Believe that the situation we have and why were here this morning is because this case is unique and unprecedented. So why are cases normally not handled out in the public . All the other cases that came before either this committee or the Senate Committee whether or not they met the criteria of urgent concern were forwarded because they involved members of the Intelligence Community who were in organizations underneath the dnis authority and responsibility. This didnt come that way because it involved a member, an individual, who is not a member of the Intelligence Community underneath the authority of the dni. S they is different from all others in the past i am aware of. I want to get into how this all got out in the public. This has been orchestrated effort over two weeks. We were first told about it a week and a half ago. We were told specifically that whistleblower did not want to get this information out, they did not want it to leak out. There were only a few potential groups of people that would have known about this complaint. You and your people within your office. Yes, sir. The people within the Inspector Generals office, and the whistleblower and whoever that whistleblower gave this information to. So what im trying to ascertain is, how would it run in all the Mainstream Media outlets . Even though they got a lot of it wrong, they had the basics that it involved the president of the United States talking to a foreign leader, so did anybody,
you or anybody in your office, leak this to the Washington Post or nbc news . Ranking member, i lead the Intelligence Community. We know how to keep a secret. As far as how that got into the press, i really do not know, sir. I know its all over the place and as you said its been reported by different media for the past several weeks. Where they get their information from, i dont know. So that but it was not from the Intelligence Community, from me or from my office. Thank you, director. So this is not the first time this has happened to this president , that happened with a call between the mexican president , the australian Prime Minister, so its happened twice before, the pieces of transcripts leaked out. And, of course, this time it was leaked out again and the president , thankfully was able
to put this out because of the actions of this of the situation as you said thats unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have their conversations leak out . This is the third time. I would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that. But to me, the president of the United States conversation with any other Head Of State i would consider privileged conversation. Clearly those conversations are being captured by the Intelligence Agencies . Not necessarily, sir. I mean if the president i should say this, theyre captured and disseminated. Captured and disseminated to the Intelligence Agencies. I have to be careful in this open hearing about, you know, how i respond to that. The Intelligence Community and
the National Security agency obviously, you know, they collect things that are to protect i want to make sure. Foreign leaders, have either the president of the United States not talk to foreign leaders or we should just or just publish all the transcripts. Thats whats happening here. Ranking member somebody is leaking this, its likely coming from the agencies you oversee. Ranking member, no, thats sir im not saying that you dont you dont know. We have the transcript of the mexican president , australian Prime Minister and contents of the call with the ukraine president leak out . Ranking member the allegation in the whistleblower complaint was that there were about 12 people who listened in on the conversation. Members of the National Security council and others. And then others were briefed from State Department as well, the transcripts because if they have an area of responsibility and a region responsibility then they would be informed on the interaction so there were a number of people that from the
white house briefed on the call this would not be something that im quite sure of this, the white house probably didnt leak this out. I wouldnt say the white house, but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not. I dont know. But not be from an intelligence intercept, i will say that. Right. Im not im just saying the dissemination, the dissem nags of these calls is supposed to be sacred. It is important for the State Department and the appropriate agency im not saying its all the intelligence agency, but when a president talks to a foreign leader its confidential, those contents are confidential, there could be some facts of that conversation you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the ic, i want to be clear about that, but this is now the third time. Im not aware of this ever happening before, of contents of calls like this getting out. I really dont know, ranking
member. Im not aware. I dont the numbers. It seems to me, though, it is unprecedented and i would also say i think that the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of the ukraine is probably unprecedented as well. Well, i appreciate you being here. Have fun, be careful what you say because theyre going to use these words against you. I tell you what, Ranking Member, either way im honored to be here and leading the intelligence. I appreciate your service to this country for a long time and im sure well be talking again soon. Hopefully not in the public. Hopefully behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done. I yield back. Mr. Heinz. Director maguire, thank you for being here and thank you for your prou profound service and the service of your family to this country. Director, what i find bewildering about this whole conversation is that we are not
sitting here today and the American Public is not aware of the allegations of the president asking for a favor of investigation into his political opponent, were not aware of the murky decision to withhold aid, not aware of mr. Giuliani apparent establishment of a personal State Department, not aware of a possible retaliation against a u. S. Ambassador, none of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, a man who was appointed by president trump, and confirmed by a republican senate, to examicome this committee seven days after the complaint was required by law to be transmitted to us. It was his decision, personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of Conspiracy Theories the Ranking Member thinks is happening here, but it was the decision of Michael Atkinson, an
appointee of this president , to come to this Committee Following not advice from you or any law, but following his own conscience, without his decision to do this, none of this is happening, correct . I applaud michaels the way he has done this. He has acted in good faith. He has followed the law every step of the way. The question is, congressman, does it did it or did it not meet the legal def figures. Definition. Without his decision, its a simple question. Without his decision none of this is happening, that is correct . We have to back up to the whistleblower as well. Okay. I should have noted that the whistleblower also deserves the same accolades that mr. Atkinson does. Director, were you ever advised by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason . No, congressman. Okay. And as i understand it, the opinion was that you were not
obligated to convey, despite the very clear wording of the law, to convey the complaint to congress. So the decision was taken to defy a subpoena of this congress, the subpoena of september 17th, to turn over the complaint who made the decision to defy that subpoena of september 17th. Congressman, urgent concern im asking a simple question. Who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena . Somebody said we will not abide by this subpoena and i would like to know who that somebody was. Congressman, nobody did. I endeavored once we no longer had urgent concern with the sevenday timeline to work to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was to get work through the Executive Privilege Hurdles with the office of Legal Counsel at the white house. Although this was the most important issue to me, the white house has other issues they
dealt with. I would have liked to have had as i said to the chairman perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process and finally came to head yesterday. When i received the information on the 26th Of August we had seven days based on the Whistleblower Protection Act. All we did was lose those seven days. It may have taken longer than you would have liked but you have the information. Im focused on the subpoena. Subpoena is on your desk. Its clear in what it asked for. Youre saying a decision was never taken not to comply with that subpoena and yet somehow it wasnt complied with. Im looking for the decisionmaking process to ignore a legal congressional subpoena. I did not ignore. I dealt with the chairman of this committee and asked to have one more week to be able to do what i needed to do to get this information released. He was gracious enough and this committee was supportive. It wasnt something that it was ready to go but i was committed fully committed to this committee and the chairman to get that information and i was able to provide that yesterday. Thank you, director. Did you or your office ever speaks to the president of the United States about this complaint . Congressman, im the president s intelligence officer, i speak with him several times throughout the week. Let me repeat my question. Did you ever speaks to the president about this complaint . My conversations with the president , because i am the director of National Intelligence, are privileged and it would be inappropriate for me because it would destroy my relationship with the president in Intelligence Matters to divulge any of my conversations with the president of the United States. But just so we can be clear for the record, you are not denying that you spoke to the president about this complaint . What im saying, congressman, is that i will not divulge privileged conversations that i
have as the director of National Intelligence with the president. Has the white house instructed you to assert that privilege . No, sir. Thats just a member of the executive committee, Executive Branch as a member of the National Security council and the homeland committee. I just have to maintain the discretion and protect the conversation with the president of the United States. Thank you, director. I appreciate that answer. The clock is broken but i would yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither one of us are lawyers. That may be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff . I do, congressman. All right. And your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and have given you advice . Yes, congressman. If the Black Letter Law was so clear in black letter how is it weve got different attorneys giving you and i different
opinions . Thats a rhetorical question. With respect to this issue. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was in front of us last week and did a very good job of telling us what he did and didnt do. We now know for sure what it is he was able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president and the reason he did is he cited the difficulty of working through all of that would have probably meant he couldnt comply with the 14day time frame. Even he did not try to overrun the white houses executive privilege over the conversation that the president had with president zelensky. He also said in his letter, i also determined quoting michael, determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. Thats a different statement than credible. Is there anything in the statute that your lawyers have been advising you that says that the determination of urgent concern, lies solely with the icig . No, sir i was never advised by my Legal Counsel to that effect. Has the Justice Department ever weighed in to say that dni cant make a separate decision with respect to the sevenday process that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided . The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. It pretty much is either yes or no. Apparently thats not the case because ig said it was and youre saying its not under that Legal Definition, because it involved the president , last time i checked, youre pretty familiar with change of command, i know. Hes not hes not in your chain of command. Youre in his chain of command. For very definite reasons appear to be credible, doesnt meet the
statutorily urgent concern definition with respect to the Whistleblower Blower Protections of the i. G. And your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. No, sir. John ratcliffe it was the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that made the determination that it was not urgent concern. All we wanted to do was just check and see and to me, it just seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now, to be able to just make sure that, in fact, it did. And when it didnt i want to say once again, i endeavored to get that information to this committee. Okay. Sir. Just to clarify the role that the Inspector General had with respect to the Department Of Justice, i heard you say he was involved in the conversations allowed to make his case but also said you gave him the letter, gave the Justice Department the letter. What was his involvement in making his case to the Justice Department to his decision . Was he there present physically or his lawyers there . To the best of my knowledge, the icigs Transmittal Letter as well as the complaint from the whistleblower were forwarded to the office of Legal Counsel for their determination. I believe that that is what they based their opinion on. You dont think if im incorrect i will come back to the committee and correct that sure. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. I appreciate your long, storied history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens in this arena a lot. Sometimes justified and most of the time not. Your integrity was not justified. The fact that we have differences of opinion when we start losing those differences of opinion we attack each other and call each other names and those kinds of things. My experience is when youve got a legal matter ive got lawyers i pay, youve got lawyers you pay, typically stick with the
lawyers that im paying and so you have good legal advice on this issue in a tough spot wanting to make sure this whistleblower was protected but at the same time that if, in fact, there was something awry here, that it would be you would get the full airing that its clearly getting. Thank you for your service and i yield back. Thank you very much, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And Director Maguire, thank you so much for being here. I want to turn to what i fear may be one of the most damaging longterm effects of this whistleblower episode and that is the Chilling Effect that it will have on others in government who may witness misconduct, but now may be afraid to come forward to report it. Sir, im worried that Government Employees and contractors may see how important this situation has played out and decide its not worth putting themselves on the line. The fact that a whistleblower
followed all of the proper procedures to report misconduct and then the Department Of Justice and the white house seems to have weighed in to keep the complaint hidden, is problematic, sir. I want to know whether or not you see how problematic this will be and having a Chilling Effect on members of the ic that you are sworn to represent and ostensibly protect . Congresswoman, i think thats a fair assessment. I dont disagree with what youve said. I have endeavored to transmit to the Intelligence Community my support of the whistleblowers and im quite sure that for at least two hours this morning, there are not many people in the Intelligence Community who are doing anything that is productive besides watching this. Right. My concern i think is a valid one, that, in fact, what has happened with this whistleblower
episode will have a Chilling Effect. I just also want to ask you, have you given direction to this whistleblower that he can, in fact, or he or she, can, in fact, come before congress . Director, when the president called whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she was potentially disloyal to the country, you remained silent, im not sure why, but i think that adds to the Chilling Effect. The statute seems pretty clear that you shall everybody has a role to play. The process seems pretty clear. Part of it also includes you directing the whistleblower of his or her protected rights. Can you confirm that youve directed that whistleblower that he or she can come before congress . Well, congresswoman, there are several questions there. One i do not know the identity
of the whistleblower. Two, now that complaint has come forward, we are working with his counsel in order to be able to provide them with Security Clearance. Sir, i think its pretty my question is pretty simple. Can you assure this committee and the American Public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections of the whistleblower act . Can you confirm that . Thats a yes or no question. Im working through that with the chair and to the best of my ability i believe the chair was asking to have the whistleblower come forward and im working with counsel, with the committee, to support that. Can you assure the American Public that the end result will be that the whistleblower will be able to come before this committee and congress and have the full protections of the whistleblower after all, what is the whistleblower statute for if not to provide those full protections against retaliation
against litigation. I am doing everything to endeavor to support that. Will the gentle woman yield . Yes. Do i have your assurance once you work out the Security Clearances for the whistleblowers counsel, that that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge, the concerned whistleblower by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited what they can tell our committee, not a minder from the white house or elsewhere, sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or do not answer . Do i have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law . Yes, congressman. Thank you. I yield back to the gentlewoman. So director, i also want to understand what youre going to do to try to ep sure the trust of the employees and contractors you represent to assure the American People that the
whistleblower statute is, in fact, being properly adhered to and that no further efforts would be to obstruct an opportunity for a whistleblower who has watched misconduct to actually get justice . Congresswoman, supporting and leading the men and women of the Intelligence Community are my highest priority. I dont consider they work for me. As a director of National Intelligence i believe that i sir, i just want to say and go on record as being very clear that this will have a Chilling Effect and that is not what this statute was intended for. It was intended for transparency, it was intended also to give the whistleblower certain protections. And i think the American People deserve that. Thank you. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Turner. Director, thank you for being here. Good morning, congressman. Thank you for your service and the clarity at which you
have described the deliberations that you went through in applying the laws with respect to this complaint. It is incredibly honorable in the manner in which you approached this. Ive read the complaint and ive read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the ukraine. Concerning that conversation, i want to say that the president , this is not okay. That conversation is not okay. I think its disappointing to the American Public when they read the transcript. I can say what else it is not. It is not whats in the complaint. We now have the complaint and the transcript and people can read that the allegations of the complaint in the complaint are not the allegations of the Subject Matter of this conversation. What else its not, its not the conversation that was in the chairmans opening statement. While the chairman was speaking i actually had someone text me is he just making this up. Yes he was. Because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or
the texts. The American Public are smart and they have the transcript. Theyve read the conversation, they know when someone is just making it up. Now weve seen this movie before. Weve been here all year on litigating impeachment, long before the July 25th Conversation happened between the president and the president of ukraine and weve heard the clicks of the cameras in this Intelligence Committees room where weve not been focusing on the issues of the National Security threats but instead of the calls and for impeachment an assault on the electorate not just this president. Now the complaint we now have, director, is based on hearsay. The person who wrote it says i talked to people and they told me these things. The American Public has the transcript and the complaint so they have the ability to compare them. Whats clear about the complaint is its based on political issues, mr. Director. Hes alleging or she is alleging that the actions of the
president were political in nature. Now thats my concern about how this is applied to the whistleblower statute. The whistleblower statute is intended to to be able to provide those in the Intelligence Community an opportunity to come to congress when theyre concerned about abuses of powers and laws, but its about the Intelligence Community. Its about abuse of surveillance, about the abuse of the Spy Mechanisms that we have. This is about actually the product of surveillance, someone has been had access to surveillance that related the president s conversations and has brought it forward to us. I would like for you to turn for a moment and tell us your thoughts of the whistleblower process and the concerns as to why it has to be there so that the Intelligence Community can be held accountable and have oversight. It wasnt there for oversight of the president. It was there for oversight of
the Intelligence Community. If you could describe your thoughts on that. And then i was very interested in your discussion on the issue of executive privilege. Because the theres been much made of the fact that the law says on the whistleblower statute that you shall, clearly you have a conflict of laws when you have the Executive Privilege Issue and the issue of the word shall. So first, could you tell us the importance of the whistleblower statute with respect to accountability of the Intelligence Community . And our role of oversight there. And then your process, your effects of being stuck in the middle where you have these conflicts of laws. Mr. Director is it. Congressman, the Intelligence CommunityWhistleblower Protection Act is to apply to the Intelligence Community and in that it pertains to financial, administrative or operational activities within the Intelligence Community in
the under the oversight and responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. It does not allow a member of the Intelligence Community to report any wrongdoing that comes from anywhere in the federal government. The and so with that, i do believe that that is about the intelligence Whistleblower Protection Act was the best vehicle that the whistleblower had to use. They came to me and discussion with our icig, who is a colleague, and the determination was made, you know, by the well, that he viewed that it was, in fact, credible and that it was a matter of urgent concern. And i just thought it would be prudent to have another opinion. I have worked with lawyers my whole career. Whether it was the rule of armed conflict, admiralty claims or
rules of engagement or the uniform code of Military Justice and i have found that different lawyers have different opinions on the same subject. We have nine justices of the supreme court. More often than not, the opinions are 54. That doesnt mean five are right and four are wrong. Theyre differences of opinion. When this matter came to me i have a lot of life experience. I realized the importance of the matter that is before us this morning and i thought that it would be prudent for me to ensure that, in fact, it met that statute before i sent it forward in compliance with the Whistleblower Protection Act. And i hope that responds to your question. I yield back. As an aside i want to mention that my colleague is right on both counts. Its not okay, but also my summary of the president s call was meant to be at least in part in parity the fact that thats
not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. The president never said if i if you dont understand me im going to say it seven more times. My point is, thats the message that the ukraine president was receiving. In not so many words. Mr. Carson. Thank you chairmanship, thank you Director Maguire for your service. Director maguire, this appears to be the first Intelligence Community whistleblower complaint that has ever, ever been withheld from congress. Is that right, sir . Congressman carson, i believe that it might be. And once again, i said in my statement, it is, in fact, as far as im concerned unprecedented. It is unprecedented, sir. Do you know why its unprecedented . I think its because the law
that congress that this very committee drafted couldnt be clearer. It states that upon receiving such ap urgent complaint from the Inspector General, you, the director of National Intelligence, quote, shall end quote, forward it to the intel committees within seven days, no ifs, and or but, and even when the ig has found complaints not to be an urgent concern or credible, your office has consistently and uniformly still transmitted those complaints to the Intelligence Committees, is that right, sir is. Congressman carson, in the past, even if they were not a matter of urgent concern or whether they were not credible, they were forwarded. But in each and every instance prior to this, it involved members of the Intelligence Community serving in organizations underneath the control of the dni. This one is different because it did not meet those two criteria. Director, does executive
privilege in your mind or laws that regulate the Intelligence Community preempt or negate the laws that safeguard the security of americas democratic elections and her democracy itself, sir . No chairman carson, it does not. Notwithstanding this unambiguous mandate and the consistent practice of your office that you withheld this urgent complaint from congress at the direction of the white house and the Justice Department, you follow their orderers instead of the law and if the Inspector Generale had not brought this complaint to our attention, you and the Trump Administration might have gotten away with this unprecedented action. Sir, you released a statement yesterday affirming your oath to the constitution and your dedication to the rule of law. But im having Trouble Return G understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here. Can you explain that to us . Congressman carson, a couple
things. The white house did not, did not, direct me to withhold the information. Neither did the office of Legal Counsel. That opinion has been unclassified and has been disseminated. The question came down to, urgent concern, which is a Legal Definition. It doesnt mean is it important, is it timely, urgent concern met the certain criteria weve discussed several times here. It did not. All that did, sir, was just take away the seven days. As i said before, just because it was not forwarded to this committee does not mean that it went unanswered. The icig and the Justice Department referred it to the Federal Bureau Of Investigation for investigation. So this and that was working while i was endeavoring to get the Executive Privilege Concerns addressed so that it can then be forwarded. It was not stonewalling. I didnt receive direction from anybody. I was just trying to work through the process and the law the way it is written. I have to comply with the way the law is, not the way some people would like it to be. And if i could do otherwise, it would have been much more convenient for me, congressman. And lastly, director, as you sit here today, sir, do you commit to providing every single whistleblower complaint intended for congress to the Intelligence Committee as required by the statute, sir . If its required by the statute congressman carson, yes, i will. Thats good to know, sir. I certainly hope so, because i think the unprecedented decision to withhold this whistleblower complaint from congress i think it raises concerns very serious concerns for us and for me, and i think that we need to get to the bottom of this. I yield the balance of my time. Thank you, congressman carson. Thank you. How much time does the gentleman have remaining . Okay. Director, you are not directed to withhold the complaint, is that your testimony . Yes. That is absolutely true. So you exercised your discretion to withhold the complaint from the committee . I did not, sir. What i did was i delayed it because it did not meet the statutorily definition of urgent concern and i was working through and director, youre aware, you spent a lot of time focusing on the definition of urgent concern. Youre aware that practice of your office has been that regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, regardless of whether the Inspector General finds it credible or not credible the complaint is always given to our committee. Thats the unbroken practice since the establishent in of your office and the Inspector General . Chairman, every previous whistleblower complaint that was forwarded to the intelligence
committees involved a member of the Intelligence Community and an organization under which the director of National Intelligence had authority and responsibility. But youre aware that the past practice has been, were talking about urgent concern here, that whether you or the Inspector General or anybody else believes it meets the statutory direction the past practice has always been to give it to this committee, youre aware of that, right . I am aware this is unprecedented and never and with that sir, i agree, this has never happened before but again this is a unique situation. But you, director, made the decision . You made the decision to withhold it from the committee for a month when the white house had made no claim of executive privilege, when the Department Of Justice said you dont have to give it to them, but you can, you made the decision not to. Thats not true, sir. What the office of Legal Counsel said, that it does not meet the Legal Definition of urgent concern. So youre not required. It didnt say you cannot provide it. It said youre not required to. If you dont want to were not going to force you, youre not required. It didnt say you cant, am i right . What it allowed me and i said that in my opening statement, but even so, it was referred to the fbi for investigation and i was endeavoring to get the information to you, mr. Chairman, but i could not forward it as a member of the Executive Branch without executive privileges being addressed. And i feel that the white House Counsel was doing the best that they could in order to get that and it took longer than i would have liked, thats for sure, but that came to a conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts and because the transcripts were released, then no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was then free to send both the Inspector Generals cover letter and the complaint to you. At no time was there any intent
on my part sir, ever, to withhold the information to you as the chair, this committee or the senate Intelligence Committee. Director, i wish i had the confidence of knowing that but for this hearing, but for the deadline that we were forced to set with this hearing, that we would have been provided that complaint but i dont know that we would have ever seen that complaint. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank you, mr. Maguire, for being here today. You know, i think its a shame we started off this hearing with fictional remarks. The implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting words into it that did not exist, theyre not in the transcript. And i will contend that those were intentionally not clear and the chairman described it as parody and i dont believe this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts. Nor do those involved with the conversation agree with the parody that chairman gave us. And unfortunately, today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv and the media
is only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say. But im also glad to know that Many Americans have seen this movie too many times and theyre tired of it. Let me get to some questions if i can. Lets go to the word credible. Credible does not mean proven true or factual, would that be correct in this situation . I find no fault in your logic, congressman. So, you know, the interpretation it was credible, but also was that decision made by the ig before seeing the transcript of the conversation . I believe that the icig conducted to his best of his ability the investigation and he found to his ability that based on the evidence and discussing it with the whistleblower, that he thought that, in fact, it was credible. The ig didnt necessarily have the transcript of the conversation. He did not, no. Thats my question. To another point, you know, one
of the issues that arose out of the Russia Investigation Last Congress was the question over the latitude provided to the u. S. President to conduct foreign affairs. In 2017 i asked then cia director brennan how he viewed statements made by President Obama to russian president medvedev having more flexibility to negotiate after his 2012 election and president medvedev replied he would transmit the information to Vladimir Putin and medvedev stood with President Obama. That was in an open hearing. Director brennan wouldnt entertain my question and insisted on not answering due to the fact that the conversation was between the heads of government. Thats what he said. He further claimed he was avoiding getting involved in political partisan issues. Which brings me to a similar question related to this whistleblower complaint. One, you said this executive privilege is unwaiverble and i think thats kind of consistent with cia director brennan was implying. Congressman, only the white house and the president can
waive executive privilege. The president exerts executive privilege and only the white house and the president can waive that. Director brennan gave me the impression then that that was like thats the rule, thats the law. I will have to go with that. Do you believe the president s entitled to withhold his or her communications from congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblower case . I think that the president , when he conducts diplomacy and deals with foreign heads of state, he has every right to be able to have that information be held within the white house and the Executive Branch and if yesterday i think the transmission of the call is unprecedented and its also i think that other future leaders when they interact with our Head Of State, might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction that they have with the president because of that release. So we may need to change our
process here because i guess if a decision regarding executive privilege maybe it should be made prior to submitting the communication to congress . Well, either that, i believe that this committee wrote the law and based on what were doing today, perhaps it needs to be relooked. I dont know. I leave that to the legislative branch. Also, we may need to change process. The 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. I think maybe, you know, this is a special circumstance, unprecedented, maybe theres to be leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. I dont know if you know, did you feel or did the ig ever say that they felt rushed to making a decision because of the 14day process . No, congressman. I believe that hes a very experienced Inspector General and hes used to dealing with the 14day process, and when you work under a timeline like that he worked with his staff and
endeavored to the extent he was following the statute he believed it was written. I would think that any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to be able to collect the facts and do other things, but Michael Atkinson was under the 14day timeline and he did the best to his ability to comply with that. Did you feel rushed in any way, sir . I did not. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director Maguire, for your extraordinarily long service to our country. At any point during this process did you personally threaten to resign if the complaint was not provided to the committee . No, congressman, i did not. I know that that story has appeared quite a bit and i issued a statement yesterday all right. Thank you. When you read the complaint, were you shocked at all by what you read . Congresswoman, as i said, i
have had a lot of life experience. I joined the navy i understand your record. Could you just answer it . I realize the i realized full well, full and well, the importance of the allegation and i also have to tell you, congresswoman, when i saw that, i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee some time to discuss it. All right. The complaint refers to what happened after the July 25th Conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the United States. And the white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location in order to lock down, and ta was the term used in the complaint, all records of the phone call. Did you did that reaction to the transcript seem to you like a recognition within the white house that the call was completely improper . Congresswoman, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. All i have is the knowledge that the whistleblower alleges in his allegation, the whistleblower complaint. I dont know whether, in fact, that is true or not. My only knowledge and Situational Awareness of that is from the whistleblowers letter. So knowing that the whistleblower appeared to be credible, based on the evaluation by the Inspector General, and knowing that that effort was undertaken by the white house to cover it up, why would you then as your first action outside of the Intelligence Community go directly to the white house to the very entity that was being scrutinized and complained about in the complaint, why would you go there to ask their advice as to what you should do . Congresswoman, the allegation that is made by the whistleblower is secondhand information, not known to him or her firsthand. Except mr. Maguire, it was determined to be credible, there was an investigation done by the Inspector General. Let me go on to another issue. President trump over the weekend tweeted it appears that an american spy in one of our Intelligence Agencies may have been spying on our own president. Do you believe that the whistleblower was spying on one of our Intelligence Agencies or spying on the president . As i said several times so far this morning, i believe that the whistleblower complied with the law and did everything that they thought he or she thought was responsible under the Intelligence CommunityWhistleblower Protection Act. But you did not speak out to protect the whistleblower, did you . Congresswoman, i yes or no, sir . I did, yes. I did within my own workforce. I thought there was enough stuff appearing out in the press that was erroneous, that was absolutely incorrect, and i didnt think that i needed to
respond to every single statement that was out there that was incorrect. So what i did is thank you. My loyalty is to my workforce. I appreciate that, thank you. The president on monday said, also who is this socalled whistleblower . Who knows the correct facts . Is he on our countrys side . Do you believe the whistleblower is on our countrys side . I believe that the whistleblower and all employees who come forward in the icig to raise concerns of fraud, waste and abuse, are doing what they perceive to be the right thing. So working on behalf of our country . Are you aware of the fact that whistleblowers within the federal government have identified waste, fraud and abuse of over 59 billion that has had the effect of benefiting the taxpayers and keeping our country safe as well . Congresswoman, im not familiar with the dollar value,
but having been in the Government Service for nearly four decades, i am very much aware of the value of thank you. Of the program. Let me ask you one final question. Did the president of the United States ask you to find out the identity of the whistleblower . I can say, although i would not normally discuss my conversations with the president , i can tell you emphatically no. Has anyone else within the white house or the Department Of Justice asked you . No, congresswoman. Thank you. I yield. Youre welcome, maam. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Maguire, thank you for being here today. I want you to know the good news is im not going to treat you like a child. And im going to give you a chance to answer your questions if i ask you something. I want to thank you for your service and lived you to remind me, you said it earlier, how many years of service, military service, do you have . I have 36 years of service in the United States navy, 34 of those as a navy s. E. A. L. Thats great. 36 years, 34 years as a navy steele. S. E. A. L. I had 14 years as an air force pilot. These are my fathers air force wings. He served in the military as well, as did five of his sons. For someone who hasnt served in the military i dont think they realize how deeply offensive it is to have your honor and integrity questioned. Some on this committee have done exactly that. Theyve accused you of breaking the law. Im going to read one part of many that i could from the chairman. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the Department Of Justice and possibly the white house, have engaged in unlawful effort to protect the president. Theres others that i could read as they have sought i believe to destroy your character ter. Im going to give you the opportunity to answer very clearly, are you motivated by politics in your work or professional behavior . Excuse me sir. Are you motivated by politics if your work or your professional behavior . No, congressman. Okay. Im just going to leave it there. I am not. I am not political. I am not partisan. I did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of National Intelligence. I thought there were perhaps other people that would be best and more qualified do that but the president asked me to do this and it was my honor to step up and for the long im doing it to lead and support the Intelligence Community. Do you believe you have followed the laws and policies precedent in the way you handle this place . I do. Have you sought to protect the president or anyone else from wrong doing . I have not. What i have done is endeavor to follow the law. Thank you. Do you believe that you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of the Legal Counsel . The opinion of the office of
Legal Counsel is binding on the Executive Branch. Thank you. Now theres been a big deal made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that has been withheld from congress, but its also true, isnt it, that its the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and also the first time it included information that was potentially outside the authority of the dni. Is that true . To the best of my knowledge, thats correct. I will say to my colleagues sitting here, i think youre nuts if youre going to think youre going to convince the American People that your cause is just by attacking this man, when its clear he felt there was a discrepancy, deficiency in the law, he was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. Yet, the entire tone here is somehow youre a political stooge who has done nothing but
to try to protect the president. I think that is nuts. Anyone watching this hearing will walk away that the impression that you are a man of integrity, regardless of the questions and innuendo cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today. One more thing before i yield my ti time. I think we can agree that leaks are unlawful and damaging. For heavens sake, weve seen plenty of that over the next three years. Theres a long list of leaks that have had clear implications for our National Security, meaningful implications for our National Security. I want to know, do you know who is feeding the press information about this case, and have you made any referrals to the Department Of Justice for unlawful disclosures . Yes, sir. Do you know who is Feeding Information about this case . No. Do you think it would be
appropriate to make referral to the Department Of Justice to try to determine that . I believe anybody who witnesses or sees any wrongdoing should refer any wrongdoing or complaint to the Department Of Justice for investigation. Including investigation about leaks of Classified Information . Yes, congressman. Any wrongdoing. I dont know what time it is because our clock isnt working. I suppose my time is up, but i would conclude by emphasizing once again good luck convincing the American People that this is a dishonorable man sitting here. Good luck convincing the American People that he has done anything but what he thinks is right. If you think it scores political points with your friends who have wanted to impeach this president from the day he was elected, then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. I would only say, director, no one has accused you of being
a political stooge or dishonorable. No one has said so. No one has suggested that. U y eve accused him of breaking the law, mr. Chairman. But it is certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority, that when the Congress Says something shall be done, it shall be done. When that involves the wrongdoing of the president , it is not an exception to the requirement of the statute. The fact this whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind now for weeks, has been attacked by the president , should concern all of us, democrats and republicans, that this was ever allowed to come to be, that allegations this serious and this urgent were withheld as long as they were from this committee. That should concern all of us. No one is suggesting that there is a dishonor here, but nonetheless, we are going to insist that the law be followed. Mr. Chairman, will you yield . Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir, for your service
and for being here. As you know, those in public life who work and deal with other countries, ambassadors, secretaries of state, many in the intelligence field, theyre vetted. They go for approval before the senate. They have to get clearance, and you understand the Policy Reasons for that, correct . Yes, congressman. Do you have any issues with civilians without approval, without vetting, without clearance taking on those roles . Yes, i do, congressman. And why would you have those concerns . Well, in order to be in order to be able to handle Sensitive Information, whether it be diplomatic or certainly intelligence information, one must be vetted. This is the important part of protecting National Security. We cant just bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand to put holy water on them to give them Security Clearance. Its a matter of the vetting. For me to come back into
government, the fbi went back for 15 years in my background, examined all of my financial records, to make sure that i was, in fact, worthy of having an intelligence clearance. And we do the same thing with the Intelligence Community. Everybody who is subject or everybody who is privileged to have access to intelligence information is a sacred trust. The American People expect us to keep them safe, as i said earlier. In order to do that, we need to ensure that any person who has access to this Sensitive Information of the United States has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that they are able to handle that information. Its not just the intel issues. Its the issues of National Policy that people have an official role that they carry out on behalf of the United States and we know what their role is, correct . Yes, congressman. What is your understanding right now of what mr. Giulianis role is . Mr. Congressman
congressman quigley, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal lawyer. Okay. So so far is that i see you think hes his personal lawyer. We read in this complaint, in this modified transcript hes mentioned five times. Your reaction to the fact that this civilian without any of this vetting has played this role. No, sir. All im saying is i know what the allegations are. Im not saying that the allegations are true and thats where the committee i dont think theres any question the credibility of the complaint in that its in the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. Giuliani, a highly respected man, a mayor of new york, i would like him to call you, i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Your reaction to a civilian dealing with this . The complaint, it talks about
our National Security. The Inspector General talks about there as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has, and obviously mr. Giuliani is playing this role. To your knowledge, does he have Security Clearance . I dont know. Congressman quigley, im neither aware or unaware whether or not mr. Giuliani has a Security Clearance. Before this all happened, were you aware of his role or understanding what his role was, doing what you do . Congressman quigley, my only knowledge of what mr. Giuliani does, i have to be honest with you, i get from tv and the news media. Im not aware of what he does for the president. Are you aware of any communication by mr. Giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with this role, given the classified nature, the National Security implications that are in the complaint, that are in the transcript in the
role that he is playing . I have read the transcripts just as you have. So my knowledge of liss activity in there is just limited to the conversation that the president had with the president of ukraine. So we respect your role. And while we have differences of opinion, we continue to respect your integrity and your honor, but we have this vast amount of experience you have, and we need to understand how it plays juxtaposition with the complaint. Im reading, an omb official informed departments and agencies that the president earlier that month issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that . Congressman quigley, i think anything that has to do with the president s lawyer in these matters should be referred to the white house and the president for that. Im just reading the complaint. I lead and i support the Intelligence Community and the 17 different departments and agencies underneath my
leadership. I do not lead the president , and i have no authority or responsibility over the white house. You are aware with all your experience the fact we have this relationship with ukraine, that theyre dependent upon us, and this complaint doesnt concern you . You cant say publicly that it concerns you . Theres a lot of things that concern me. Im the director of National Intelligence. This one here i have to defer back to the conversation the president had, is his conversation. How the president of the United States wants to conduct diplomacy is his business and its not whether or not i approve it or disapprove of it, that is the president s business on how he wants to conduct that. The issue is whether it commits a crime and that bothers you. The time of the gentleman has expired. Director, you may complete your answer if you wish. Excuse me, sir . If you wanted to respond, you may. No, im fine. Thank you