Analysis and as we refer to as ona. Left the committee, no choice but to issue a subpoena on tuesday for his appearance at this hearing today. The department has persistently slow walked security clearance requests from counsel for their clients mr. Brian murphy, a lawful whistleblower and the former acting head of ina and the element within dhs in proceedings before this committee. The committee repeatedly offered to dhs that it would withdraw the subpoena for mr. Maurers appearance if the department authorized the attorney clearances in time for mr. Murphys often rescheduled deposition. Unfortunately dhs refused to do so. Therefore, were Going Forward today with his testimony. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. On august 3rd, amid public reporting of american citizens being scratched off the streets of portland by Law Enforcement officials from the department of Homeland Security, this committee launched an investigation into serious allegations that dhss intelligence and Analysis Office or ina, an element of our nations Intelligence Community, may also have played a role in the apparent abuses documented in portland. The spector of domestic surveillance activities by the nations intelligence apparatus which is supposed to be focused outside of the country has set off alarm bells. Soon after the committee began its review, additional serious and credible allegations emerged that senior officials at dhs had engaged in efforts to politicize intelligence assessments and reports produced by ina and so the committee expanded its investigation to examen whether the Intelligence Unit has withheld Intelligence Reporting about russian interference in our election and sought to downplay the threat of White Supremacy violence. Our investigation is still in the early stages but already the Trump Administration has engaged in obstruction. Despite those efforts over the past two months, a deeply disturbing pictures that come into sharper focus. Time and again dhs office of intelligence and analysis face pressure by the Trump Administration to deploy resources in a way to politically benefit the president of the United States and his Reelection Campaign at the expense of our National Security. Specifically the committee has information that, number one, Trump Administration officials sought to influence the production of election Threat Intelligence by elevating and emphasizing activity by china and iran despite acute operations by russia. The committee has learned that dhs leaders sought to influence the production of classified and unclassified intelligence assessments related to foreign threats to our election by encouraging ina to report more on china, even though the Intelligence Community public statements indicate that only russia is engaged in active measures to denigrate one candidate and support another and sway the outcome of the president ial election. Treating these three actors of differenting intent and capability, russia, china and iran, it creates a false equivalency and dilutes the fact that the most significant threat to our election is in fact from russia, which is aggressively seeking to denigrate Vice President biden and boost President Trump. These politicized changes did nothing to serve our National Security. But would serve to avoid embarrassing the president with a focus on the dangerous facts of russias interference on behalf of his campaign. Number two, similarly dhs officials have sought to modify the unclassified homeland threat assessment which is jet to be released to this day. Specifically the committee has learned that senior dhs officials have pressed for the assessment to elevate the threat to an election posed by china and iran and which would mislead the American Public but bolster efforts by the administration to downplay the most significant foreign election threat coming from russia. Number three, the committee has also confirmed that dhss ina sent personnel to portland at the height of protests in the city and asked engage in activity that raises profound Civil Liberties concerns, specifically the committee learned that ina participated in questioning protesters detained and issued Intelligence Reports on reporters. We have learned that the federal protective service and another component of dhs seized phones from protesters and asked ina, a member of the Intelligence Community, to extract data from those phones. Thankfully that request appears not to been ultimately fulfilled. Ina presence and activities in portland were also in the service of the president s preferred law and order narrative for which he deployed the federal government in response to domestic protests in an effort to benefit himself politically. The committee is examining allegations that dhs sought to modify sesments relating to domestic security threats in service to President Trumps preferred narrative that antifa and socalled leftwing anarchists are the most threat and this is despite to the testimony by fbi director Christopher Wray that it now maked up a share of domestic terrorism and in the wake of the president s inability to fully condemn White Supremacists. It is a dark hour when we are command eared into the president s political narrative rather than speaking truth to power. This is not the first time it is served political interest of the person in the oval office. 45 years ago the church and Pike Committee investigated another corrupt administration that included an attempt to assassinate foreign leaders and to spy on americans exercising Constitutional Rights by monitoring their political activities. 1975, seems like a long time ago but some of the abuses seem all too familiar today. The church and Pike Committee produced a series of recommendations including to create Standing Committees that would act as on a check on the Intelligence Community. These are agreat outgrowth of the Richard Nixon abuse of the Intelligence Committee and we ensure that those abuses do not happen again. That is why we have called you hear to testify today john maher. John maher is performing the duty of under secretary of analysis at the department of Homeland Security. Hes here pursuant to a subpoena issued this week. It became necessary when dhs continued to slow walk the security clearances for the whistleblower mr. Murphy for his attorney. The committee expects hearing witnesses to answer its members questions but today the issuance of the subpoena compels you to answer them fully and completely. In opening our investigation on august 3rd, we asked finished intelligence and raw Intelligence Reports produced by ina. On august 19th we requested additional documents as well as testimony from senior dhs ina officials. On sent 9th the committee released by the former head of dhs intelligence and Analysis Office brian murphy who alleged serious miscon duck related to our ongoing investigation. Following substantial back and forth the department agreed to make available a number of witnesses for transcribed interviews and to provide some, only some of the documents we requested. However the department is still with holding the vast majority of documents relevant to this committees over sight of the Intelligence Community and moreover were dismayed that the security clearance for mr. Murphys attorney, denying him the right to have counsel present for the deposition where we could learn more about his allegations. Allegations that the committee has a duty to independently investigate. Some allegations may prove accurate and others may not but we have a duty to find out given their seriousness and that some of the allegations involve the threat to the upcoming election, we need to find out now and without delay. Because some of mr. Murphys allegations are classified and particularly those regarding the politicization of threats to our upcoming election it will be testify f necessary to testif in closed session. And now to testify to matters under investigation by the committee. Well hold a classified session with mr. Ma her so you may further testify about the allegations of misconduct that were investigating. Finally, mr. Maher we may ask you about the nature of the threats facing our country. That is because you represent an element of the Intelligence Community whose responsibility is to Keep Congress informed to the threats to our nation and the director of National Intelligence has refused to appear publicly before this committee or to the senate Intelligence Committee to discuss these threats, respected on an annual basis. Instead they have published unverified material which he admits may be fabricating undertaking a domestic political errand for the president for an election weeks away even john durham seems to not perform. The American People deserve better. We expect you to speak truth to power today. Thank you. And i now recognize mr. Nunes for his opening remarks. Welcome to another hearing of the trump Impeachment Committee. This committee used to be formerly known at the house Intelligence Committee. Ill begin by noteing there is no reason for this hearing to be held in public except to stir up media interest in the democratss latest stunt. The only reason mr. Ma her is here today is leverage. It is meant to force dhs to rush through top secret security clearances without the appropriate background checks. There is no reason to make this whistleblower public but at all but of course handling whist complaints with discretion as this committee has always done before this congress, is not helpful for publicity stunts. So here we go again. Lets recall the democrats on in committee were at the forefront of the russian collusion hoax for years, they falsely claimed they found secret evidence of trumps conspiracy with russia. They issued memos defending the fisa waurntd to spy on Trump Associates and tried to get nude pictures of trump from russian pranksters. They also touted the credibility of the steele dossier that they had paid for themselves, the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign and read the steele dossier into this committees congressional record during hearings in the past. After a twoyear investigation, however, special Council Mueller filed failed to find the security collusion evidence that the democrats claim to secretly possess and since then weve learned that the steele dossier, was mix of fake stories, rumors, barroom gossip, and jokes. Collected by a suspected russian spy at the behest of the Democratic National committee and the hillary Clinton Campaign. Furthermore, the department of justice Inspector General found the fisa warrant application that the democrats defended for years was riddled with mistakes, omissions, even withheld exculpatory evidence and relied on a doctored email hiding a Trump Associates past cooperation with the u. S. Intelligence agency. The democrats have not called a single hearing to investigate any of these issues even though this committee is supposedly dedicated to overseeing the Intelligence Community and investigating abuses. Theyve held a hearing on global warming. But dont care about documented corruption of the fisa process or suspected russian agents compiling political dirt for the Democratic Party. After mueller testified to this committee and again failed to expose the mythical collusion conspiracy, the democrats suddenly switched tracks and impeached President Trump based on an anonymous whistleblower complaint from a bureaucrat who are coordinated his attack with the democratic staff of, you guessed it, this very committee. Despite the democrats insisting that they had never had any contact with this whistleblower. Although they brought our oversight work to a halt and transformed this into an Impeachment Committee and holding ridiculous secret depositions that were leaked nightly to their media stooged followed by public show trials with the witnesses they found most useful. The impeachment in the house was such a transparent fraud that not a single republican voted for it. After the collapse and the failure to oust President Trump during the impeachment, the democrats suddenly begin a new investigation and forced us into an opening hear and it is certainly amusing that although this complaint is supposed to be handled by the Inspector General first, the democrats have dispensed with the ig as an unnecessary middle man, probably because the i. G. Investigation takes time and the democrats are operating on an election deadline. This all has a familiar ring to it. Almost all of the democrats are following a playbook. I would note that usually you dont follow a playbook from a game that youve lost multiple times. But once again their pushing into the limelight a complaint by a whistleblower. Small world. It may seem that the whistleblower has credibility problems. Furthermore the democrats themselves called him a liar just a few weeks before he filed this complaint. Even threatened to criminally refer the whistleblower. But now suddenly hes their star witness. Nevertheless, i doubt my democratic colleagues will breeze right past these contradictions and that the media mouth pieces wont draw any attention to these awkward problems just like theyll ignore the testimony of multiple career officials delivered during the interviews that weve scheduled and conducted over the last few months which directly couldnt r contradicts. Again believing theyll find the holy grail of scandals that finally gets rid of trump. Without beating him in the election. Of course, foreign threats and intelligence challenges dont grind to a halt while they pursue the sick fantasies. And this is clearly sick. Weve had violence all over the country and it involves a bizarre sympathy for ant eva, burning down many of our countrys major cities. I know some view antifa as an idea. Thankfully the Trump Administration does not. Yield back. Mr. Maurer, the allegations leveled against your office are credible, serious and wideranging. They cover everything from abuse of authority and mismanagement of intelligence programs to the politicization of intelligence. Were going to review these allegations during the course of the hearing. And i want to give you a chance to respond as well to other important issues under your purview. Let me start with a few what should be fairly easy questions. Is russia interfering in our election, yes or no . Youll have to turn your mic on, sir. Yes. Is russia spreading disinformation about our elections. I would prefer to the election interference and there tr is does talk about russias efforts. Well those staples outline that russia is spreading disinformation. Do you have any reason to quarrel with that. I have no reason to qualify with that. And voter ballots and mail fraud. That i dont think i could answer in open question. You have issued a bulletin on this subject. Weve issued a number of bulletins on the Russia Foreign influence and those are usually issued not for public consumption and so we have issued a number of bulletins on foreign influence by russia. Is russia actively trying to denigrate joe biden . Yes. And im sure you saw recently direct wrays testimony, the Intelligence Community consensus is that russia continues to try to influence our elections and weve seen active efforts to influence our elections in 2020. He also said that the russians were trying to, quote, denigrate Vice President biden and what the russians see as a kind of antirussian establishment. You agree with director wray, do you not . I do agree. That makes it hard to explain a september press report that dhs leadership delayed publication of an intelligence bull etdin in july that warned of efforts to denigrate joe biden. The dhs bulletin was at one point during the drafting process, titled, quote, russian influence 2020 election. Do you recall that bulletin . Im familiar with the bulletin, yes. Was the title of that bulletin later changed to remove the word russia. Im not going to discuss internal deliberations but i would tell you that product was issued in Early September and ina stands behind the contents of the product including the vital. So you will not answer the question of whether or not russia was removed from the title of that product. Im not going to discuss internal deliberations. So there was an internal deliberation about changing the title . On that product there were internal deliberations about a number of aspects but again im not going to talk about internal deliberations. I think the committee has that product in their possession and the intelligence and Analysis Office standed behind the content of it from its title to its substance. Why would the title be changed, when the odni issued a same statement that quote, russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President biden . Again, to discuss the content of it, it is a nonpublic document that was issued by our Intelligence Office. Im happy to discuss it more in closed session. But again, im not going to discuss internal deliberations. So when we go into closed session will you explain why the title was exchanged. Again, i cannot discuss internal deliberations but as the committee could read the document it speaks for itself and discusses a number of threats. Is it your position, mr. Maurer, if you were given improper political instructions or others were, to alter the intelligence analysis and work product that you would somehow decline to answer our questions about it because it would considered internal discussions. If i was given improper on product, i would need to alert various officials, Inspector General and possibly others but ive not been given political direction on any intelligence product. Well youre not drafting the intelligence products, mr. Maurer. But if you are aware of others who are exerting political interference to change the content title withhold materials, youll answer those questions in closed session, will you not . Well, i will clearly tell you that i will not have anybody taking political directions on any intelligence products within ina while im in my current position. I have not seen that while ive been the head of ina, of intelligence and analysis and if i did, i would alert the correct officials. And how long have you been in your position . Since early august. And if you became aware and you have become aware of politicization of intelligence, are you going to deg licline th questions. Im not going to talk about internal deliberations. Even if the internal deliberations involve the politicization of intelligence to suit the president ial political narrative. At this point im not free to talk about internal deliberations. Both the Intelligence Community and the department of Homeland Security is aware of the arguments and have full access to any documents or any communications within dhs to look at those allegations. Mr. Maurer, do you want to tell the American People who are watching why it is you wont be able to Tell Congress and through Congress Tell the American People whether your privy to evidence of discussions of the politicization of intelligence about an uncoming american election. Ive none been involved in discussions about politicization. Im not asking if youve been involved in discussions. But if you have evidence that intelligence were altered or withheld for political reasons, are you telling the American People you will not share that information with the congress . No, im telling them that if i become aware of evidence of that, i would disclose it to the appropriate authorities including the Inspector General and im asking about congress. Youre under subpoena. Were asking you the questions. Are you telling the American People you wont answer. No, im not saying that. So will you tell us that intelligence products were withheld or altered to suit a political narrative. Im not free to discuss internal deliberations about intelligence products. If im aware of things being directed to change things for a political narrative, i would tell you that. Mr. Maurer, youre aware of the public press reports that a bulletin about Russian Foreign interference in our election in july was withheld from distribution, are you not. Im aware of the press reports, yes. Are those press reports accurate . The akctivities that it discussed occurred before i got to the intelligence and analysis directorat. And was that withheld from publication to those Law Enforcement agencies . I dont believe it was withheld. It was published in Early September. There was additional work that was done on the bulletin and it was released in Early September. But it was finished in july. Did chad wolf, the president s political appointee, intervene to withhold the distribution of that document. I dont have firsthand knowledge of what happened to the document before i got to the intelligence and Analysis Office in august. Well, what is your understanding of why it was withheld. Well, my understanding is that there were concerns raised about craft concerns about the report in particular. It was reviewed and reworked by intelligence professionals in a product that is consistent with intelligence standards was a product that was produced in Early September. And that was the trade craft concerns raised by chad wolf, is that correct . I dont exactly who all raised them. I know there were some raised. But i dont have firsthand knowledge so i dont want to speculate. So you havent looked into this issue to know who withhold the document for a period of months . No. I know that it was reworked within the office of intelligence and analysis. I know there were concerns raised at sp poin at some poi. I dont want to speculate. We looked at the Intelligence Report that was actually reworked and produced and stands behind the product that was produced. And when was that reworking done . Um, i dont know exactly. I became aware of it, i dont know exactly when i became aware of, but i would say sometime late august is my guess. I dont know to what extent reworking was done on it before that. And was that reworking done because it became public that the dom was withheld . Not to my knowledge. And i became aware of it around the time of the articles that came out and was told what the status was and subsequently was sent to me to review and it was published. Mr. Maurer, do you commit right here and now on behalf of ina to never withhold, delay or change intelligence bulletins due to political pressure or suspected political preferences by dhs leadership or the white house. Yes, i do. Mr. Maurer, let me turn now to the delay that has brought you here. We have repeatedly sought to schedule brian murphy, the whistleblowers deposition, and the clearance for his attorney has been continually delayed. What are you doing to make that witness available to congress . Um, let me just kind of explain for the committee the security clearance process is run and managed by a Security Office within the undersecretary for management so it is not an intelligence and Analysis Office responsible. But my understanding is that that process is actually been expedited quite a bit. That office is currently working on doing the professional work that it takes to grant a high level security clearance to those officials, to those individuals. Weve never seen a problem like this and delays like this for the simple matter of clearing an attorney to be present with his clients during a hearing. Who is making this decision . And is the politically appointed general counsel to your knowledge intervening, discussing, involved in any way with the attorneys that would normally be doing the clearance . Im not involved in any discussions about how the clearance is going to run or how it should run. The decision it made for security clearances by the chief Security Office at the department and or the deputy undersect for management. Has the politically appointed general counsel been in contact with those doing the security clearance. I dont know. When we met a couple of weeks ago and asked for your cooperation and you committed to providing the cooperation, i asked whether you were the decisionmaker. And as i recall, the answer wasnt particularly clear. The decision to provide documents or in this case withhold documents, the decision to withhold a security clearance, are those decisions being made by others or are you taking responsibility for them . Those are not decisions that are ultimately made by me. The leadership of the department decides decisions about release of documents with respect to the security clearance issue, that is decided by the chief Security Officer and deputy undersecretary for management and not by me. So the document production decisions are not made by you, theyre made by political appointees at dhs headquarters. Yes. As has been the case for every administration, yes. And the decision as to make to witness available through clearance for his counsel, that is being made by the internal Security Office of dhs but you dont know whether the political appointees have been in communication with them, is that correct . Thats correct. Mr. Nunes, youre recognized. Welcome, mr. Maurer, how are you doing today. Thank you, sir. I dont know what youre doing here, to be honest with you. Youve been on the job, a couple of months. Less than two months. So this committee as i said in my opening statement, weve had an unfortunately the last couple of years weve brought many people like yourself before this committee and ruined a lot of peoples lives and want to try to make sure that doesnt happen to you here today. You have no business being here. You dont know any of these facts and supposed allegations. But i want to take you back first of all, where were you in 2016 . I know you just came over to ina. What were you doing in 2016 . I was in the general counsels office in the department of Homeland Security. Did you run into any intelligence products or anything at that time. In the course of my job, i am read into some intelligence activities, yes. Okay. Are you a russian expert of any no. Are you familiar with any of the history of what russia or the Old Soviet Union has done throughout the last 70 years . I wouldnt describe myself as an expert in that area, no. I didnt think so. But you are aware of generally press reports and you follow the news im assuming the last four years . To some extent, yes. Did you read and this is not a trick question and i know it is really boring, but did you read our Committee Report on russian active measures by any chance . I have not, no. It is great reading. You should read it at some point. But in that report we found for many decades we kept intelligence very, very quiet. It was classified. But what we put in that report essentially is that we know the russians before that and the soviet union were always actively involved in election interference. In fact, during the Obama Administration, the russians did a whole bunch of election interference in other countries. And then of course they were doing what they usually do to this country, it was nothing new, we always knew about it. And that intelligence was shared with this committee. But in early 2016, the republicans on this committee had become so concerned about the inaction by the Obama Administration on russia that it became to peculiar and odd that russia was essentially doing whatever they wanted. They march into ukraine and take crimea and be involved in syria and libya. All over the global and consistently the Obama Administration didnt do a damn thing about it. This committee made very clear statements, at least the republicans did, that the largest intelligence failure since 9 11 2001 was the inability to plan putins plans and intentions. That is the republicans in 2016. Media will ignore it and they continue to ignore it. And they ignore the work that we did because we ultimately found during that same time frame in 2016, the Clinton Campaign and the democrats were up to some really nasty, nasty stuff they continue to hide from the American Public. They developed and paid for a series of dossiers. They hired a former british agency, through cutouts, no less. They went through a law firm and laundered money to a company and then hired this former british spy who then went and actually claimed he was working with a russian but it ended up being a russia that was only a few miles from here and previously worked for the Brookings Institute and now he was suspected of being a russian spy at one time. So they put together these dossiers that are, i dont know, theyre called the steele dossiers. You have heard of the steele dossiers . Yes. So did you read the steele dossiers when they were published in early 2017. I have read accounts of them but i havent read them. They were fairly salacious, werent they. Yes. And youve been a career official for how many years now. 17 years. A dhs public servant, not a political appointee . Correct. Were you surprised that the fbi and the department of justice would use these dossiers that were salacious and unverified, not my words, the words of the former fbi director, that they use them to get a fisa warrant . That is an area that im not an expert in. I dont have the particular details of it so i defer to the committee and what its found. But the dossiers you dough know were written and paid for by the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign. That is what ive read. So here we are now four years later, where you have the democrats continuing to try to cover up and blame russia for something that we knew that russia had been doing for the last 70 years. But they decided to make it public. But you know who really interfered in the election . They did, the democrats. They interfered in our 2016 election. They interfered in the 2018 election. They poisoned the minds of millions of americans with their vile lies and dirt and coverup of what the Democratic National party had paid for and fed into our Intelligence Services. They used it to raise money in the 2018 election, claiming wild conspiracies that trump is doing something with russia. Even the other night, even the other night in the debate, i dont know, did you have a chance to watch the debate, mr. Mair. Portions of it. Joe biden, their candidate, who was in the room when they began investigating Trump Officials based on anonymous dirt that they had paid for, general flynn, three star general, former head of the Defense Intelligence agency, paid for dirt on him. Fed it into the fbi. Got fisa warrants on Trump Campaign officials. Theyve poisoned the minds of millions of americans and joe biden the other night still made the claim, even though hes with in the room back in 2016, that trump had something nefarious, some nefarious dealings with russia. You know what question he didnt answer . And what the moderator didnt even ask . Why would joe bidens son get 3. 5 million from a Russian Oligarch closely tried with putin . It is almost like we live in a fantasy land here where they accuse you, the democrats accuse of you whatever theyre doing themselves. The media will ignore it and continue to ignore it. I have no idea how you would have the son of the Vice President receiving millions of dollars, not just from people with ties to putin, kazakhstan, ukraine, even china. Fbi didnt seem interested in investigating any of that. They took the democrats dirt and the clinton dirt and though open up an investigation into the Trump Campaign and the republican party, their adversaries. This committee has met with countless countries, all of us on this dais, Intelligence Services all over the world, allies, adversaries, people in the middle. Were always concerned about whether or not there is any election interference, especially by the countrys Intelligence Services and intelligence agencies. Ive sat in so many meetings with Senior Intelligence officials around the world and it is one of the first things youll always talk about. I hope that youre speaking truth to power. But youre not getting involved in elections. That youre trying just to gather intelligence and protect your own country and hopefully we could work with you. Yet here we are, shining city on a hill, and the Democratic Party corrupted our Intelligence Services. And really sad that youre here today, department of Homeland Security, which we have granted we have some small jurisdiction over you. But were really supposed to be making sure that our intelligence agencies are protecting this country. And, look, i dont have all of the details yet. Weve been doing a lot of transcribed interviews from your employees and officials that work for you. But i know this much. Cities are burning all over this damn country. And ant e ant eva is not an idea. And i expect Homeland Security to do what they can to protect our federal property, statues, and this city just a mile from here torn down, all over the country, torn down. Even if africanamerican leaders were torn down. Doesnt the department of Homeland Security, mr. Maher, just a simple question but im going to state the obvious, dont you have the responsibility to protect federal property. Yes, we did. Under title 40. We have a specific statutory responsibility to do that. So you were doing that. Youre providing intelligence in portland, seattle, youre feeding these reports, i know that go out around the country, correct . Correct, yes. Weve even seen some foreign involvement in these protests around the country. It is pretty alarming. Antifa is not an idea, mr. Maher, it is a radical group and there is a lot of groups like them and i have no idea why the democrats would be protecting antifa. This is a bizarre, bizarre strange events that were witnessing right here. And hopefully someone in the media will cover this. But i doubt it. Yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Ma her. What is truly bizarre is that any democrat would protect antifa. That never happened and never been alleged. It is truly bizarre. But what we are here to talk about is not ant eva or conspiracy theories but quite serious allegations of violation of american Civil Liberties so. I would like to ask you about allegations that dhs intelligence personnel pressed to exact information from the cell detailed the stories of individuals with no history of violence targeted by federal agents from dhs including the Homeland Security investigatio s Division Within ice. One citizen told the post, i didnt know if i was going to be seen again. We understand many individuals who were detained had their cell phones confiscated. Officials have krocorroborated t some of those protestors had not had their phones returned much later. Those phones appeared to have been in the protection of the federal protective Services Without a search warrant. Again, without a search warrant. Witnesses have testified committee that the federal service seized phones of the o protestors and discussed the extraction and exploitation of data from those phones in order to identify connections between protesto protestors. Those requests apparently game kayembe down to dhss hightech office, whose drirector testifid they did not ultimately aseed to the request to exploit the data because there was no search warrant. Now, Law Enforcement regularly reviews Electronics Taken from criminals. They do Network Analysis. For example, if theyre part of organized crime or a gang of some kind. What im concerned about is that this is a situation where an element of the United States Intelligence Community, not Law Enforcement personnel, is being asked to use tools meant for counterterrorism or National Security threats against americans who are exercising their Constitutional Rights. So my question to you, sir, is that did dhs ina, the unit you lead, receive a request to exploit and conduct Network Analysis on the phones of protestors in portland . Congressman, my understanding is that we have not exploited any cell phones of private individuals. Sir, with due respect, that wasnt my question. It was did ina receive a request to exploit those phones . I have heard that, but let me say that Inspector General f of our department is investigating in portland. He asked me not to interview individuals with ina about things that are under investigation, so i have not spoken to all the people one might normally speak sto if you were investigating that. Sir, you just said you wehad heard that. Those were your words. Who had you heard that from. I dont recall. You said you heard it. You repeated it here today. Do you believe theres credibility to what you heard . I didnt repeat it, but i did say i heard it. I cant remember which, who told me that within the office. I dont recall. Okay, but you dont have reason as evidenced by the fact you reported it here today, to doubt that there was a request to exploit the phones of american citizens . I dont have reason to doubt it. Okay. Would ina, an Intelligence Community unit, typically or commonly look at personal information of protestors or would you characterize that as rare and maybe unprecedented . Well, the authorities for our intelligence are are different from Law Enforcements. Theyre different from other intelligence agencies which operate outside the United States in which we do not have authority to covertly collect information like that. We collect information overtly and through open source means. Right and for that reason, it would be pretty legitimate, in fact, maybe even shocking, if an Intelligence Community element for precisely the reason you just outlined, were in fact asked to exploit the phones of american citizens especially without a warrant. Is that correct . I suppose someone whos not familiar with our authorities may ask that, i dont know. I dont have the specifics of what those conversations were. So youve said that youve heard that theres discussions occurred. Do you, did you hear who the people were asking to exploit those phones . Yorn. I dont know. I yield back my time. Mr. Conway, devotes have start but as were voting in shifts, were just going to work through the vote. I would suggest that members that have or had a chance to ask questions go vote and come back or those of you that wont have a chance to ask questions for some time in the order might go vote now. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Not sure why youre either. Just previous questioner may have trapped you into saying something ive always wanted to say. Ive heard about the allegations that ina was asked to exploit telephones, their cell phones, from the questioner. And so your question, your answer could have been that you heard it from him. So just be careful when youre asking, answering questions. The background check process is important to our nation, right . It is. It is very important. Who has access to tssci information that doesnt go through a background check other than members of congress . Nobody. Nobody. Is there something about the law profession, and i know youre a lawyer. Im a cpa. Theres a bit of, is there something about the law profession, some oath they take, that makes a lawyer more or less likely to be at risk to misuse classified information . That would exempt them from a background check . No. And our practices apartments doesnt matter what your profession is. Weve had constant conversations about the length of time it takes to do background checks. Its a constant tlorn in the side of every agency out there. Theyve got good people and folks that need to go to work and they cant get the background check done and the system has worked to try to shorten that time frame. Not r for purposes like this, but for purposes of getting people employed. So its not an unusual circumstance in that it takes some time to do that. You wear two hats today. Principle Principal Deputy chief General Council and acting under secretary by day. Just to be clear, under either of those hat, do you have the authority to waive a background check. I do not. Do you have the authority to grant a background check . Conclusion of background check . No, the chief Security Officer exercises the authority. Does he work for you . He does not. Okay, so you look like to be to be a hostage. Youre here because the majority cannot wully the agency into doing something that the agency should not do. And that is grant a security clearance to someone who hasnt gone through the background check. Who hasnt had the answer the questionnaire that is appropriate for anyone whos requesting a background check. The Committee Majority is wanting to circumvent that to the detriment of our nation and i know they think for different purposes because they get this attorney in and get mr. Murphy in here. This is an open session. He could be here today. He could be sitting right there. And so is it in your professional judgment that it would be appropriate to waive background checks in these circumstances . No, its not. Are you aware of any conversation among folks that the at dhs to use the background check as obstruction to slow down mr. Murphys testimony in front of this committee . No, im not. Nobodys playing games that youre aware of . No. Youve been in Government Service for a long time. I have. Is the Trump Administration the the First Administration to have political appointees . Every administration. Oh, really . From the sounds of the questions earlier about the political appointees role at an agency, it sounds as if it was almost unique and swhomehow untoward f the Trump Administration. So what i hear you say is that the Obama Administration had political appointees a at dhs where they sat in office and collect a salary and just hang out or have a role to play . They take a significant role is it appropriate in your mind . It is not. Okay. Hard to tell that from questioning that you got earlier that some political appointees with automatically a risk to our nation and doing things they shouldnt do without evidence to that fact. Lets see, the how long is the documents that you fill out to start the background check process . How many page ss th . Quite a few and a lot of it, the length of what has to be reviewed depends on things like how much more travel youve done. The individuals youve interacted with, things of that nature. Okay. So if a lawyer has been involved in those things, the packet could be extensive and the review could take some time. Yes. Thanks for being here. I apologize on behalf of our side of the communiittee. I yield back. Im just point out were not talking about a background check for the purposes of a new hire in intelligence agency. Were talking a background check for the purposes of sitting in on a deposition or interview. Those are normally conducted in 24 hours. At the most, a few days, during the two hours that mr. Nunes chaired the russia investigation, we never had a e delay of this kind. So this is unprecedent. Miss sewell. Thank you. Id like to turn to the disturbing allegations ta dhs has tried to minimize the threat posed by violent white suh premist groups and play up the threat from antipha and whats perceived as radical right wing groups to support President Trumps political narrative. On september 17th, director rey testified. He said and i quote, within the domestic terrorism budget, the category as a whole radically motivated, violent extremism is, i think, the biggest bucket within that larger group and within that radically extremist bucket, people ascribing to some kind of white supremacist type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that. Sifr, do you concur with director reys assessment regarding the fact that white suh premist groups are the largest quote chunk in that bucket . Yes. Do you have any reason to question the accuracy of director reys recent testimony that racially motivated violent extremism mostly from White Supremacists makes up the majority of domestic threats . No. Earlier this week, President Trump seemingly ignored his fbi director during the president ial debate to denounce White Supremacy. In fact, he did just the opposite. He told the proud boys, a notorious, violent, White Supremacist Group to quote, stand down and stand by. They interpreted president s remarks as an endorsement. Equally disturbing, your predecessor acknowledges that in may and june of this year, he met with acting drirector, depuy secretary, cuccinelli to ask about a the release of an intelligence assessment on domestic terror threats. Mr. Cuccinelli has been ordered that the assessment be modified to make the threat of White Supremacy appear less severe and include information on vie rent lent left wing groups and antifa. In addition, mr. Kucuccinelli a wolf directed your predecessor to change other briefings share ed with federal and state and local enforcement agencies to ensure they match President Trumps description of the danger posed by antifa. Did they direct mr. Murphy to modify the intelligence assessment to play down the threat of White Supremacists . I have not been involved in any of those conversations. I dont want to speculate. So, you can either confirm nor deny that such an assessment was done, a downgrade was made in assessment . I would say its correct. Although its out of character for, ive never been asked by mr. Wolf to change an intelligence assessment to minimize anything. That, but youre not say iin that mr. Murphy would not have been asked by them. You dont know whether or not thats true or not. Ifls n was not in the conversation, so i cant speak to that. You acknowledged that part of the authority at dhs was to protect Federal Buildings, irrespective of who actually damages them. Is that correct . Correct so do you commit to ensuring that dhs does produce intelligence assessments and would will treat any Extremist Group that violates the law or damages any Federal Building the same . Yes. I think our department is committed to protecting federal facilities. Do you also commit to ensuring that they produce intelligence assessments based on intelligence and other information and not based on the opinions and thoughts of President Trump . Yes. That is correct. Or his political appointees . Yes. Thank you for appearing before us today. I know that you have a very tough job. I think the American People deserve to make sure that, that the assessments given by the Intelligence Committee, whether its within the 17 agencies or dhs, are based on sbintelligenc and not on conjecture. Thank you, sir. Thank you and thank you, mr. Maher for being here. I just want to correct something my colleague from connecticut staaid. Two career ina officials testified that a formal request to exploit phones was never receive d. Phones were taken from people arrested for federal crimes. Thats normal proceeder for Law Enforcement. Ina determined a warrant was required before theyd ever exploit the phones. Moving from there, i want to thank you for being here and understand that many on this committee have aspirations outside of the work here. This committee should never be used ed as a platform for fictil play wright irighting, but here again. In 18, we went to minor fity. We lost seats. They went to majority, gained seats. I look down and see some of my colleagues here and i feel badly because i dont know that theyre ever going to know what this committee should be doing and how it should function. And thats a shame. And to go back to the point about foreign influence on elections, russia and others, we know this has been happening for decades. They try to sway our elections. Try to disrupt our society. Thats not news, but its our role to prevent it. Thats what we should be doing for the American People. Trying to prevent it so that we have free and fair elections. Without outside influence. Frankly, to me, theres nothing more revolting than the idea of a Political Campaign paying russians or any other foreign add vversary for misinformation against their opponent. Let me get to the point at hand, mr. Murphy. We know mr. Murphy was reassigned to dhs management director when an ig investigation was launched into allegations about his department and actions. Is that correct . Yes, sir. Do you know if acting s secretary wolf was concerned that the ig investigation could not be done in a fair and unbiased manner, if mr. Murphy remained as head of ina and continued to direct or manipulate staff . I know the secretary was concerned about some of the reports that were issued and wanted to make sure that the Inspector General was able to look at the situation and provide a report to him. Are you aware of any efforts by mr. Murphy to contact ina employees since he filed his reprisal complaint on september 8th . I am aware of that, yes. And because we wouldnt want him to try to explain away any inconsist encies from things he said or did in their presence that his complaint expressley contradicts. Would we or would you . I have the drn concern that he may be going back to staff to try to explain away the inconsistencies from the things he said or did in their presence and that his complaint expressley contradicts. Do you know if mr. Murphy tried to explain away the inconsistencies, that his complaint contradicts . I dont know the specifics of the conversations. I know its somewhat disconce disconcerting to a number of people to have their former boss call them about this. And for you know, their knowledge, maybe their future boss, so its, yeah. Its, it was disconcerting i think to some people. Did any of those Staff Members come forward to you to express their concerns with this taking place . I heard from a number of people that calls like that had happened. You heard from them directly or indirectly from someone . I heard from some directly. Some indirectly. Sounds like he might be inclined to direct staff are pretty reasonable. Would you agree that . Id rather not characterize it. I think people in ina are somewhat disdemocraticed by this. They have a passion to focus on the work of securing the country and producing excellent intelligence products and so i think theyll be more than glad when this chapter has passed, but i think they, as a workforce, are focused on protecting our homeland and thats what they want to be doing. And thats what we want them to be doing as well. Listen, i want to thank you for your time here today and appreciate your service to the country. Thank you. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Maher. Let me ask you about the creation of intelligence products that youre aware of in particular. Mike baker of the New York Times and ben witness of law fair. Why were these products created . Inspector general is doing a review and asked me not to interview particular employees about them, so i dont know why they were created, but theyve been rescinded and shouldnt have been created. What . They should not have been created. Are you aware of any other reports, intel products created on any other journalists . Not that i can think of. There are a number of other reports. After i came in, were having two reviews done. An initial review of all the reports that were created since may. There were a number that we foupd that were inappropriately issued. Those have been rescinded. We had a subsequent review done by a different part of the office thats independent. And that is ongoing, so there are a number of other reports that were issued that shouldnt have been. I dont recall any of them being about reporters specifically. Is it that you dont know if they were about a specific reporter or you dont know whether they were about any other journalist or not . I dont think that they were about journalists, specifically. There were other reasons why the reports were not appropriate under intelligence state craft. Yeah. And the acting secretary put out a statement condemning the activity and as you say, said there would be an open investigation. We all hope he is as we assume, sincere about that. My understanding is that some of the information these two reporters related was called baseball cards, the ina has created on protestors. You familiar with this term . Im familiar with the term, yes. These cards gather information on protestors, correct . They were in this case. I dont know the specifics of the ones youre mentioning. Were these baseball cards used to collect information on these protestors . Not to my knowledge with the caveat, i have not specifically delved into that in a way you would if there was not another investigation going on. Typically, they are used on terrorist, correct . Used by someone thats been arrested for violence. Or terrorism. So, in a sense, used baseball cards in this manner is equating anyone out there protesting as terroris terrorists, correct . Can you restate . I dont know about the reports youre mentioning, but Intelligence Reports should not be generated about americans who are just exercising First Amendment protect activities. And baseball cards are part of that, correct . A mannerer of collecting it and using it in that fashion. Well, like i said, my understanding of that term is its used by to by people who are terrorists or have been convicted of violent activity. At this point, does the agency believe protestors in portland are akin to terrorists . No, there are a lot of protestors who are simply exercising activities. There are others who are committing violence in those. Kirk circumstances. And youre agreeing we shouldnt be creating files on american citizens . Correct . Correct unless theyre terrorists or committing other crimes. The fact theyre out there protesting doesnt make them a candidate to be a terrorist. Correct. The fact that someone is just protesting portland or somewhere else in the United States not a basis for intelligence officials to be collecting information on them or reporting them. Thank you, my time is complete. I yield back. Mr. Stewart. Thank you for your 17 years of service. Ive got to echo something the Ranking Member said. That is im sorry youre here. You are a part of what this committee, unfortunately, has proven they can do so well. And that is to seek to destroy the reputations and lives of innocent people. And sometimes, it appears that they do this with ease. With false accusations, malicious accusations. Everything from treason to working with foreign a agents to cohorting with prostitutes and every singling one of these malicious accusationaccusationse of them is untrue. I got to tell you, it appears to me you have little firsthand knowledge of the primary concerns here. Youve been weeks on the job. You appear to have no firsthand knowledge. You wouldnt expect to. Its outside of your responsibility. I think i could put my boot up there behind that microphone and it would have as much information as you have on this and thats unfortunate, that you would be here and trug before a committee in open session, which is nothing but a political exercise, to be asked questions for which you have no responsibility. And i dont mean to minimize your role. But honest ly, sir, this isnt about you. You are unfortunately a prop because it allows this committee to hold hearings and rail against president s, once again, over nonsense. And you get a front row seat to what some hope is impeachment 2. 0. And inn this hearing is another example. And some of the absurd accusations that have been made is another example of why this committee has lost its way. And why this committee no longer does its job of providing incredible, honest oversight. And its another example of why this committee, what used to be the crown jewel of bipartisanship, what used to be the reason that most of us wanted to be on this committee, i would hope the reason every one of us wanted to be on this committee, was because of the important work we did in a bipartisan manner. And now its become the most partisan, untrusted and minimized committee in all of congress. Because we have watched what has happened to you happen for years now, again and again and again to innocent people. And its why so many of us who are on this committee who came here to do serious intelligence work are so disappointed that once again, were doing this bit of a television drama. And i want to correct the record op a couple of things and ask you something that i think is important. In this hearing, there are a number of things that have been said that we know are untrue. Im not going to spend the time i have left hitting them, but i want to hit some qukly because theyre relevant. Its been said only russia has been supporting one candidate over another. We know thats not true. Every one of us has been to the hearings. Every one of us have seen the analysis. We know thats not true. China is doing the same thing. So are other countries. Its been said and this is just so absurd to me. Its been said the president continues to refuse to condemn White Supremacy. What nonsense. He has done so again and again and again. He did so as recently as two nights ago. Now if youre a washington poster, cnn reporter, i can understand why theyd keep going with that story, but this committee shouldnt be involved in nothing but political hackry like that. Making accusations and saying things that we know are not true. But its not the first time thats happened. In the little less than a minute i have for you, i have a question i think is very relevant. What would happen to our National Security if we set the precedent that all you have to do is have a whistleblower complaint and we will waive all National Security concerns and read in any attorney that that individual chooses and waive all f our standard procedures as background checks. What would that do to our National Security if we did what this committee is asking to be done now . I think if you dispense with the professional checks that are done to do that, i think it could present a grave danger. Top secret information is information that if its disclosed, is reasonably expected to cause great damage to National Security. So there are reasons why the professionals who are experts in conducting background checks and granting security clearances spend a lot of time on that. And ill conclude my time has expired, but it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. This endangers our National Security. If we do what this committee has asked you and others to do. Mr. Swallow. Thank you. I want to correct something that my colleague from utah just said. Mr. Maher, it is not the view of the Intelligence Committee that china and russia are equally acting in this election. In fact, mr. Maher, the Intelligence Community says russia has been a preference for donald trump. Is seeking to denigrate joe biden and help President Trump. Is that correct . I would agree with the statement on this. So when my colleague from utah says china is doing the same thing, has a preference for a candidate whos actively seeking to help a candidate and is seeking to tear down a candidate, thats not accurate, is that right . I think any conversation i would have on that should be done in closed session. I can say that is false and its false, that theres any equivalence for what russia and china are doing. In fact, yesterday, the National Security adviser for the president , former National Security adviser for the president , said donald trump is aiding and abetting putins efforts. This is the president s former National Security adviser. He went on to say that the sustained campaign of denial is aided by any leader who doesnt acknowledge it. Do you agree . Im not going to comment on political statements like that. Mr. Maher. Is it your understanding that beginning march 2020, that dhs start providing the congress certain threats from russia . Im not familiar with that. That was before i joined the intelligence and angel is office. Is it your understanding that dhs continued to produce intelligence products internally on russias attack on our election between march and september of 2020 . Weve produced a number of products for that go to the Intelligence Community as well as the committee on russias influence. But nothing was sent to congress during that period. Im not familiar with that. Do you see products on russia between that time period . Congress should be made aware . There are a number of finished products we have. Are you aware of direction by obrien to dhs to stop producing intelligence assessments on russias interference and instead to focus on china and iran . Im not aware of that. Are you aware of acting secretary wolf passing same information . Im waaware of that as an allegation, not as a fact. Do you know whether former acting dni, richard cornell, directed or requests thed that Intelligence Community including dhs report more on china and iran despite russia being the most direct threat . Im not aware of that. Im not asking if you were directly told that. Are you aware from others that former acting dni instructed your colleagues to focus more on china or iran . Ive never been told that by people that work in my office. Are you aware that mr. Wolf and mr. Ken cuccinelli both told intelligence and analysis leadership to expand reporting to china even though the Intelligence Communitys public statements indicate that the only, the only russia is engaged in active measures to denigrate one candidate and support another . Im not aware of that. Ill yield to the chairman if he has any questions. I do not. Mr. Castro. Mr. Heck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Maher, im sure youd agree that the southern border has been a preoccupation of the administration for some time. It was obviously a Campaign Issue in 2016. Leading to chance of build that wall. In fact, during the last four year, funds were illegally diverted for that purpose. All of this of course to keep foreigners out of our country. Youll recall that in 2017 and 18, the president rallied for the hardening of our boarders t purportedly protect the country from migrant caravans coming from Central America. At the time, there were all kinds of conspiracy theorys floating around about who was funding them and on october 17th, 2018, one of my colleagues made accusations that george tsiros or u. S. Backed ngos offered cash to migrants to encourage them to join the caravan. Mr. Maher. Are you aware of any efforts by ngos or george soros to secretly give out cash to migrants to encourage them to join a caravan . I am not, but i think officials within customs and Border Protection are probably much more closer you are personally not aware of any information to that effect . Correct. The day after that, the president suggested on twitter that democrats were somehow supporting the caravans, no surprise. Im sad to say this whole issue has raised its ugly head again during the course of our investigation. Weve learn ed that individuals at ini, individuals in leadership position, discussed whether they would report on Funding Sources of these caravans. These ina employees, not just at one ill advised meeting, discussed a possible plan to collect and report on ngos who might be assisting migrant caravans. We learned ina engaged with other agencies about this idea of tracking Funding Sources for migrant caravans. Mr. Maher. Were you aware of any discussions about collecting intelligence or reporting on ngos who were purportedly assisting migrant caravans . No. As an attorney in the ic and in your current role as senior official performing the duties of undersecretary, do you believe the ina should be conducting intelligence activities with respect to ngos . I would have to know a lot more details. I think the mission of the spelled out and guidelines that go along with that executive order and so when youre looking at whether its an appropriate activity for our Intelligence Office to be collecting and report i reporting on activities, you need to look to see if its within the source us out there. One, our office doesnt spy. Two, its not appropriate to collect information on an organization just because theyre a nongovernmental organization. I hope not. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, i dont know how many more times im going to have an opportunity to speak in this committee, certainly in open session, but the truth is, ive about had it. And there are a lot of parts of this place im going to miss considerably. Its a privilege and an honor to be here. When i was in the state legislature, we had a rule against imputing other members of the body and yet today, ive sat here and listen to our members be accused of vile lies and malicious accusations and again, ive had it. The fact of the matter is this institution cannot function if as a course of regular diet, we impugn the motives of our colleagues. We should keep our arguments to the subject matter at hand, to the policy at hand and not impugn the motives of one another. We cant function that way. We cant craft legislation. We cant reach principle compromises and we sure as hell cant exercise our institutional obligation to conduct overi apologize, but thats been boiling up in me for quite some time. I want to recognize mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. I want to follow up on some of the questions that mr. Heck was asking and give you some context first. On january 11, 2019, chairman schiff wrote a letter on behalf of the committee to mick mulvaney, dan coates, then head of ina, to exaggerate the threat from alleged caravans of migrants in south and Central America heading toward the south and u. S. Southern border. At the time, President Trump was attempting to convince congress to fund the border wall. The letter noted that the white house and dhs had repeatedly claim that had in 2017, dhs had prevented 3,755 known or suspected terrorists, ksts, from entering the country in fiscal year 2017 when making its case for congress to fund the border wall, but dhs and the white house failed to disclose how many of those socalled k srstsd tried to cross the southern border. In mr. Murphys whistleblower complaint, he claims that leadership at the time was potentially aware of the misleading statistics dhs and the white house were citing to support President Trumps argument for a border wall. What was not disclosed were that the terrorists was nowhere near the figure the administration was using. According to mr. Murphy, the it was less than ten. So heres my question. Were you involved in the discussions in late 2019 or early 2018 with dhs leadership or the white house about the number of alleged terrorists crossing the southern border, yes or no . No. Since then, has there been any pressure or request from the white house, dhs leadership or anyone else to modify or underplay dhs intelligence assessments to support President Trumps continued crusade to build a border wall on the southern border . Not that im aware of. Are you aware of anybody else who would fit that bill . Z no. Have you heard any complaints about that . Allegations . Anybody else who made a comment to you or an offhand remark that would suggest this . No. I mean, i read newspaper reports just like you guys do, but im not familiar with specifics on anything like that. In those reports, if youve seen that alleged in news reports, have you followed up with anyone quoted or tried to figure out who an enormous source was within the department, for example . Were geting away from the specific detail, that i can think of as im sitting here now. Okay. Z can you tell us how many known r or suspected terrorists were stopped at the southern border in 2017, 2018 and 2019 . I dont have that information right now. Im sure the department has that. Will you provide that information . Im take it back the customs, the body that would have information like that. The efforts by this administration to manipulate intelligence and deceive the American People about the real threats facing this nation are beyond disturbing. The president s efforts to justify his inhumane and wasteful wall on the southern border by misleading the American People about the number of alleged terrorists trying to cross the border is just one more example of that. Its not just cynical, but it does real damage to our National Security. When our intelligence agencies begin falsifying information in order to appease the president for allowing the president to use their work product to mislead the American People, we have truly gone the way of authoritarian c authoritarianism. As chair of the congressional hispanic caucus, over the last few years, the department of Homeland Security and some of the people who work there, have committed, encourage d or ignord severe human rights abuses that will be a stain on the history of this nation for many years to come. And the reputations of the people who contribute d will no be forgotten. I yield back, chairman. Basic question. What is ina . I think sometimes in these conversations, we make it sound like the department of Homeland Security intelligence analysis is like mi5. Right . Can you give us what is i nurks a . It was created in the wake of a 9 11 attacks. Our office is a part of the larger Intelligence Community. It has limited authorities to collect open Source Information and collect information overtly. We analyze that information, in addition to other classified and unclassified information from both the Intelligence Community as well as operators within the department of Homeland Security. In order to provide analysis and intelligence so that not only department of Homeland Securitys operators in the field have that intelligence, but also so that state and local officials have intelligence information for their operations. So, you said you have limited authority to collect. And you collect information overtly. So, do you run clandestine source sns. No. You have no authority to conduct human intelligence operations . We do have some authority to human. Its always noncovert. Officials can interview people letting them know who they are, not telling who they are or work for. As a former Intelligence Officer, its hard for me to hear the word intelligence, then overt, right . And so, sometimes, we conflate the two and so what is an osir a, an open source Intelligence Report . So, thats raw Intelligence Report. Which is based on when you say raw, right, what is that mean . Its not finished intelligence. So finished intelligence involves analysis that of the information thats looked at and is a product that is a finished product thats not subject to revision typically. But if Homeland Security or ina is doing an osir, would that raw intelligence that yall have collected . It is possible theres nonclassified human intelligence, the example i gave, it might involve even interviews of Law Enforcement officers that our officials might interview, get information about tactics being used, things like that. Those type of things could be put into an open source Intelligence Report or more likely finished intelligence. So, is sending someone a newspaper article considered intelligence . No. If youre referring to the three open source Intelligence Reports that involved journalists, that is not an appropriate production of Intelligence Report. But is it you know, i think government officials all the time send information about this reporter just wrote this thing about something that may have something to do with us. Right. Is that considered espionage or collecting intelligence . No. Thats usually not, wouldnt be done in an Intelligence Report. I know these are very basic questions, but i just want to make sure we clarify all of this. Yes, sir. Because i still think think of is the definition of intelligence, so this is new to me. Are you aware of any plitization of intelligence in ina . I am aware of some. That was the subject of news articles just before i came to ina. This whistle blblower, he fi his complaint on september 8th and then had to file another two days later. Is that your understanding . Because of the correct falsehoods . Yes, not sure of specific dates, but understand that happened. And are you aware that the whistleblowers on emails contradict his complaint . Z i am aware of that. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The committees investigation of mr. Maher, thank you for being here and thank you for your service. Revealed the fact that i find alarming and it is that the ina Intelligence Officers debrief protestors who are taken into custody in portland. And as you know, ina is supposed to be in the business of intelligence xwath gathering and analysis. Not questioning u. S. Persons arrested at a protest and i worry that the recent reports suggest that ina may have crossed the line in that questioning who were engaged citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activity. The specific allegations are that witnesses have testified that during the protest, ina surged Intelligence Offices from its Field Operations division to portland and according to a former executive who testified on wednesday, some of these people were involved in questioning protestors when they were being held in federal custody. And that persons testimony is corroborated by two other witnesses who previous ly testified before this committee. Mr. Maher, would you clarify the record on this issue . Please describe for us what role ina person ina personnel played in responding to the protest in portland. So, i dont know all the details. As i mentioned before, the Inspector General is doing a review and investigation of activities in portland and i assumed it would include those activities. Generally, our office to the extent we are not generally, specifically in portland. I wasnt there. I wasnt ina at the time that happened so i cant speak to the specifics there. But thats being invested by the Inspector General, youre saying . Thats my understanding. Did ina personnel question any protestors directly . Again, i dont know the specifics because thats under investigation. Thats not specifics. Just a specific question. If there was a surge in personnel to portland, they had something they were intending to do there. And normally, they tried to get intelligence and intelligence gathering people. So were they there and did they question protestors . My understanding subject to the Inspector General is that ina officials werent there to be Milling Around with protestors collecting information in that fashion. Why were they there . Well, again, this is, this is what happened before i came to the office. My understanding is they engaged in activities such as like i said, interviewing Law Enforcement officials as they would come off duty of off of their stands out there. So let me, im trying to get specific here and i understand you quote werent there, but you now have a very important position. Do you have any information to corroborate with these witnesses have said that ina personnel did in fact question r or were in the room during questioning of protestors who were in custody . I dont, im not trying to avoid the question. I dont know the specifics because i havent interviewed people. I havent kind of gone the lengths to discover that because of the Inspector Generals role and investigation. I just want to understand this. Youre now the acting head, but youre telling me because if i hear it, that you dont want to find out what happened . Thats not correct. I do want to find out what happened and i, i will find out what happened. When Inspector General conducts his investigation. And will you tell us what happened . I would have no problem with telling the committee happened. I mean, is it your understanding that its improper for ina officials to be questioning protestors . Generally not your job. Generally, yes. Ina, as i said, does have the authority in open fashion and voluntary basis, talk to people. That would assume that ina people identify themselves to protestors. Yes. They should be identifying. Did they do that . I dont know the specifics. My understanding is that they did not. Just randomly interview protestors. What im hearing is you dont know yet, but you will know at some point. Yes. And the reason you dont know is because you werent in your job at that time, correct . Correct. Do you know whether ina has any written regulations or policies that govern whether and under what circumstances ina personnel can participate in questioning u. S. Persons in federal custody . There are written guidelines with respect to the conduct of human intelligence for ina. And it talks about the parameters under which that can be done. All right. I yield back. My time is up. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Maher. Thank you, maloney. Morning. Lets get a couple of things straight. Some of my colleagues seem to be confused about why youre here today. Am i correct that youre now currently the acting Principal Deputy undersecretary at the department of Homeland Security office of intelligence and analysis. Not quite right. But youre filling that right. Im filling, performing the duties of the under secretary. Why . Im sorry. Why are you doing that . Secretary asked me to do that in early august. Was there an opening, sir . No. No, there was not. Excuse me, but arent you performing mr. Murphys duties at this time . Yes. Right. Thats what im getting at. And mr. Murphy was the Senior Intelligence official at the department of Homeland Security, am i right . He was, yes. And that office is the intelligence component of Homeland Security, am i right . Yes. And when we refer to the Intelligence Committee over which this community has primary jurisdiction, that office is one of those 17 elements of Intelligence Community, correct . It is. And the reason youre doing this job is because your immediate predecessor has been, he alleges, in a retaliatory way, dismissed and hes filed a whistleblower complaint, in fact, and i think we could agree that that complaint is well, contains very serious allegations. Is that fair to say . Contains serious allegations. And those allegations include improper interference in an american president ial election. Abuse of Civil Liberties of american protestors and purgery before congress. Thats whats in the whistleblower complaint by the senior official in the intelligence component of the department of Homeland Security. I think thats a fair summary, right . Thats what hes alleged in fact, hes alleged violations of law, youre nodding your head, right . I mean, theres nothing controversial about what im saying. Not trying to trap you. Its not a trick question. Right, and your department is also blocking right now, your department is blocking your predecessor who we just agreed is the Senior Intelligence official at the department of Homeland Security over which this committee has issued a whistleblower complaint alleging those serious complaints. Your department is right now, blocking that official from testifying before this committee, before this congress on those abuses. Thats not my question. My question is, in case theres still confusion here about why some of us are sewing up to do our job is to oversee violences at the highest levels of the Intelligence Community, so my question for you is who is david glowy . Z the former urnds secretary for intelligence and analysis. You work with them snim. Not now. In the fall 2018, testify he testified that russia, reconfirmed that russia swinter the election and was subsequently dragged up in front of the Senior Leadership of the department were told from the whistleblower complaint and he was told that secretary nielsen and secretary of state john kelly had convinced the president to give him another chance even though the president wanted to fire him. Are you familiar with those also sns. Im familiar with the allegations. Not with that happening. You had no knowledge of that. Ever talk to him about it . No. Ever talk to mr. Murphy about it . No. And can you, would you agree with me that if an intelligence official testifies truthfully before congress and then is threatened with termination for that, that that could create a Chilling Effect . Intelligence official testifies before congress he testified before the Homeland Security committee apparently committed the sin of telling the truth and was told according to the whistleblower complaint, that the president wanted him fired for that and they had convinced the president to, quote, give him another chance. Sounds like that thats the kind of situation that could have a Chilling Effect on somebody testifying before congress, would you agree. I dont know the specific facts so im not going to comment on those. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you for your service. When Christopher Wray, the fbi director, testified before the house Homeland Security, at that point he said that quote unquote racially motivated violent extremism remains the top domestic threat in the United States or the u. S. He said. And then he said, within that racially motivated violent extremism bucket, people ascribing to some kind of white supremacist type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that, wray said. You have no reason to doubt that testimony, correct . Thats correct. Now, sir, do you condemn White Supremacy . Yes. And why is White Supremacy a threat . Well, there are a lot of ideologies that people adhere to, many of which people will disagree with. Its when its connected to violence that it becomes a concern for my department and other parts of the federal government. Its this ideology thats connected to violence that makes White Supremacy especially threatening. What is your do you interact with acting secretary wolf about this particular issue . I interact with him on a lot of issues. Including this one, right . Yes, on and what is your plan to deal with this particular threat that so many people are concerned about right now . The department has a number of activities associated with that threat. One is we, as part of the intelligence arm of the department, put out a number of intelligence products to make sure that the audience for our intelligence products knows about situations. The department has a Grant Program for organizations that work to counter that type of violent activity have you heard acting secretary wolf condemn White Supremacy publicly . Have you heard him say that publicly . Im sure that he condemns the White Supremacists yes or no . I cant recall a time yes or no . You cannot recall you cannot recall him saying it publicly. Sir, let me ask you another question. The reason why we brought you on capitol hill is actually very simple. Theres no mystery. Its because dhs, among other things, refuses to grant a security clearance to mr. Murphys attorney to facilitate him coming to our scif and testifying about his whistleblower complaint. Sir, im just going to ask you a couple very easy questions. Have you interacted with anybody at dhs with regard to the issue of granting mr. Murphy a security clearance . I know generally that the office that handles those clearances is handling it. Ive been told its been done in an expedited passion hold on a second. Expedited fashion. When the average person watching at home hears you say expedited fashion, that usually means perhaps its done in hours, perhaps its done in days. But now its been weeks and its approaching months. So why is it the case that this gentlemans attorney cannot receive a basic security clearance to be able to testify before us . First of all, this is not a basic security clearance. Second, when you say expedited, the ordinary course for these clearances does take months. Its not been months since its been the process has been started. When i say when you say expedited, it could be months thats not what im saying. What does expedited mean . When will he receive a security clearance under an expedited theres nothing in the background that is a cause of concern whats in his background. Is there something in his background that is precluding an attorney from receiving a security clearance. Im not part of the you just brought it up. You said there could be something in his background that is precluding granting the security clearance. Im just asking you, is there something in this attorneys background that precludes him from getting security clearance to testify one month after we ask him to come here youre putting words in my mouth. After the public hearing, the committee went into closed session. You can watch the hearing on alleged Trump Administration interference in Homeland Security security reports online at cspan. Org. Who will control congress in january . Stay informed on all of the competitive congressional races leading up to election day with cspans campaign 2020 coverage. Watch the candidates debate on cspan. Watch online at cspan. Org or listen on the free cspan radio app. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. Weeknights this month, were featuring American History tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Tonight, a look at the Supreme Court Historical Society founded in 1974 to collect and preserve the history of the nations highest court. We begin an evening of their programs with yale law professor justin driver on the 1956 southern manifesto. A document written by congressional members who opposed the brown v. Board of education. Watch tonight beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern. Enjoy American History tv this week and every weekend on cspan3. A house subcommittee examines Sexual Harassment issues in the veterans air foff department. I ask unanimous consent for our colleague representative ann custer to participate in todays hearing. We have a number of members participating remotely today and before we proceed, i would like to go some of the items for our members participating promotely. If youre experiencing connectivity issues, make sure you or your staff contact our support so those issues can be resolved immediately. Members participating remotely must continue to use the video function for the duration of their participation in the hearing unless they experience
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.