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

Program. We do want to remind you that all of our video that weve covered today available at cspan. Org. Up next, well show you the hearing beginning with the Opening Statements from the chairman and Ranking Member. The 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, of course, 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 necessary sesity 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 what of this second responsibility to defend the constitution . What does that really mean . The founders were not speaking, of course, of a piece of parchment, rather they were expressing the obligation of the president to defend the institutions of our democracy, to defend our system of checks and balances that the constitution enshines, to defend the rule of law, a principle upon 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. 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 first understand how overwhelmingly dependent ukraine is on the United States, military, financial and in every 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 longsimmering war. Ukraine desperately 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 in ex publicably by President Trump. It is in this context after a brief con garage la toer call and after the Rudy Giuliani made it clear to ukrainian officials over several months 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 expresses his interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons 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, my attorney general, 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 i 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, there is nothing the president says here that is in americas interest, after all. It is instead the most consequential form of tragedy. For it forces us to confront the remedy the founders provided for such a flagrant abuse of office, impeachment. Now, 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, more so than perhaps any other area of government since we deal with classified information, 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 whistleblowers 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 youre 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 grateful that a man of your superb military background was chosen, a navy seal for 36 years and director of the National Counterterrorism center since december 2018. Your credentials are impressive. And in the limited interactions that weve had since youve become director, you have struck me as a good and decent man, which makes your actions over the last month all the more bewilledering, 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 under the statute. Why you chose to go to a Department Led by a man, bill barr, who himself is implicated in the complaint and believes that he exists to serve the interest of the president , not the office itself, mind you, or the public interest, but the interest of the person of donald trump. 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 potentially pretraying his or her country, when that whistleblower by their very act of coming forward has shown nmore dedication to country, more understanding of the president s oath of office than the president himself. We look forward to your explanation, Ranking Member nunes. I want to congratulate the democrats on the rollout of their latest information wear fare operation against the president and their extraordinary ability to once again enlist the Mainstream Media in their campaign. This operation began with media reports from the prime in city gators of the collusion hoax. That a whistleblower is claiming President Trump made a nefarious promise to a foreign leader. The released transcript of that call has already debunkd that central assertion. But that didnt matter. The democrats simply moved the goal post and began claiming that there doesnt seem 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 brakes on impeachment if the transcript turned out to be benign. She responded, quote, so there you go, if the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats 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 other information has come to light since the original false report of a promise being made . Weve learned the following. The complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by the whistleblower, the Inspector General did not know the contents of phone call at issue, the Inspector General found the whistleblower displayed arguable political bias 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, this supposed scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told, and once again the democrats, their media mouth pieces and leakers are ginning up a fake story with no regard to the monumental damage theyre causing to our Public Institutions and to trust in government. And without acknowledging all the false stories they prop ul gated in the past, including numerous allegations that trump 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 steele dossier. Ill note here in the democrats mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized, with the russia hoax was our intelligence agencies which were turned into a political weapon to attack the president. And now today the whistleblower process is the casualty. Until about a week ago, the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. But if the democrats were really concerned about 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 spec tackle, and so weve been treated to a parade of press conferences and fake news stories. This hearing itself is another example. Whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. As our senate counterparts, both democrats and republicans, obviously understand, 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 including with russians when the democrats themselves were including with russians and preparing the steele dossier. Today they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. And yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. Joe biden bragged that he ex tortd the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating bidens own son. Three Democratic Senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian general 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 involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials, the Democratic National committee contractor alexander chalupa, tried to get ukrainian officials to provide dirt on Trump Associates and tried to get the president to comment publicly on alleged ties to russia. Ukrainian official was a source for nellie orr, wife of department of Justice Bruce orr as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted gi fusion gps and funded by the democrats. And of course democrats on this very committee negotiate 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 gam bit by the democrats to overturn the peoples mandate is unhinged and dangerous. They should end the entire dishonest, grotesque spec tackle and get back to work solving problems, which is what every member of this committee was sent here to do. 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 . So you solemnly swear or affirm that the tchl you shall 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 me 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 nunes and members of the committee, good morning. I would 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 to be the director of the National Counterterrorism center, i told the Senate Select committee and intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the Intelligence Community. Having served as the director of the National Counterterrorism center 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 pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today, that i will continue to work closely with congress while im serving either in this capacity as acting director of National Counterterrorism, or when i return to the National Counterterrorism 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 expected us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without this committees 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 im 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 can coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director of the National Counterterrorism 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 truth faith and allegiance to that sacred document, but, more importantly, i viewed it as a covenant i have with my work force that i lead and every american that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. I come from a long line of public servants, who have stepped forward even in 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 was not wearing the cloth of the nation. As a navel special warfare officer i had the honor of demanding at every level in the seal community. It was at times very demanding, but the rewards of serving in americas special Operations Community more than make up for the demands. After my retirement, i was fortunate to work for a great private sector firm. I left the Business World after three years to lead a nonprofit charity. Some questioned 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 and severely Wounded Special operators. The foundation i led enabled hundreds of children of our fallen to attend college. It was extremely meaningful and rewarding. In the winter of 2018, i was asked by former director dan coats to return to service to lead the count terrorism center. This request was totally unexpected and was not a position i sought, but then again, it was at opportunity to serve my country. In particular, i knew that many of the young sailers and Junior Officers that i had trained 20 years earlier 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 and sue gordon, two exceptional leaders and friends, i was asked to step into their very big shoes and lead the Intelligence Community until the president nominates and the Senate Confirms the next director of National Intelligence. I accepted this responsibility because i love this country. I have a deep and profound respect for the men and women 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. I have governed every action by the following criteria. It must be legal, it must be moral, and it must be ethical. No one can take an individuals integrity away. 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 unequivocally state as acting dni i will continue the same faithful and nonpartisan support in a manner that adheres to the constitution and the laws of this great country, as long as i serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that i have up held my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for the whistleblower and the rights and the laws. Whising belowing has a long history in our country dating back to the continental congress. 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. Indeed, at the start of ethics training of the executive branch each year, we are reminded that Public Service is a public trust. And as public servants, we have a solemn 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 admitted to ensuring that all whistleblower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the lights of whistleblowers. In this case, the complainant raised a matter with the Intelligence Community and Inspector General. The Inspector General is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complainant to be subject to retaliation or adverse consequences for submitting the complaint. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and the workforce is any 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 can personally attest that their efforts saved lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general back ground 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 leaguely defined term under the whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length in our letters to the committee on september 16th 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 in the complaint 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 immediately 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 between 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 full, unredacted complaint, as well as the Inspector Generals letter. Let me also discuss the issue of urgent concern. When transmitting a complaint to me, the Inspector General took the legal position that because the complaint alleges matters of urgent concern, and because he found the allegations to be credible, i was required under the Intelligence Community whistleblower 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 defined term. To be an urgent concern, the allegations must be, in addition to being classified, assert a flagrant, serious problem, abuse or violation of law, and relate to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligent 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 Justice office of Legal Counsel and we included the Inspector General in those consultations. After reviewing the complaint, and the Inspector Generals transmittal letter, the office of Legal Counsel determined that the complaints allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition concerning legal urgent concern, and found that i was not legally required to transmit the material under the protection act. An unclassified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publicly released. As you know for those of us in the executive branch, office of leg 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 complaint to the committee. However, given the executive privilege 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 still 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 moving forward. 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 on this matter. While we have differing opinions on the issue of whether or not it is urgent concern, i strongly believe in the role of the Inspector General. I greatly value the independence he brings and his dedication and role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Second, although executive privilege prevented us of sharing the details with the committees until recently, 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 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 i am committed to doing so, sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this opportunity to discuss this matter and the ongoing commitment to work with the congress on your important oversight role. 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, but it is not for me in the Intelligence Community to decide how the president conducts his Foreign Policy or his interaction with leaders of other countries, sir. 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 . Yes, that is the subject of the allegation of the complaint. And two things, mr. Chairman and 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 or not it was credible. My question was whether or not it means the urgent concern and the sevendaytime frame that would follow when someone is notified. I have no question in his judgment that he considers it a serious matter. The issue that i dealt with and 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. It is for you to judge, apparently. I agree its not for you to judge. You shall provide it to congress. But indeed, 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. That is in the cover letter thats been provided to the committee. I believe thats also been 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 withholding 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 manufactured dirt on his opponent, can we agree that it was urgent while that aid was being withheld . There are two things there. Im talking about the lay, the comment understanding of what urgent means, because the Inspector General said this was urgent not only in the statutory meaning, 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 on whether shall really means shall by going to the white house . No, sir. There were two things, as i said in my statement. 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. They were working through the executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to exert executive privilege. So they never exerted executive privilege, is that the answer . Mr. Chairman, if they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday and all the information that has been forthcoming. Now, the first place you went was to the white house, am i to understand that from your Opening Statement . 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 or not it meant urgent concern. And 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 just 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 on to congress. Is the first party you went to outside of your office to seek advice, counsel, direction, the white house . I have consulted with 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 where you went first. Did you go to the department of justice or did you go to the white house first . 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. Im still trying to understand the chronology. So you first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to white House Counsel . Repeat that please, sir. Im just trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to the white House Counsel . No, no, no, sir. No, sir. We went to the white house first to determine, to ask the question thats all i want to know. So 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. He is 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 that 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 that that is 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. I just have a couple other questions and ill turn it over to the Ranking Member and he may consume as much time as i did. The second place you went to as 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. But the 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 who is 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 or not i should provide that complaint 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. Sir, i have to work with what ive got and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch. I had no other you also had a statute that says shall and 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 tliem. I have endeavored to work with the office of Legal Counsel to get the material to you, which you 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 the ukraine, then they could no longer executive privilege no longer applied and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint the committee. Dreirector, you dont believ the whistleblower is a hack, to you. Ive done my best to protect his identity. You dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you, director . I believe that as i said before, mr. Chairman, i believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith and followed the law they couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack, could they . Mr. Chairman, my job is to support the lead and 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 some reason to suggest theyre beholden to another country, do you . 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. Think the whistleblower did the right thing. I think he followed the law every step of the way and we just 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 workforce telling them my commitment to the whistleblower protection and ensuring that i would provide protection to anybody within the Intelligence Community who comes forward. But the way this thing was coming up, 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 workforce 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 workforce. 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. Theyre 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 that it was true. And i want to give you an opportunity to you have not investigated the veracity or the 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, 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, 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. 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 handled 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. This has basically been an orchestrated effort over two weeks. We were first told about it a week and a half ago and 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. 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, 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 that 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 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 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, their Ranking Member. But to me, the president of the United Statess conversations with any other head of state i would consider privileged conversations. Clearly, those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies, so not necessarily, sir. I mean, if the president i should say this. Theyre captured and then disseminated, theyre 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. Foreign leaders, well 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 that you dont know, but we had the transcript of 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. And then others were briefed from state department as well of the transcripts, because they have an area of responsibility, and then they would be informed on the interact. So there were a number of people from the white house that were briefed on the call. Im quite sure of this. The white house probably didnt leak this out. I wouldnt say the white house. But there are 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. Im just saying the dissemination the dissemination of niece calls is supposed to be sacred, right . And it is important for. Yes, sir. The state department and appropriate agencies to get. Im not saying its all the intelligence agency. But when a president talks to a foreign leader its confidential, the contents are confidential. There could be some facts of the conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the i. C. 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 i really dont know, Ranking Member. Im not aware. I dont have the numbers to it just seems to me though it is unprecedented. I would also say that i think 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 they say because theyre going to use these words against. You i tell you what, Ranking Member, either im honored to be here hoorned to be leading the intelligence communities. I appreciate your service to the country. And well be talking again soon. Not in public but behind closed like is supposed to be done. Thank you, director maguire here thank you for your profound service and service your family to in country. Director what i find bierlding about the 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 ahead, or mr. Giulianis personal establishment of a personal state department not aware of a possible retaliation against a u. S. Ambassador. None of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector General michael at kinson, a man 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 fantastic 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 the committee, not following advice from you or any law but following his own conscience. Bout his decision to do this none of this is happening. I parade michael the way he has done this, acted in good faith. He has followed the law every step of the way. The question is, congressman, does it it or did it not meet the Legal Definition zbloosh no, sir, i asked a different question. Its a simple question without his decision none of this is happening. Is that correct. Well we got to back up to the whistleblower as well, so 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 the 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. Im asking a very simple question. Who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena. Somebody said we will not abide by in subpoena. Id like to know who that somebody was. Congressman, nobody did. I endeavored once we no longer had sevendy sometime line to work to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was to 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, the white house has quite a few other issues that they were dealt with. I would liked to have have had as i said to the chairman that perhaps this moved faster than it did but this is a deliberate process and fieblly came to a head yesterday. So with when i received the information on the 26th of august we had seven days based on the whistleblower protection act. All we did wlus the seven days. It may have taken longer than we would have liked or you would have liked but you have the information. So im focused on the subpoena. Yes, sir. The subpoena is on your desk, the 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 im looking for the Decision Making process to ignore a legal congressional subpoena. Congressman, i did for the 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 in this committee was also very supportive. It wasnt something that was ready to go. Buttist committed fully committed to the 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 in complaint . Congressman, im the president s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times throughout the week. Sir, 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 the National Intelligence are privileged and it would be inappropriate for me because it would be destroy my relationship with the president in Intelligence Matters to divulge any of my conversations with the president of the United States. Bus 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 of the. Has the white house instructed you to assert that privilege. Knows. Its as a member of the executive committee, executive branch as a member of the Security Council annual homemade committee i 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 i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Cona way. You and i are at competitive disvaping because neither of us are lawyers. And that may be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers onon your staff. Sir . I do, congressman. All right. And your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and given you advice . Yes, congressman. If the black letter law was so clear and black letter how is it we have different attorneys giving you and i different opinions thats a rhetorical question with respect to this issue. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was in our group in front of us last week did a good job ever telling us what he did and didnt do. We know four shire what it is he was aibl to do. As part of the investigation did he not request records of the call from the president. And the reason he did is he cited the difficulty of working through all of that. Would have meant that he couldnt comply with the 14day time frame. Even he did not try to overrun the white houses executive privilege over the conversation that the president had with the president zelensky. He also said in his letter, i also determined s it 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 a rhetorical statement. Is there anything in statute from your lawyers advising you that says that the determining of urgent concern lies solely with the icig . Knows, i was never advised by my Legal Counsel to that effect. To your knowledge mass the Justice Department ever weighed in to say that the fact that the dni cant make a separate decision with respect to the 7day process, that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided. The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term, pretty much yes or no. Apparently thats not the case, admiral, because ig said it was. And and youre saying its not under that Legal Definition because it involved the president , who the last time i checked youre pretty for me familiar with chains of command i know. He is not in your chain of command youre in his chain of command. So for definite reasons that appear to be credible it doesnt mean the statutorily urgent concern with respect to the whistleblower protections of the ig and your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call . No, sir. Jat rat cliff. 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 on 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 the information to this Committee 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 the Justice Department to his decision . Was he actually there present physically or his lawyer there . What was it. To the best of my knowledge the icig transmittal letter as well as the complaint from the whistleblower from forwarded to the office of Legal Counsel for their determination. I believe that that is what they based their opinion on. Okay. So you dont think he had official im if im incorrect i will come back to the committee and correct that, zblier okay. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. I appreciate your long storied history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens in arena a lot. Sometimes justified and most of the time not. And your integrity was fallout justified insulted. The fact we have differences of opinion when we have differences of opinion and we start to attack each other and call names and those sorts of things miep experience is when you have a legal mat ive got lawyers i pay. You have lawyers you pay i stick with the lawyers im paying. You have had good legal questions on this you wanting to make sure the whistleblower was protected but at the same time if there was something awry that it would got the airing its getting. Thank you for your service and i yield back. Thank you very much, congressman. Miss seoul. Thank you, chairman. And director maguire thank you for being here. I want to turn what it fear may be one of the most damaging longterm effects of in whistleblower episode. And that is the Chilling Effect that it will have on others in government who is may the 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 in 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 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 and having a Chilling Effect on 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 of the whistleblowers. And im quite sure for at least two hours this morning there were not many people in the Intelligence Community doing anything productive besides watching this. Right. So my concern i think is a valid one, that in fact what has happened with in whistleblower episode will have a Chilling Effect. I just also want to ask you, have you given direction to in whistleblower that he can in fact or he or she can in fact come before congress . Director, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested 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 clearances. So, sir, i think its pretty my question is pretty simple. Request 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 your owe or no. 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 in committee and congress and have the full protections of the whistle after all, what is the whistleblower statute for if not to provide those full protections against retaliation, against litigation. Congresswoman, im 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 whistleblower 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. There will not be a 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. Mr. Director i also wanted 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 they work for me as the director of National Intelligence i believe that i sfwleev i just want to say and go on record as being very clear. Yes. 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 and also to give the whistleblower certain protections. And i think the American People deserve that. Thank you. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Turner. Drerk, thank you for being here. Good morning, congressman. Thank you for your service and the clarity at which you have described the deliberations that you went through and eu applying the laws with respect to this complaint. It is incredibly admirable the manner in which youve approached this. Now, ive 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. And i think its disappointing to the American Public when they read the transcript. I can say what else it is not. Its not whats in the complaint. We no you have the complaint and the transcript and people can read that the allegations of the complaint 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. And while the chairman was speaking i 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. But 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 in 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. And we have heard the clicks of the cameras in in Intelligence Committees room where we have not been focusing on the issues of the National Security threats but instead of the calls for impeachment, which is really an assault on the electorate not just this president. Now the complaint we now have director, is based on hearsay. The person who wrote it says i talked to people and they told me these things. Now the American Public has the transcript of the complaint. They have the ability to compare them. Whats clear about the complaint is its based on political issues. Mr. Director he is alleging 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 better 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 has had access to surveillance that related the 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. And then i was very interested in your discussion on the issue of executive privilege. Because theres been much made of the fact that 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 important of the whistleblower statute with respect to accountability of the Intelligence Community and our role of oversight there, and then your your process, your effects of being stuck in the middle where you have the conflict of laws, mr. Director. Congressman, the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act to apply to the Intelligence Community. And then at it pertains to financial, administrative or operational activities within the Intelligence Community unthe oversight and responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. It does not allow a member of the Intelligence Community to report any wrong doing that comes from anywhere in the federal government. The and so with that, i do believe that that is about the intelligence whistleblower protection act was the best vehicle that 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 where our or rules of engagement or the military code of 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 5 are right and 4 are wrong. There are 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 that 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 my colleague is right on both counts. Its not okay. But also my summaries of the president s call was meant to be in part as parody. Thats not clare is a separate problem. Of course the president never stayed, if i if you dont understand me im going to say is seven more times. My point is thats the message gnat ukraine president was receiving. In not so many words. Mr. Carson. Chuang, 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. And 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 that 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. And even when found not to be urgent concern or even credible your office has consistently and uniformly still transmitted those complaints to the Intelligence Committees. Is that right, sir. Congressman carson even if in the past even if not matters of urgent concern or not credible they were forwarded. But in each and every instance trier briar 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, sir in your mind or laws that regulate the Intelligence Community preempt or neg gate even the law that is safe guard the security of americas democrat elections and her democracies itself, sir. No, chairman, carson, it does not. Now, notwithstanding, director, this unambiguous mandate on the consistent practice of your office, that you withheld had urgent complaint from congress, at the direction of the white house and the Justice Department, you followed 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 recommendationed 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 of things. The white house did not did not direct me to withhold the information. Neither did the office of Legal Counsel. That opinion has been unclassified and 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 we have discussed several times here. So it did not. All that did somebody which are was then just take away the seven days. Now, as i said, 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 foor investigation. So this is that was working while i was endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed. So that it can then be forwarded. It was not stonewalling. 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 Committees as required by the statute, sir. If its required by the statute congressman carson, yes i will. Thats good to know, sir. And i certainly hope so because i think the unprecedented decision to withheld this whistleblower complaint from congress i think it raises concerns very serious concerns for us and for me. And i think that with we need to get to the bottom of this. I yield the balance of my time, chairman. Thank you, congressman carson. Thank you. How much time does the gentleman have remaining. 27 okay. Well, director, you were not directed to withheld the complaint. Is that your testimony. Yes, that is absolutely true, congressman. You exercised your discretion to withheld the complaint from the committee. I did not, sir. What i did was i delayed it because it did not meet the statutely definition of urgent concern and i was working through and director, youre aware we spent a lot of time focuseding on the definition of urgent concern. Youre aware the practice of your office has been that regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, regardless whether Inspector General found 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 Committees 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 the committee. Youre aware of that, right . Im aware that this is unprecedented and this has never happened and with that, sir, i agree that 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. Thats not true, sir. What the office of Legal Counsel said, that it does not meet the Legal Definition of urgent concern. It said youre not required. It didnt say you cannot provided it. It said youre not required to. 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 be 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 General cover letter and the complaint to you. Dr. At no time was there any intent on my part ever to withhold the information from you as the chair this snt committee or the senate Intelligence Committee. Director, i wish i had the confidence of knowing but that but more the hearing the deadline we set with the hearing that we would have been provided that complaint. But i dont know we would have ever seen that complaint. Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you mr. Maguire for being here today. I think its a shame we start off off the hearing with fictional remarks the implication of a president taking place the the president and foreign reerds. Putting words into it that did not kbis, that are not in the transcript. I will contend those were intentionally not scared. The the chairman described it as pairedy. I dont believe this is the time or place for that when we seek facts. More nor would those involved . The conversation agree with the pair odd. And many innocent americans and the media is only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say but im glad to know Many Americans have seen this movie too many times and are tired of it. But let me the get to 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. So, you know, the interpretation it was credible bup also was that decision made by the ig before seeing the transcript of the conversation . I believe that the icig conducted to his 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 he did not. Thats my question. To another point, one of the issues that arose out of the russia investigation last congress was the 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 he had more flexibility to negotiate after the 2012 the election and president medvedev supplied he would transmit the administration and 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 or partisan issues. Which brings me to a similar question related to the whistleblower complaint. One, you said this executive privilege is unwaivable. And i think thats kind of consistent with cia director brennan was implying. Congressman, only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. The president exerts executive privilege and only the white house and the president can waive that. So director brennan gave me the impression then that that was like thats the rule, the law. So i have to go with that. But do you believe the president s entitled to withheld 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. And if 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 states might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction that they have with the president because of that release. We may need to change our process here. Because i guess if a decision regarding executive privilege may maybe it should be made prior to submitting the communication to congress. Well, either that i believe that this committee wrote the law. And based on what were doing today, you know, perhaps it needs to be relooked. I dont know. I leave that to the legislative branch. Also, we may need to change process, you know the 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. I think maybe you know this is special circumstance, unprecedented maybe there should be some leeway in the time frame instead of narrow 14 days. 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 that he is a very experienced Inspector General. He is used to dealing with the 14day process. And when you work under a time line 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 that any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to be able to collect the facts and do other things. But Michael Atkinson was unthe 14day time line, and he did the best to his ability to comply with that. Did you feel rushed in any way, zblier i did not. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congressman. Miss speier. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you director maguire for your extraordinarily long service to our country. At 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 . Congressman congresswoman, excuse me, as i said i had a lot of life experience. I joined the navy. I understand your record could you just answer it. Well what i did i realized full well full and well the importance of the allegations. And i have to tell you congressman congresswoman when i saw that i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee some time 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. And the white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical reposer to to a more secure location in order to lock down 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 miss allegation the whistleblower complaint. I dont know whether in fact that is true or not. My only my only awareness of that is from the whistleblower letter. So knowing that the whistleblower appeared to be credible, based on the evaluation by the Inspector General, and knowing that 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 snt why would you go there to ask their advise 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 did you not speak out to protect the whistleblower, did you . Congresswoman, i peek. Yes or no, zblier i did. I did within my own work force. I thought there was enough stuff in the press that was ee roenz, that was absolutely incorrect and i didnt think i needed to respond to every statement out there that was incorrect. So what i did is my loyalty is my workforce. Thank you. I appreciate that, thank you. Yes, maam. 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 op our countrys side . I believe that the whistleblower and all employees coming 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, fwraud 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 Whistleblower Program. Thank you. Let me 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, accommodates, no. Thank you. I yield back. Youre welcome, maam. 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 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 seal. Thats great. 36 years. 34 years as a navy seal. I had a mere 14 years as as an air force pilot. I proudly wear the air force wings. These are my father as air force wing. 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. They have accused you of breaking the law. Im going to read one part of many 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 unlawful effort to protect the president. There is others that i could read. As they have sought i believe to destroy your character. Im giving you the opportunity to answer very clearly. Are you motivated by politics in your work or your professional behavior . Excuse me, sir im sorry . Are you motivated by politics in your work or your professional behavior . No, congressman, i am not. Im going to leave it flew. Im not political, 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 appear more qualified to do that. But the president asked me to do this. And it was my honor to step up and for however long i do it to lead and support the Intelligence Community. Thank you. Do you believe that you have followed the laws and policies and precedent in the way you handled this complaint . I do. I know i do. Have you in any which sought to protect the president or anyone else from any wrong doing . I have not. What i have done is endeavored to follow the law. Thank you. Do you believe that 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 withheld from congress but its also true, isnt it that its the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and its also the first time that it included information that was potentially outside of the authority of the dni. Is that true. To the best of my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. Annually say to my colleagues signature here, i think 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 that he felt there is a discrepancy, a potential devz in the law, he was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. And yet the entire tone here is that somehow you are 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 who did what you felt was right. Regardless of the questions and the innuendo that is cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today. Id like one more thing before i yield my time. I think we can agree that leaks are unlawful and that leaks are damaging. And for heaven sakes we have seen plenty of that over the last three years. And there is a long list of leaks that have this kpleer implications for our National Security. Meaningful implications for our National Security. I want to know, do you know who was 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 okay do you think it would be appropriate to make to make referral to the 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 investigations about leaks. That is correct. Of classified information. Yes, congressman, any wrong doing. All right. Well i dont know what time it is because our clock isnt working. Ipds my time is up. But i would conclude by emphasizing once again, good luck convincing the American People that this is a dishonorable man is sitting here. Good luck convincing the American People that he has done anything that other than that that he chinks is right. If you think it scores political point with your friends who wanted to impeach the president from the day he was elected then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. I would only say, director, no one mass accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable no one has said so no one has suggested that. Youve accused me of breaking the law, mr. Chairman. It is certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority that when the Congress Says that something shall be done, it shall be done. And when that involves the wrong doing of the president , it is not an exception to the requirement of the statute. And the fact that this whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind now for weeks, has been attacked by the president should concern all of us, democrats and republicans, that this was ever allowed to come to be, that allegations in serious and in urgent were withheld as long as they were from the committee. That should concern all of us. But 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 you yield. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service and for being here. As you know, knows in public life who work and deal with other countries, ambassadors, secretaries of state, many in the intelligence field, theyre vetted. They go for approval before the senate, have to get clearance and you understand the policy reasons for that, correct. Yes, congressman. Do you have any issue was civilians without approval, without vetting without clearance taking on those roles . Yes, i do, congressman. And 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 prevent of protecting National Security. We just cant bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand and put holy water on them to give clearance. Its a matter of vetting. For me to come back into government, the fbi went become 15 years in my background, examined all of my financial records, to make sure is that i was in factworthy 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 in Sensitive Information of the United States has been thoroughly vetted to make sure theyre able to handle the information. Its not just intel issues its the issues of National Policy that people have an official role they carry out on behalf of the United States and we know the role, correct . Yes, congressman, i would what is your understanding right now of what mr. Giulianis role is . Mr. Congressman congressman, quigley, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal lawyer. Okay. So so far what ive seen if you sees he is his personal lawyer. But we read in the complaint, the modified transcript he is mentioned five times. Your absenting to the fact that this civilian without any of the vetting has played this role. No, sir, all im saying is that i know what the allegations are. Im not saying that the allegations are true. And thats where the committee i dont think there is any question the credibility of the complaint thats 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 dsh 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 the Inspector Generals 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 dont know. Congressman, quigley, im neither aware nor 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 news media. Im not aware of what he does in fact for the president. Were 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 . Well, i 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 of the ukraine. So we respect your role. And while we have differences of opinion we continue to respect your integrity and honor. But we have this vast amount of experience you have. And we need to understand how it plays juxtaposition with the complaint opinion and omb department departments appear agency that is the president earlier that month issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Skurpt assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that. Congressman quigley, i think having to do with the president s lawyers in these matters should be referred to the white house and the president for that. No, im just reading the 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 with all your experience that the fact that we have this relationship with ukraine, that they are dependent upon us and this complaint doesnt concern you . You cant say that publicly that it concerns you . There is a lot of things that concern me. Im the director of National Intelligence. And this one here though 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, zblier 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, zblier if you wanted to respond you may. No eyeball e, im fine thank you, mr. Kmarm. Miss stephenic. Thank you, mr. Maguire. Thank you for being here process. We appreciate your life of Public Service. My question relates to prior to the transmission on august 26th from the ig to the dni, were there any conversations that you had with the ig prior to august 26th related to this matter. Congresswoman, theres been a lot thats happened in the last several weeks. As far as the time line is concerned, i think that id like to take that and get back to you and give you a full chronology, if i may on the actual time line of events. That would be very helpful to the 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 turn to the complaint itself, which is made public for the American Public to read. And let me preface this by saying that 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 and im not going to improvise for parody purposes for like the chairman did. Im going to quote it directly process. On page one the complaint reads quote itches not a direct witness to most of the events described. In 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 in into this complaint at this time . Has the ig fully investigated the allegations in this complaint . As i said earlier, congresswoman, i believe that the Intelligence Community Inspector General did a thorough investigation with the 14day time frame he had. Under the time line 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 . There were many references to white house officials. Do you know if the ig spoke with the white house officials, do you know if he investigated again the truthfulness of the allegation sns or was it a preliminary investigation . Congresswoman, id have to defer to the ig to respond to you on that. But all i do know, i although i do not know the identity of the whistleblower, i do know that Michael Atkinson had in fact, you know, discussed this with the whistleblower and found his complaint to be credible. As far as mo 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 is the complainant, is the author and whistleblower. Congresswoman, what im saying is im unaware who else Michael Atkinson may have spoken to. Im 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. And because on page 1 it says no direct knowledge, i think its very important that we conduct or that we have questions answered for individuals that do have direct knowledge. With that i yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. Mr. Maguire do you agree the definition of a coverup is to attempt to prevent people from discovering a crime. Id say thats close. I mean, im sure there is others but i dont disagree with that, zblier in the whistleblower complaint, the whistleblower alleges that immediately after the president s call with the president of ukraine on july 25, 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 excuse me, sir. I apologize. Is that what was alleged in the complaint. Congressman. Yes or no. Sir, all i know is that was the allegation. Im asking whats thats whats alleged. Thats the allegation. And you read the allegation and the first people you go to after you read the allegation are the white house lawyers who are telling the white house officials who see this transcript and move it into a secret compartmentalized system knows are the first people you go to. Lets say a couple of things. Yes. Okay im going to keep going here. You get the 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 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, sir. Well, what can also speak for itself is if the transcript of a foreign leader is improperly moved into an Intelligence Authority classification system, that actually would involve your responsibilities, is that right . Not necessarily. That is 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. So would you also want to know, though, considering that you are the director of National Intelligence, and transcripts are being moved into a secret intelligence system, whether other transcripts, perhaps, maybe the president s phone calls with vladimir putin, with mbs of saudi arabia, orer eredo of turkey or kim jongun, would you want to know if those are 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. Well, its actually 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 could compromise american secrets, is that right . Is. Congressman, there is an allegation of a coverup. Im sure an investigation and before this committee might lead credence or disprove that. But right now all we have is an allegation from secondhand information from a whistleblower. 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. Congressman, election interference i hope you know this answer is yes or no. Are you responsible for preventing election interference . My election interference is i really hope you know the answer. Is a top priority or the Intelligence Community. Is it your priority, though . Yes, it is. Okay. So this complaint also alleges a shakedown with a Foreign Government by the United States president involving a rogue actor as mr. Quigley pointed out, 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 most fundamental priority, however, this complaint focused on a conversation with a president with another foreign leader, not Election Security. I yield 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 im 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. And i think youve gotten more arrows shot at you since youve been dni than you did in your almost 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 those two chairmen 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, i mean, lets just say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. I, you know, members of this committee, although youre on 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 a law can 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. This is why were sitting here this morning. Sure. I hope were not in this position again. However, if we do 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 odni under you or under your predecessor aware of an omb decision to suspend ukrainian aid as was alleged in this complaint . As far as im concerned, personally, congressman, no, i have no knowledge of that. Im unaware if anybody in the odni knows that. I just dont know the answer to that. When and i apologize for a lot of these legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else, but i feel like you have a perspective. When does olc, office of legislative Legal Counsel excuse me, guidance, override laws passed by congress . The office of Legal Counsel does not overrise laws passed by congress. What it does, it passes legal opinion for those of us in the executive branch. The office of Legal Counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. Good copy. I have two final questions. Ill ask them together to give you time to answer both. Yes, sir. What is your assessment 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, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistleblower revelati revelation. You alluded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment on how this could impact intelligence operation in the future. I do believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right . I would welcome in the end i know this is a little off topic what do you see as the greatest challenges and threats to this country as director of National Intelligence. Well, let me answer the latter part of that. I think the greatest challenge we face is not necessarily a kinetic 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 protecting the sanctity of our election within the United States, whether it be national, city, state, local, is, perhaps, the most important job that we have with the Intelligence Community. Outside of that, we do face significant threats. Id say number one is not necessarily kinetic but 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 in my estimation, the great competition with these countries is taking place right now and is doing that in the cyber world. Admiral, my time is i think running out. The broader implications on intelligence operations of this current whistleblower situation . I will tell you, in light of this, i clearly have a lot of work as leader of this community to reassure that, you know, the Intelligence Community, that, in fact, you know, that i am totally committed to the Whistleblower Program and i am absolutely, absolutely, committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual as well as making sure that Michael Atkinson, who is our icig, continues to be able to do his job unfedded. With that, i 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, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director maguire for your testimony today. 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 both the whistleblower complaint and the transcript that was released of the phone call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine. Youve 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 page 2 of the whistleblowers complaint, the whistleblower says, according to the white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the president pressured mr. Zelensky to theres a few bullet points the first one says initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President joseph biden and his son, hunter biden. And the third bullet point, meet or speak with two people the president named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, mr. Giuliani and attorney general barr to whom the president referred multiple times in tandem. In the transcript that was released on page 4 of the first paragraph into what looks like 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 just 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 was 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. A outside of that director maguire, you agree that it involved Intelligence Matters, an issue of election interference, it involved an investigation of u. S. Persons including a former Vice President. If you had knowledge or the cia had knowledge that a government was going to investigate or drum up an investigation against a former Vice President , would that not 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 exactly whats in the transcript. Thats what hes asking for. What 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 mr. Maguire, i understand, 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 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 borganization 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 . Excuse me. He is the president of the United States above the entire executive branch. Thank you. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, chairman. Admiral, good to see you. Good to see you, sir. You served in the navy 16 years. Commanded s. E. A. L. Team 2. Thats correct, congressman. 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 on september 13th accusing you of being part of a, quote, unlawful coverup and the speaker of the house took it one step further. She went on national tv and said not once, but twice, that you broke the law, that you committed a crime. She said, the acting director of National Intelligence blocked him, meaning the icig, from 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 appointees but career officials that serve republicans and democrats. At the department of justice. 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 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 whistleblowers complaint, but the whistleblower says i am deeply concerned talking about the president that that 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 Mainstream Media. The sources that the whistleblower bases his complaints on include Washington Post, the New York Times, politico, the hill, bloomberg, abc news and others. In other words, like the steele dossier, the allegations in the whistleblowers complaints are based on thirdhand Mainstream 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. Rudolph giuliani, is a central figure in this effort and attorney general barr appears to be involved as well. But buried in a footnote a couple of pages later, 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 exactly what President Trump did in that conversation. So if the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct, then be my guest. I yield back. Thank you, congressman ratcliffe. Mr. Heck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for being here, sir. Thank you very much for your service. I want to step back a little bit and kind of put into perspective i think whats at stake here. Obviously, yesterday the white house reheleased the transcriptf 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 fast 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. Okay. Thank you. Once again it was referred it was referred to the fbi. Let me fast forward. Yes, sir. Was it referred to the fbi by the president who actually engaged in the conversation . The no, it was not. Let me fast forward to june 13th when thats 5 weeks in advance of that when the chair of the federal Elections Commission made the following statement. Follow me, please. Let me make something 100 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, wi winetribors, 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, sir. I dont mean to be evasive, but i 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 think it may be okay for a candidate or an elected official to solicit foreign interference in our election . I cannot believe youre saying youre not really saying that, right. Im not saying that, congressman heck, at all. So we should note that the fec chair was prompted to say this because it was just literally literally the day before that the president of the United States sat at the resolute desk in the most iconic room in the United States, the oval office, and said that fbi director wray was wrong. Youre obviously disagreeing with that. He also said that he would consider accepting foreign help. And, of course, yesterday we learned that the president did, in fact, did, in fact, do exactly that, solicited that help. Director, whether its this president or any president , do you believe it is 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. No, i cant answer that. Once again, sir 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. And i wasnt referring to the whistleblower complaint, but if any president were to do this, and i accept your answer. I think its beyond unacceptable, director. Yes, sir. 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 not evidently all of us, that suggest that it is wrong. It is illegal and it is wrong. I thank you, sir, and with that, i yield. Congressman, if i may answer once again ive run out of time. Director, you may answer. Director, director, 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 you did, thank you, but the person involved did not do what director wray said 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 acknowledged 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 these decisions, so thank you for that. But i want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. The dni has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections, correct . Thats correct. Of course, youre aware, as we all are, of the Mueller Report and his indictments against 12 Foreign Nationals, russians, who actively interfered in our election. Correct . I have read the report, yes. So its just 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 . I did not yes, congressman, because i was still working with the white house i understand that. Yes, sir. Youve been very clear on that. Let me ask a hypothetical just to show the dilemma you were in. Lets say a u. S. Senator who was well connected or a private citizen really well connected had access to and had a conversation as a result of that with a foreign 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 . Congressman, i dont mean to be disrespectful, but its very difficult to answer hypothetical questions. Im not sure i understand. I wont make it hypothetical. Lets say instead of being a conversation between president and the president of ukraine, it was a u. S. Senator who, lets say, was head of the u. S. Foreign Relations Committee and was asking for the foreign leader i understand. Yes, sir. Would you forward that to our committee . Sir, once again, i mentioned that 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 wrongdoing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigation. Well, 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 . Well, it election interference, yes, congressman welsh. Okay 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 as director. I apologize. And the justice Department Led by mr. Barr who is the subject of the complaint, is the department that provided the opinion that 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. All right. I yield back. Thank you. Congressman welsh, thank you, sir. Thank you. 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 you had 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. Congressman, i think dan coats timing is better than mine. Sir, look, theres been a lot of 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, sir, 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 ukrainian president raises in the conversation u. S. Military assistance. Javelins. Defensive weapons. Hes got 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 giving something to you. He names the political opponents by name, the bidens. Ukrainian president says hell do it, hell do the investigation. Thats what youre hit with. And youre looking at that complaint that in the second paragraph alleges serious wrongdoing 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, that this came to my attention involving the president of the United States and the important matter of this. In the past as i said before, i have always worked with Legal Counsel. Because of the magnitude and the importance of this decision sir, if i may sir, as a naval officer for years, i just thought it would be prudent i understand the prudent point. I also want to say, sir, if i may, my life would have been a heck of a lot simpler without becoming the most famous man in the United States. Dont doubt that at all, sir. My question, sir, is when you were considering prudence, did you think it was prudent to give a veto power over whether the congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the two people implicated by it . Is that prudent . I have to work with the situation as it is, congressman malon maloney. Only the white house can determine or waive executive privilege. There is no one else to go to. And 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. Sir, 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 one mr. Director, 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 , im not asking for the content, sir. 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 just telling you, once again, i speak to the president and anything i say to the president is confidential. Thank you, sir. Sir, you got me thats the way it is. Understand. Thank you. 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 could 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. Demmings. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman, and director maguire, thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for your service. Good morning, congresswoman. I know you said you took your first oath in 1974. Yes, maam. Thats a long time but a belong 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 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 probably paying more of their fair share for the support of ukraine than the others. The threats are real for the ukrainian people and the stake of freedom and democracy is also even though its in ukraine is also very much a concern. So based on that you would say ukraine could probably never get there without the support and assistance of the United States, or from the United States of america . I would say that if others were willing to step up and support, they might be able to get there. But they are not. We are 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 these days, what his role is. Maybe hes the new fixer, im not sure. But either way, it involves a scheme to coerce ukraine, this country that you say is so very dependent on the United States to defend themselves, to coerce ukraine into assisting the president s reelection efforts in 2020. And the report from your Inspector General, the memo that was sent to you, it says on july 18th, the office of management and budget official informed the departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine, neither 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 this 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 think 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 and i did not have access to the transcripts. My only information was the icigs cover letter and the allegation, whistleblower allegation. The other information coming to light yesterday, as released by the president , changes things in a different light. Mr. Chairman, may i ask one more question . Without objection. My understanding is the Inspector General is a career intelligence person, 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 every area of this report that he was directly involved in . Congresswoman, michael atk atkinson is a valued and respected colleague. I respect him tremendously. The question came down to as we just over and over again, urgent concern and whether or not the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act as written allows me to forward it to this committee. Thats where i got stuck, maam, and im sorry. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Murphy. Director, thank you for your service to our country and thank you for your patriotism. I want to ask you a couple questions about the time surrounding july 25th to the time that you came into office as dni. As you know, the phone call between President Trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year. Correct . I believe july 25th, i believe. At that time the dni was dan coats and his deputy was sue gordon. As you know, the whistleblower claim was filed on august 12th of this year and you took office on august 16th, 4 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 coats . I wouldnt have taken the job if i did. No, sir. And how about with sue gordon . No, not at all. I dont believe to the best of my ability, i do not think that either director coats or our Principal Deputy sue gordon have any sense whatsoever about this whistleblower complaint or that Michael Atkinson had it. Before your current role, did you discuss ukraine with President Trump . No, congressman. I havent discussed 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 . As we read intelligence reports, weve got about 190 countries out there, so whatever the president s daily brief is and matters that pertain to that, but as far as intelligence equities in that region right now, this has just not been something thats come to my attention in the six weeks that. Now turning to the whistleblower and the Inspector General, you dont know the identity of the whistleblower, right . Congressman, i do not. I made it my business to make sure correct. And you dont know his political affiliation, obviously . I do not. Or her political affiliation. And, of course, you believe the whistleblower was operating in good faith. I do. And without bias. I dont know about that. I do not know about that. I do believe that you have no reason to believe that he or she was acting with bias, correct . I just believe that the whistleblower was acting in good faith. You have no reason to believe the person was biased . I would not know biased or not biased, sir, i dont know. You will do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempts to retaliate against him or her, correct . I will not permit the whistleblower to be subject to any retaliation or reverse consequences for going to the ig, im absolutely committed to that. Like the whistleblower, you know him, right . Like the whistleblower, he also acted in highest faith, right . I believe Michael Atkinson yes, yes. Interestingly, mr. Atkinson was actually appointed by president donald trump, right . 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 that 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. And they call that a telcon in the jargon of these memoranda, is that right . Im familiar this is the first time ive ever seen the transcript of a president ial conversation with a foreign leader. Okay. Have you been telcon would be short for telephone conversation, though. Exactly. 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 brief call from time to time. Yes, sir. And there are notetakers 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 the situation room. I dont know, somewhere within the white house. 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 where 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 Counterterrorism center, but i have never been privy to a conversation of the president where i would be involved in taking notes. It would just be happenstance, i happened to be there and he felt comfortable enough to leave me for a brief conversation. But its not anything that i would be in that office 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 that he would have. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Maguire, i just want to thank you for your attendance here today. Congratulations for surviving legal word challenge charade today. I suspect, hopefully well see you behind closed doors like this is supposed 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. So 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. Director, i have a few more questions. Just to follow up because i thought i heard you say a moment ago that you had no communication with the president on the subject of ukraine. 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. And 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 . Thats correct, sir. I mean, ive been the acting dni for six weeks. I have 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. Director, 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 the whistleblower to be an employee or detailee. It doesnt require that the subject, the person complained of, be an employee 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. Chairman the Inspector General cant investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals reading of the Department Opinion, that hes no longer able to investigate this. 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. Okay. 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. Well, thats the way it should be, but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based on the opinion that you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesnt meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. Is that your understanding of the Department Opinion as well, that the Inspector General no longer has jurisdiction to look into this . It is my understanding that both the Inspector General and i and my team are waiting for 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, if i did not send it forward, as you know, under urgent concern within the seven days, then the statute would allow the whistleblower to come to you and still be protected. Director but because were accommodating. My point is this. The department of justice has said because this doesnt meet the statutory definition, because this involves the president , the Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate. If he is above, no Inspector General has the jurisdiction to investigate. That is the effect of that opinion. Which, do you disagree . 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. But once again yes, thats however, you may go forward, and i have. Thats the key issue, director. Because it involves the president , it does not involve the Intelligence Community. That is the sum and substance. And the effect of that is the Inspector General has told us that he no longer has jurisdiction to investigate. And by the logic of that opinion, nor does any other Inspector General. Now, as you point out, this was referred to the Justice Department. 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 officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u. S. Election. You would agree that should be investigated, would you not . Chairman, the 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 and you have yes, we do. Would you agree that if theres a im confident that theres going to be an investigation. You agree there should be an investigation . I believe it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee. Well, im asking you as a career military officer, someone who i greatly respect, and i admire your service to the country, do you believe if there is a credible allegation by a whistleblower, corroborated by apparently multiple u. S. Government officials that the president 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 was corroborated by other folks. The whistleblower says that he spoke or she spoke to about a dozen other people. This is secondhand information. Yes, but the im not criticizing the whistleblower. But the Inspector General took those two weeks as you told us to corroborate that information and i dont know which they spoke to, and found it credible and you told us you have no reason to believe otherwise, am i right . I have no reason to doubt a career Inspector General lawyer and his determination on whether or not it was credible. That was something for michael to determine. And and let me ask you this, the whistleblower also says over the past four months over half a dozen u. S. Officials informed me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference. You would agree that we should speak to half a dozen u. S. Officials, would you not . I agree that you have all of the material that the committee needs and it is up to the committee how they think they need to from seproceed. As the head of the intelligence agency, do you think we should talk to those people and find out if the whistleblower is right . My responsibility is to get the other information released. I have done my responsibility. That is on the shoulders of the legislative branch and this committee. Let me is you this, the whistleblower says i am concerned that these actions pose risk to the u. S. National security and undermine the National Governments efforts to counter interference in u. S. Elections and you would agree if there is credibility along those lines that we should investigate it . I agree that if there was an election interference the complaint, is not election interference. It was about a classified, confidential, 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 . I i as i said, i dont disagree with the igics assessment that it was a credible matter. The whistleblower says namely he, the president , sought to pressure ukrainian lead toer help the president s 2020 reelection bid. You would agree that would need to be investigated. Not necessarily, sir. It was investigated by the federal bureau of investigation. No, it wasnt. Yes the department of justice con clu cluded this would vile eight ol election laws and they didnt authorize the fbi to investigate it. You would agree someone would need to investigate this, wouldnt you . If i didnt i wouldnt have referred it to the Justice Department and to the fbi. Then im glad that were in agreement. The whistleblower says they told me there was a discussion ongoing with the white house lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood and the officials are telling they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. You would agree that that should be investigated, wouldnt you . All i know is thats the allegation. Its credible and therefore it should be investigated, right . It is hearsay, secondhand information. It should come to this committee for further investigation. You have it. You have the documents. I just wanted to confirm that were in agreement that you think the committee should investigate. The whistleblower also says donald trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian Government would be able to quickly improve ukraines image and complete the Corruption Cases that have held back cooperation between ukraine and the United States. This is the whistleblower citing the ukrainian readout. You would agree that if the ukrainian readout when theyre talking about Corruption Cases is talking about investigating biden and his son and that that is held back cooperation between the two countries and that should be investigated, right . Chairman schiff, i dont agree with any of that. I did not agree that it should be investigated. What i said was that i complied with my requirement to send you the documents to this committee and it is up to the chair and the Ranking Member and this Committee Member to decide what to do with that information. Im in no position to tell the chair or the committee to do an investigation or not do an investigation. Okay. I 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 official his intervened to lock down all of the records of the phone call. Do you have any reason to believe that the whistleblowers allegation there is incorrect . I have no idea whether it is correct or incorrect, sir. Someone should find out though, right . Excuse me . Someone should find out if its correct, shouldnt they . I dont know if thats an incorrect allegation. I just do not know. Again, that is the work 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 for the white house or anyone in it. What the white house decides to do with 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 . Im sure youre aware that theres an exception to any claim of prifl edvilege that it used to conceal any crime or fraud. Any crime or fraud or instances of wrongdoing should be referred to the 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, that is of the call, from the Computer System in which such transcripts are typically stored, and instead it was loaded into a separate Electronics System that was otherwise used to store and handle information of especially sensitive nature. One white house official described this act as an abuse of the electronic system. 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 and we should find out, shouldnt we . Chairman schiff, when i received the letter from Michael Atkinson on the 26th of august he concurrently center 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 do believe that the icig. 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 . I, 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 time line was as far as whether or not the white house, 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 foreign help in a u. S. President ial election that thate would besi 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 that to seek in. Foreign assistance that way would be unethical, unpatriotic and verybe possibly a violationf law . Giuliani ve that mr. Is the president ss personal ii lawyer, and whatever sident conversation that thes presidea has withte his personal lawyer would imagine would be by clientattorney privilege. T i am in no position to criticize the president of the United States on how hethe wants to conduct that, andnd i have no knowing of what mr. Giuliani does or does not do. Ni let me ask you about a last couple of allegations of the whistleblower. I learned from u. S. Officials i that on or around 14th of may that they adviced pence to ed ti cancel to plan 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 thao the president did not want to io meet mr. Zelensky until he saw s how zelensky chose to act, unquote, in office. I do not know how this guidancei was communicated or by whom. His i also do not know whether this action was connected with the oc phone call and theal president d president zelensky would depend on whether zelensky showed the willingness to play ball. Ngness do you know whether mr. Pence, t Vice President pences trip was pulled because of an effort to o find out first whether ukraine t 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. O i have no Situational Awareness and no knowledge of any of those facts. Would you agree that if the Vice President s trip was that s canceled in order to put further pressure on ukraine to manufacture dirt on mr. Biden , that that would be unethical, h, unpatriotic and potentially a crime . I do not know why the vice t president of the United States did not dohe that. T. I do know what the allegation he was within the whistleblower h complaint, and i dont know whether that allegation is histl accurate or not, mr. Chairman. E finally the whistleblower says on july 18, the budgetmentt official informed that the info president rm earlier that month i issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Neither seomb nor the nse staff knew why this instruction had been issued. Senatorconn mcconnelle said thee day that he spoke with the secretary of defense and he etay didnt know why the instructiony had been given. Doesnt that strike you as suspicious, director, that no one on the National Security su staff, no one in the Senior Leadership apparently of the ip party here in congress that had proved the aid understood yet president was suspending aid. Doesnt that strike you as just a little suspicious . Chairmana schiff, ill juste honest with you, im unaware how those decisions are made and i have no Situational Awareness os how it happened. Of w as a military man, if this aid was withheld from an ally hi that was fighting off putins t 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 reasone to believe. I do not understand, i have no a Situational Awareness if that was withheld or why it was withheld, mr. Chairman. C well, i can tell you, we are going to find out. Director, i want to thank you r for your attendance today, and i want to thank you again for your service. 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. Good a i want to make that very clear. I think youre a good and a honorable man. Y like my colleagues, i dont agr agree with theee decisions you made. I agree with theions y inspecto generals view of the law, and i am deeply concerned about the t message this has sent to other whistleblowers about whether this system reallylyher works. If the subject of a complaint can stop that complaint from co getting to congress then the most serious complaints may never get here, and i want to n thank the whistleblower for their courage. They didnt have to step forward. Indeed, we know from the whistleblower complaint that av they have others that have knowledge of the same events an i would say to those several others that have knowledge of eh thoseat events, i hope that the too, would show the same kind oe courage and patriotism that this whistleblower has shown. N we are dependent on people of o good faithd to step forward wh they see evidence of wrongdoing. The system wont work otherwiseh and i have to say to our 1friens may be watching just as distressing it is that as their country fights to liberate itself from russian om oppression as it fights to roott out corruption in in their t own country that what they woulu be treated to by the president of the United States would be the highest form of corruption in this country. Co that the president of the United States would be, instead of a ud champion of s democracy and humr rights and the rule of law, would instead be reinforcing a message with the new ukrainian president who was elected to root out corruption thatatw insd the message to that president would be you can use the Justice Department, just call bill barr. You can use our justice e department to manufacture dirt on an opponent, that thats what democracy is. Is you can use foreign assistance, military assistance, vital assistance as a lever to get another country to do somethingr unethical. Som the idea that a fellow democrac and a struggling democracy woul hear that from the president of the United States. I just wantle of to say to thet of ukraine, we support you in your fight with russia. We support youuwe in your strug forr democrat see. Y. We support you in your efforts to root out corruption, and what you aret witnessing and what yoc are seeing in the actions of thisti president is not democra. It is the very negation. Is this is democracy, as ugly as it can be, as personal as it can be, as infuriating as it can be this is democracy. This is democracy. I thank you, director. Were adjourned. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. You can watch this hearing with the National Director of intelligence again tonight at 8 00 eastern and read the whistleblower complaint on our website, cspan. Org. The New York Times is reporting that the whistleblower is a cia officer who had been detailed at some point to the white house. His complaint suggests he had a sophisticated understanding of ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law. You can read the article at nytimes. Com. After todays hearing house Intelligence Committee chair adam schiff spoke to reporters. Congressman schiff said he was unsure that the Justice Department would properly investigate the whistleblower allegations. The whistleblower complaint that we receivn