not have any conversation on the subject of ukraine that did not involve this complaint . That is correct, sir. Ive been the acting dni for six weeks. Im just trying to understand, because that is suggestive that you did have a conversation involving the complaint with the president. No, no, no. That is not what i said. Okay. You 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 is 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 t s ths the whistleo be an employee or detailee. It doesnt require that the subject, the person complained of be a member of the Intelligence Community. But you have adopted an interpretation by the Justice Department that essentially says the president is above the director, therefore, the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director, therefore, it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern, therefore, the Inspector General is done. The Inspector General cabinet investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals read iing of the Department Opinion that he is no longer allowed to investigate that. Is that your reading as well . Chairman, not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding and administration and operation of an intelligence activity with the responsibility and the authority of the director of National Intelligence. Im just trying to get to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law. No, sir. No person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Thats the way it should be, but im trying to figure out if 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 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, i did not send it forward, as you know, under urgent concern within the seiven days, then th statute would allow the whistleblower to come to you and still be protected. Director, my point is this. The dej has said because this doesnt meet the statutory definition because this involves the president , the Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate. I believe that the opinion was based on the reading of the statute and whether or not the situation here is compliant and comes underneath the statute. The office of Legal Counsel opinion was that based on the criteria that youre required to have in order to support this legal statute, it does not. And it also said that because of that, it is not a matter of the Intelligence Community. Thats however you may go forward and i have. Thats the key issue, direct 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 jurisdiction to investigate. By the logic of that opinion, nor does any other Inspector General. As you point out, this was referred to the Justice Department. It was referred to the fbi 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 fbi is not authorized to investigate any of this, any of this. So the igs cant do it according to the department of justice. The fbi cant do it because it doesnt meet their threshold that makes it worthy of investigation. So at this point only this committee and this congress is in the position to investigate. And i want to ask you going to the whistleblower complaint, whether you believe these allegations are worthy investigation. The whistleblower says ive received information from multiple u. S. Government official that is 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 horse has left the barn. You have all of the information. You have the whistleblower complaint. You have the letter from the icig. You have the office of Legal Counsel opinion. Yes but yes, we do, but would you agree that if theres a you agree there should be an investigation . I believe it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee. 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 of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election, do you believe that should be investigated . I dont believe it is corroborated by other folks. The whistleblower says that he spoke or she spoke to about a dozen other people. This is secondhand information. Im not criticizing the whistleblower. Yes, but the Inspector General took those two weeks, as you well told us, to corroborate that information. Now, we dont know which, if any, of these officials the Inspector General spoke to and found it credible. You have told us you have no reason to believe otherwise, am i right . I had no reason to doubt a career Inspector General lawyer in his determination on whether or not it was credible. That is something for michael to determine. Let me ask you this. The whistleblower also says over the past four months more than half a dozen u. S. Officials informed me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference. You would agree we should speak to those half a dozen foreign officials, would you not . I believe you have all the material the committee needs and its up to the committee how to proceed. Im asking your opinion. As head of the intelligence agency, do you believe we should talk to people and find out if the whistleblower is right. My responsibility is to get you the information released. I have done my responsibility. That is on the shoulders of the legislative branch and that committee. 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 there is a credible allegation along those lines that we should investigate it . I agree if there was election inter interference, the complaint was not about election interference, it was about a classified, diplomatic conversation involving election interference 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 . As i said, i dont disagree with the igics assessment that it was a credible matter. The whistleblower further says, namely he, the president , sought to pressure the ukrainian leader to take action to help the president s 2020 reelection bid. You would agree that should be investigated . Not necessarily, sir. It was investigated by the fbi. No, it doesnt. The department of justice concluded that this wouldnt violate the election laws. No one can understand how they could reach that conclusion after the two years weve been through. Nonetheless, they didnt authorize the fbi to investigate it. You would agree someone should investigate this, wouldnt you . I referred it. If i didnt, i would not have referred it to the Justice Department and to the fbi. Then im glad that were in agreement. The whistleblower says they told me that there was already a discussion ongoing with the white house lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood in officials retelling they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. You would agree that should be investigated, wouldnt you . All i know is thats the allegation. Right. And its credible and, therefore, should be investigated, right . Again, it is hearsay, secondha secondhand information. It should come to this committee for further investigation. Thank you. Tough documeyou have the doc it says donald trump also expresses conviction that have held back cooperation between ukraine and the United States. This is the whistleblower citing the ukrainian readout. You would agree if the ukrainian readout when theyre talking about Corruption Cases is talking about investigated biden and his son and that the failure to do that has held back cooperation between the two countries. That should be investigated, right . I dont agree with any of that. I did not agree that it should be investigated. What i said is i complied with my requirement to send you the documents and that it is up to the chair, the Ranking Member and these Committee Members to decide what to do with that information. Im no in no position to tell t chair or the committee to not do an investigation. 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 whistleblowers allegation is incorrect . I have no idea whether it is incorrect or correct, sir. Someone should find out, though, right . I dont know if that is an incorrect allegation. That is the business of the executive branch, of the white house and the office of the white house. Corruption is not the business or it shouldnt be of the white house or anyone in it. The white house decides to do what their Privileged Communications and information, i believe, is the business of the white house. Do you believe thats true even if that communication involves crime or fraud . Theres an exception to any privilege, that privilege cant be used to conceal crime or fraud. Any instance of crime or fraud should be referred to the Justice Department for investigation, as i did. The whistleblower further alleges that white house officials told the whistleblower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript of the call from the Computer System in which transcripts are typically stored. Instead it was loaded into a system used to store classified information or information of a sensitive nature. I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in. We should find out, shouldnt we . Chairman schiff, when i received the letter from Michael Atkinson on the 26th of august, he concurrently sent a letter to the white House Counsel asking the white House Counsel to control and keep any information that pertained to that phone call on the 25th. It was a lengthy letter. Michael would be able to address it better, but i know that the icig has sent a letter to the white House Counsel requesting that they keep all of that information. But you would agree that if theres a credible allegation from this credible whistleblower, that white house officials were moving these records into a system that was not designed for that purpose in an effort to cover up essentially potential misconduct. That ought to be looked into. You would agree with that, wouldnt you . To the best of my knowledge, when this allegation came forward, this whistleblower complaint on the 12th of august, i have no idea what the timeline was as far as whether or not the white house, the National Security council or anybody involved in that conversation, what they did with the transcripts, where they put them. I just have absolutely no knowledge nor the timeline of that, chairman. It is not something that would be under my authority or responsibility. The Whistleblower Makes a series of allegations involving mr. Giuliani, cites a report in the New York Times about his planned trip to ukraine to press the Ukrainian Government to pursue investigations that would help the president in his 2020 reelection bid. You would agree that if the president was instructing his personal lawyer to seek, again, foreign help in the u. S. President ial election, that that would be improper. I believe mueller described such efforts to seek foreign assistance as unethical, unpatriotic and very possibly criminal. Would you agree with director mueller that to seek foreign assistance that way would be unethical, unpatriotic and possibly a violation of law . I believe that mr. Giuliani is the president s personal lawyer and whatever conversation the president has with his personal lawyer i would imagine it would be by client attorney privilege. Im in no position to criticize the president of the United States on how he wants to conduct that and i have no knowing of what mr. Giuliani does or does not do. Let me ask you about a last couple allegations of the whistleblower. I learned from officials that the president planned to cancel his planned trip to ukraine to attend president zelenskys inauguration on 20 may. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation instead. According to these officials it was also made clear to them that the president did not want to meet with president zelensky until he saw how zelensky chose to act in office. I do not know how this guidance was communicated or by whom. I also do not know whether a meeting or phone call with the president and president zelensky would depend on whether zelensky showed the willingness to play ball. Do you know whether Vice President pences trip was pulled because of an effort to find out first whether ukraine was willing to play ball . Chairman schiff, no, i do not. I have no knowledge of any of that until this information came to me from the icig. I have absolutely no Situational Awareness or no knowledge of any of those facts. Would you agree that if the Vice President s trip was cancelled in order to put further pressure on ukraine to manufacture dirt on mr. Biden, that that would be unethical, unpatriotic and potentially a crime . I do not know why the Vice President of the United States did not do that. I do know what the allegation was within the whistleblower complaint and i dont know whether that allegation is accurate or not, mr. Chairman. Finally, the whistleblower says, on july 18 an office of management and budget official informed departments and agency that is the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all Security Assistance to ukraine. Neither omb nor the nsc staff knew why this instruction had been issued. Senator mcconnell said the other day that he spoke with the secretary of defense and the secretary of state and he didnt know why the instruction had been given. Doesnt that strike you as suspicious that no one on the National Security staff, no one in the Senior Leadership apparently of the party here in congress that approved the aid understood why the president suspended the aid . Doesnt that strike you as just a little suspicious . Im just unaware of how those decisions are made. Once again, i have no situation awareness of what happened. As a military man, if this military aid was withheld from an ally that is fighting off putins russia and it was done so to be used as leverage to get dirt in a u. S. Political campaign, dont you think that should be investigated . I have no reason to believe. I do not understand. I have no situation awareness if that was withheld or why it was withheld, mr. Chairman. Well, i can tell you we are going to find out. Director, i want to thank you for your attendance today. I want to thank you again for your service. As my colleague underscored, mr. Welch, and i completely share his sentiment, no one has any question about your devotion to the country, no one has any question about your acting in good faith. I want to make that very clear. I think youre a good and honorable man. Like my colleagues, i dont agree with the decisions you made. I agree with the Inspector Generals view of the law and im deeply concerned about the message this has sent to other whistleblowers about whether this system really works. If the subject of a complaint can stop that complaint from getting to congress, then the most serious complaints may never get here. And i want to thank the whistleblower for their courage. They didnt have to step forward. Indeed we know there are several others that have knowledge of many of the same events. I would just say to those several others that have knowledge of those events, i hope that they too would show the same kind of courage and patriotism that this whistleblower has shown. We are dependent on people of good faith to step forward when they see evidence of wrongdoing. The system wont work otherwise. And i have to say to our friends in ukraine who may be watching just how distressing it is that as their country fights to liberate itself from russian oppression, as it fights to root out corruption in their own country, that what they would be treated to by the president of the United States would be the highest form of corruption in this country, that the president of the United States would be instead of a champion of democracy and human rights and the rule of law, would instead be reinforcing a message with the new ukrainian president who was elected to root out corruption that instead the message of the president would be, you can use your Justice Department, just call bill barr, you can use our Justice Department to manufacture dirt on an opponent, that thats what democracy is. You can use foreign assistance, military assistance, vital assistance as a lever to get another country to do something unethical. The idea that a struggling democracy would hear those messages from the president of the United States, i just want to say to the people of ukraine, we support you in your fight with russia. We support you in your struggle for democracy. We support you in your efforts to root out corruption. And what you are witnessing and what you are seeing in the actions of this president is not democracy. It is the very negation of democracy. This is democracy. What you saw in this committee is democracy. As ugly as it can be, as personal as it it can, as infuriating as it can be, this is democracy. This is democracy. I thank you, director. Were adjourned. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. The acting director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire wrapping up some three hours of testimony before the house Intelligence Committee. On the report brought by the whistleblower complaint to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community regarding communications between President Trump and the ukrainian president zelensky. Three hours of hearings wrapping up. We want to remind you well reair that on