Transcripts For KNTV Today In The Bay 20240714

Some of it is redacted as you can see the black marks here. We dont know what it is. There is a reference to military aid that was suspended, essentially, or put on hold to ukraine that is raised in the whistleblower complaint. That is at the heart of what some have described as potential quid pro quo, one the president has denied. Let me explain what that is. The United States had been set to deliver this military assistance to ukraine. The president did ask for that to be reviewed. That was not because of anything nefarious, per se, the president wanted to get other allies onboard but it is notable it is raised in the complaint as we take a look inside the hearing room. This issue of Rudy Giuliani repeatedly being mentioned is of concern. The president , when i asked him about his personal attorney over the last 24 hours fiercely defended Rudy Giuliani. He did not try to distance himself from his lawyer who, as this complaint describes and as giuliani himself acknowledges, talked with ukrainian officials multiple times about this. The president says he doesnt think theres anything appropriate about giuliani working essentially for the public, working on the government issues. You know who is concerned, Many Democrats on capitol hill, giuliani is now the subject of some of these investigations as well, savannah. Mocrats on capit. You yaw knee giuliani is the subject of these investigations as well. Were poring over this document together, two weve received today, the document from the Inspector General of the of the national the department of National Intelligence. And then also the actual complaint from the whistleblower, him or herself. What are you taking away . I see youre looking at the letter from the Inspector General. In the letter from the Inspector General hes explaining why he thought it was credible and urgent. And to hallies point, urgent because according to the classified appendix, in the days before and after that july 25th phone call the president ordered his omb director and acting chief of staff to suspend or freeze that military aid and that the complaint, at least in the classified appendix, said there was a nexus, there was a connection between the president s phone calls and the freezing of the aid and according to the Inspector General he felt that this was urgent and that this could violate a number of laws, actually. This was not the conclusion of William Barrs department of justice, but that any connection from this phone call, and freezing of the aid, could violate various laws that prevent a president of the United States from seeking assistance for political purposes, just for his own benefit actually, as is alleged by this complaint. Let me set the scene for people. 9 00 on the east coast, 6 00 a. M. Out west. In a few moments well hear from the acting director of National Intelligence, who is maguire at the center of the action this morning and its his decisions regarding whether or not to release this whistleblower complaint, whether to convey it to congress that started this whole ball rolling about a week ago. And so we are expecting this, to see that testimony in a moment. I want to go to Pete Williams on this who got a first look at this complaint and the Inspector Generals report ask see if you can put this in lay terms for us and help us understand what happened here, pete, because we the whistleblower submits this through proper channels back in august. It goes to the Inspector General. Of the department of National Intelligence. At some point the Inspector General, now we have his letter right here, says this is an urgent and credible concern. And forwards it on to the director of National Intelligence, mr. Maguire who were about to hear from. At what point and on what basis does that whistleblower complaint not then get transmitted to congress as dictated by law . At some point the department of justice comes in. Explain how that all came together. Urgent concern is a term of art in the law. Under the law when someone makes a complaint like this it must be passed on to congress if it involves an Intelligence Community activity or an Intelligence Community people. What the Justice Department said here is, and you may view this as an overly cramped reading of the law but this is their conclusion, that, in fact, because it was a discussion between the president of the u. S. And another country, that it did not involve an intelligence activity and it didnt involve intelligence personnel. So for that reason it didnt fit the standards of the law that require these things to be passed along to congress. Secondly there was apparently some concern, and im not sure whether it was a justice or the white house or where, that theres a long standing view that president ial conversations like this are covered by executive privilege and theres been some citation of past conclusions like this under, for example, the clinton administration, a memo by janet reno saying that a president s conversations with foreign leaders are not to be passed along routinely to congress, that theres a separation of powers issue here. So thats why the decision was made, that it didnt fit this automatic conduit to pass it along to congress. It doesnt answer the question of why it couldnt be passed along anyway. You know another question i have though, i hear what youre saying so it comes up through the Inspector General, through the department you know, the national Intelligence Community, comes up through those channels. Why did the department of justice ever weigh in on whether or not its going to congress at all . How does the department of justice get into this . My understanding is they were asked for their views by the intelligence by the odni. Well hear more about that today. Thats why they were told about this. And they said, you know, dont the right way to handle this is not to go through this automatic channel because it doesnt apply. The right thing to do is to refer it to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation. And the Justice Department concluded there was no violation of the law. One other quick point. Justice says that william barr, the attorney general, never was told about this call until after the matter was referred to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation, has never talked to the president about this, never talked to giuliani about this, never talked to the ukrainians about it. But of course now we all know from the quasitranscript that the president was talking about william barr, his own attorney general, and indicating that he could be involved in some of this. Correct. As you just mentioned barr doj says that never happened. He never, in fact, did. The other issue about the whistleblower, pete, is that the whistleblower, him or herself, framed it in that initial complaint as a potential violation of Campaign Finance law which does implicate the department of justice so perhaps it was on that basis that the Intelligence Community brought in the department of justice and said take a look, do you see crime here . It was ultimately referred that way and what doj concluded is, that this that there was no crime here. The potential crime would be soliciting a foreign contribution, and what the Justice Department concluded was that there wasnt a thing of value that what the president was asking for from the ukrainians did not amount to what the law calls a thing of value. Heres the nut of it. The Inspector General from the Intelligence Community said, okay, that was one issue raised. Is there a crime committed here . And then the Inspector General himself then said but this also potentially raises National Security concerns. So thats kind of these are some of the issues that are going to come to the fore in a moment here. Were watching this hearing room where the House Committee is going to be hearing from Joseph Maguire who is the man of the hour in terms of this complaint and andrea ill turn to you on this. Youve covered these matters for a long time. One of the things thats interesting about the complainant here is he or she says not only that he had heard or she had heard from white house officials and that they were concerned about the substance of this call, the allegation boils down to was the president trying to get a political favor from a foreign leader . And then the second part of the complain ants memo here has to do with what happened afterward, was there some effort of a coverup, some effort to not go through the normal course the way these kinds of memos would be saved and recorded, but to put it over on the classified side presumably so that most people wouldnt see it, what did you make of that . Is this the kind of conversation that should have been classified . It would only be classified according to this complainant and according to the Inspector General that found it credible as part of a coverup and thats whthe urgency. Now, a word about joe maguire who we see walking in trying now. This admiral worked under admiral mccraven in jsoc. Hes a former seal, right . Former navy seal. Retired down to tampa and was brought back and nominated to head the counterterrorism center. Stayed in washington for months and months, almost a year, not getting confirmed. Was about to give up, finally was confirmed and then was picked to head all of National Intelligence after the failed political congressman rad cliff by the president. Hes the acting director of National Intelligence, but and there was a big flap yesterday where there was one report that he, in fact, had threatened to resign if he was hushed up by the white house and he put out a statement saying that was absolutely not true. He had not threatened to resign. This is a military man who perhaps, because hes used to dealing with hierarchy, let justice intervene and given an opinion but not somebody whos going to take a fall for anybody like Rudy Giuliani or the white house. He does appear to be somebody who has the respect of National Security officials whove worked in both republican and democratic institutions. He is not political. Geoff bennett, youre still on the hill. What are you expecting from the hearing today . How far is he able to go in terms of his testimony . Has he sometimes we get an opening statement. We get a preview of what the witness might say. Do you have any sense of that from your sources or from any kind of transcript you might have been given . Reporter oftentimes we do get advance notice of a prepared statement. In this instance, savannah, we havent gotten one. So we can expect and we just saw adam schiff walk into the room, he will gavel this hearing into order. We expect in a few moments the witness there will be sworn in, mr. Maguire will be sworn in and adam schiff will have five minutes for his own Opening Statements, well hear from devin nunes, well hear from mr. Maguire of course and then every member on this panel will have his or her own five minutes to get to the bottom of this looming question. We expect this whole thing will take about two hours. And then later this afternoon both the acting dni and the intelligence ig will then head to the other side of capitol hill and theyll meet in private with members of the Senate Intelligence committee on this very same question. I think the thing to watch today will be what will republicans, republicans on the Senate Intelligence committee in particular, have to say now that this whistleblower complaint, the redacted version of it, is now out in the public record. And we will at that point later this afternoon the members of that committee will have had a chance to ask all of their questions to these two men privately. Already weve heard from people like mitt romney who has talked about the allegations being troubling in the extreme is the quote he used. Pat toomey another republican saying its inappropriate, the president s behavior, leaning on a foreign leader to, in effect, do the dirty work of his political campaign, savannah. All right, geoff, thank you so much and we see adam schiff the chairman of the Intelligence Committee who has now sat down with the witnesses in place. In a moment we expect to hear Opening Statements from the chairman and the Ranking Member. Lets listen in. 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 necessity to faithfully execute the office becomes moot. Where there is no country, there is no office to execute. And so the duty to defend the nation is foundational to the president s responsibilities. But what of the second responsibility, to defend the constitution. What does that really mean . The founders were not speaking, of course, of a piece of parchment. They were expressing the obligation of the president to defend the institutions of our democracy, to defend our system of checks and balances that the constitution enshrines, to defend the rule of law, a principle upon which the idea of america was born, that were 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 a most graphic evidence yet that the president of the United States has betrayed his oath of office. Betrayed his oath to defend our National Security. And betrayed his oath to defend our constitution. For yesterday we were presented with a record of a call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine in which the president , our president , sacrificed our National Security, and our constitution, for his personal political benefit. To understand how he did so we must first understand just how overwhelmingly dependent ukraine is on the United States, militarily, financially, diplomatically, and in every other way. And not just on the United States but on the person of the ident. Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor, by our common adversary, by Vladimir Putins russia. It remains occupied by Russian Irregular forces in a long simmering 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 inexplicably by President Trump. It is in this context, after a brief congratulatory call from President Trump to president zelensky on august 21st, after Rudy Giuliani made it clear to officials for several months that the president wanted dirt on his political opponent its 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 . He begins by ingratiates himself, expressing his interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. And what is the president s response . Well, it reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Rambling character, and 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. 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 theres 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, 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 your handling of this urgent complaint is also so troubling. Today we can say for the First Time Since we have released this morning the whistleblower complaint that you have marked unclassified that the substance of this call is a core issue, although by means 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 agoand 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 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 limited interactions weve had you have struck me as a good and decent man. Which makes your actions over the last month all the more bewildering. Why you chose not to provide the complaint to this committee as required by law, why you chose to seek a Second Opinion on whether shall really means shall 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 interests 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 betraying his or her country, when that whistleblower, by their very act of coming forward, has shown more dedication to country, many more of an understanding of the president s oath of office, than the president himself. We look forward to your explanation. Ranking member nunes. Thank the gentleman. I want to congratulate the democrats on the rollout of their latest Information Warfare 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 instigators of the russia 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 debunked that central assertion. But that didnt matter. The democrats simply moved the goal post and began claiming that there doesnt need to be a quid pro quo for this conversation to serve as the basis for impeaching the president. Speaker pelosi went further when asked earlier if she would put brakes on impeachment, if the transcript turned out to be benign. She responded so there you go, if the whistleblower operation doesnt work out the democrats , 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 the 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 mouthpieces, 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 propagated in the past, including countless allegations that Trump Campaigned, 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 that in the democrats mania to overturn the 2016 elections everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the russia hoax it 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 with defending that process they would have pursued this matter with a quiet, sober inquiry as we do for all whistleblowers. But that would have been useless for them. They dont want answers. They want a public spectacle. And so weve been treated to an unending parade of press releases, press conferences, and fake news stories. This hearing itself is another example, whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. As our senate counterparts, both democrats and republicans, obviously understand their hearing with mr. Maguire is behind closed doors. Again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. The current hysteria has Something Else in common with the russia hoax. Back then they accused the Trump Campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians in preparing the steele dossier. Today they accused the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. Yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. Joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into fi firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating bidens own son. Three Democratic Senators wrote a letter to reopen the investigation into former Trump Campaign officials. Another democratic senator went to ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations on involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials the Democratic National committee contractor Alexandra Chalupa tried to get ukrainian officials to provide dirt on Trump Associates and tried to get the former ukrainian president to comment publicly on alleged ties to russia. Ukrainian official leshenko was a source for nellie orr as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted by fusion gps and funded by the democrats. And, of course, democrats on this very committee negotiated with people who they thought were ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of trump. People can reasonably ask why the democrats are so determined to impeach this president when in just a year theyll have a chance. In fact, one democratic congressman, one of the first to call for trumps impeachment, gave us the answer when he said im concerned that if we dont impeach the president he will get reelected. 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 gamut by the democrats to overturn this mandate is unhinged is dangerous. They should end the entire dishonest, grotesque spectacle and get back to work to solving problems, which is what every member of this committee was sent here to do. Judging by todays charade the chances of that happening anytime soon are zero to none. I yield back. I thank the gentleman, director, would you rise for the oath and raise your right hand . Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give today shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you, you may be seated. The record will reflect that the witness has been duly sworn. Director maguire, would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . Mr. Chairman, the whistleblower actually, i apologize. Director, let 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. Id like to begin by thanking the chairman and the committee for agreeing to postpone this hearing for one week. This provided sufficient time to allow the executive branch to successfully complete its consultations regarding how to accommodate the committees request. Mr. Chairman ive told you this on several occasions, 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 s. A. As the direct for eight months and 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 expect us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without this committees support. Before i turn to the matter at 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 in to the United States navy in 1974, and nine times through my subsequent promotions in the United States navy. Most recently former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director 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 true faith and allegiance to that sacred document but more importantly i view it as a covenant i have with my workforce, 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, in austere 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 an able special warfare officer i had the honor of commanding 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 ba honoring the sacrifice of special operators. It 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 leave service to lead the National Counterterrorism center. It was unexpected and not a position i sought but then again it was another opportunity to serve my country. In particular, i knew that many of the young sailors and Junior Officers i had trained 20 years earlier were now senior combat veterans deploying and still sacrificing. I decided that 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. 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 that as acting dni i will continue the same faithful and nonpartisan support in a matter 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 upheld 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. Whistle blowing 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 in 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 committed to ensuring that all whistleblower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case the complainant raised a matter with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The Inspector General is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complainant to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for communicating the complaint to the Inspector General. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and the workforce is my number one priority. Throughout my career i relied on the men and women of the Intelligence Community to do their jobs so i could do mine and i could personally attest that their efforts saved lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. On august 26th the Inspector General forwarded the complaint to me from an employee in the Intelligence Community. The Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern, a legally defined term under whistleblower protection act, that has been discussed at length in our letters to the committee on september 16 and 17. Before i turn to the discussion about whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern our first one 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 question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the Inspector Generals letter transmitting to us. As a result i have provided the house and Senate Intelligence committees with the 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 protection act to forward the complaint to our Oversight Committees within seven days of receiving it. As we have previously explained in our letters urgent concern is a statutorily defined term. To be an urgent concern the allegations must, 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 intelligence activity within the responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. However, this complaint concerns conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community, unrelated to funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. Because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework, my office consulted with the United States department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and included we included the Inspector General in those consultations. After reviewing the complaint, and the Inspector Generals transmittal letter the office of Legal Counsel determined it does not meet the statutory requirement, Legal Definition of urgent concern and found i was not legally required to transmit to the Oversight Committee under the whistleblower protection act. And a classified version of that memo was publicly released. As you know for those of us in the executive Branch Office of Legal Counsel opinions are binding on all of us. In particular the office of Legal Counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the Intelligence Community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. While will olc 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 the i have every reason to believe they have followed the book and the law. 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 a difference of opinions on the issue 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 his role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Second, although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint 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, 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. Well, im not asking you to opine on how the president conducts Foreign Policy. Im asking you whether, as the statute requires, this complaint involved serious wrongdoing in this case by the president of the United States . An allegation of serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States. Is that not the subject of this complaint . That is the subject of the allegation of the complaint. And two things, 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 it not it meets the urgent concern in the sevendayti time frame that would follow 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. What my 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 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, 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 . Theres two things im talking about the lay the common understanding of what urgent means. 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 to i think thats a yes or no question. Did they ever assert executive privilege . They were working through the executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to assert executive privilege. They never asserted executive privilege. Is that the answer . Mr. Chairman, if they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday and all the information thats 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 it 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. Okay. 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. That well, im asking which you went to first, did you go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel first or did you go to the white house first . I went to the office excuse me. My team, my office, went to the office of Legal Counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. They viewed it and said weve determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until executive privilege is determined and cleared i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. I worked with the office of Legal Counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. Its a very deliberate process. Well, director, im trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to white House Counsel . We went excuse me, and then to the repeat that, please, sir. Im 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, no, we went to the white house first to determine to ask the question thats all i want to know is the chronology. You went to the white house first. So you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress . There were issues within this, a couple of things. One, it did appear that it has executive privilege. If it does have executive privilege it is the white house that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of National Intelligence. But in this case the white house, the president , is the subject of the complaint. Hes the subject of the wrongdoing. Were you aware when you went to the white house for advice about whether evidence of wrongdoing by the white house should be provided to the congress, were you aware 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 even talking to the president were you aware that was 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 have a couple more questions and ill turn over to the Ranking Member and he macon sum may consume as much time as i did. The second place you went to was the Justice Department. And you went to that department headed by a man bill barr who was also implicated in the complaint. And you knew that when you went to the department of justice for an opinion, correct, that bill barr was mentioned in the complaint . Mr. Chairman, i went to the office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the icig. He was a part of that, to receive whether or not this met the criteria but that icig vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the bill barr Justice Department, did he not . He still considered it a matter of urgent concern. However, as you know, opinions from department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think its appropriate that you go to a department run by someone whos the subject of the complaint to get advice, or who is a subject of the complaint, or implicated in the complaint, for advice as to whether you should provide that 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, that well, sir, i have to work with what ive got and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch. You also had a statute that says shall and even then you said 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 time line i have endeavored to work with the office of Legal Counsel in order to get the material to you, which has been provided to you yesterday. 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 lo longer applied and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint to the committee. Director you dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . I dont know who the whistleblower is, mr. Chairman, to be honest with you, ive done my utmost to make sure i protect his anonymity. That doesnt sound like a defense of the whistleblower. You dont believe the bhis whistleblower is a hack, do you, director . I believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith. Then of the law they couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack, could they . Mr. Chairman, my job is to sp support and lead the entire Intelligence Community. That individual works for me. Therefore it is my job to make sure i support and defend that person. You dont have any reason to accuse them of disloyalty to our country or suggest theyre beholden to some other country, do you . Sir, absolutely not. I believe the whistleblower followed the steps every step of the way. However, the statute was one, in this situation, involving the president of the United States who is not in the Intelligence Community, or matters underneath my supervision did not meet the criteria for urgent concern. Im just asking about the whistleblower right now. I think the whistleblower did the right thing, i think he followed the law every step of the way. Then why, director, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she might be disloyal to the country why did you remain silent . I did not remain silent, mr. Chairman, i issued a statement to my 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 blowing out i didnt think it was appropriate for me to be making a press statement so that we counter each other every step of the way. I think it was not only appropriate, but theres nothing that would have given more confidence to the 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. You 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 do not you have not investigated the voracity 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 was not i did not question his judgment there. The question i had was does, in fact, this allegation of wrongdoing meet the criteria, the statutory criteria of urgent concern . And the other issue, as i said, complicated things, did it, in fact, the allegations within this whistleblower complaint, involve executive privilege . Thank you for clarifying that. Have you ever you mentioned it a little bit in your testimony. But have you ever, or are you aware of any former dnis who have testified about whistleblower complais in the public . Not to my knowledge, Ranking Member, i do not know. Are you aware of any cases like this that were put into the spotlight, would this be the way to handle it out in the public like this . I am not aware of any, but i want to say once again i believe that the situation we have and why were here this morning is because this case is unique and unprecedented. So why are cases normally not handled out in the public . The . All the other cases that came before either this committee or the senate committee, whether or not they met the criteria urgent concern were forwarded because they involved members of the Intelligence Committee who are organizations under the dnis authority responsibility. This one did not come that way because it involved a member an individual who is not a member of the intelligence committeor an ganization underneath the authority of the dni. So this one is different from all others in the past that im aware of. So i want to get into how this all got out in the public. This has been orchestrated ifrt over t