Report to congress. By the way, an ig appointed by this president , who looked at this evidence and established in his view this was credible and urgent. Belying the point that somehow this was a rogue operator. If you dont mind, if i can follow up, we know from the New York Times reporting last night that the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, his memo, in part, concluded that this document, after reading this document, its a partisan person. Its somebody who doesnt like the president. That is part of the reason why initially he said to the administration, we dont have to give this to congress. The question is, does that even matter . Lets say thats true. Lets say this person voted for voted against donald trump. Does it matter . Hold that thought. Listen to this line. This is remarkable. This is from the classified appendix. This is very important. I quote, according to white house officials i spoke with, this was, quote, not the first time under this administration that a president ial transcript was placed into this code worded level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive rather than National Security sensitive information. Not the first time and the whistleblower source on that, dana, is a white house official. They say politically sensitive but not National Security sensitive. Right. Thats the key issue. That gets thats on the first page of the whistleblower complaint saying that this does not include differences of opinions concerning Public Policy matters, which is the core of this. This is about a National Security question. I have to say, when you see that line its not the first time it happened, the president spoke to a lot of World Leaders where he has taken steps to conceal the record of the conversation. Hamburg with putin, even confiscating the translators
notes. Just a point on how serious this is with regard to moving this into a special system. What theyre doing is they are taking this out of a system in which people with a top secret security clear answance might lt this. You have to have special access. It limits the number of people who can look at it. Who would have access to that . It really depends with my Security Clearance with extremely sensitive programs, someone who have to read me into that program. Any time i received any information related to that program, there would be a record of that. In this case, anyone who first of all had the appropriate clearance, but anyone who went and accessed this information, there would be a record of who did that. Would the Attorney General have access to that . If he did, he would there would be a record he went and accessed that information so you could control who would see that information and you would know if control is a key word. It seems to be about controlling
the information flow. The reason we are showing you live pictures of the chamber there is shortly the Acting Director of National Intelligence will face questions on this that we have in front of us. Its going to be a remarkable two hours of testimony. These conversations that have been moved into the secure storage area are the official conversations that took place. This complaint details many unofficial conversations that are taking place between trumps emissary, rudy giuliani, and the Ukrainian Government which the complaint says was circumventing the regular channels. In particular, that he was gathering evidence for Attorney General barr this is in footnote nine on page 5, his investigation into the origins of the russia investigation. Let me tell you, when theres an open investigation in the Department Of Justice, the proper channels for getting evidence or information from a foreign country is for the
Department Of Justice to go through state, which then contacts the embassy in that country which uses the legal attache at the u. S. Embassy to talk to the Law Enforcement agency there. Theres an official chain of custody of whatever information they get. Rudy giuliani is not the fbi. As far as i know, hes not the state department. This he is all over this complaint as going around i dont know. Acting like scooby doo and gathering evidence. I need to go to evan perez with more on this. One of the things i think will jump out to people, after they read the complaint and the letter from the Inspector General, is the fact that the Justice Department did not do any interviews with these witnesses, these people that the whistleblower says would have been able to corroborate what the whistleblower is reporting, the concerns that are being raised, multiple white house
officials allegedly are saying these things, raising these concerns about the actions, not only of the president but the lawyers inside the white house who are trying to conceal some of this, trying to con ttain so of the damage. Why werent those interviews today . We were told by senior justice officials that this was an assessment being done of this whistleblowers complaint. Whether or not it merited opening a fullblown formal investigation, a decision was made after several weeks of being looked at inside the Justice Department by Career Lawyers that it did not meet that standard. The question is going to be, why wasnt it done . Why wasnt more done because of the seriousness of this . We are talking about the president of the United States. Were talking about perhaps an allegation of interference, looking to get interference in the 2020 election, which is a big priority for the administration, for the Justice Department, for the fbi. We know the fbi got a separate referral from the icig. They deferred to the Justice Department on this issue. The question will be, why was this treated so differently from, say, the Hillary Clinton email case . To that point as we reported earlier that there were criminal referrals that came from the Intelligence Community, went to the Department Of Justice, gloria, the Department Of Justice made a determination there was no there there without doing interviews . Without doing any with any without doing any work. This they called it partisan. Are they saying, its just trump . He didnt mean anything by it. I want to add one more thing, which is sort of in the classified appendix, whats been declassified. The whistleblower says, i learned from u. S. Officials that around may 14th, the president instructed vicepresident pence to cancel his planned travel to ukraine to attend the inauguration. It was also, quote, made clear, unquote, to them that the president did not want to meet
with the president until he saw how he, quote, chose to act, unquote, in office. Then later on in this it says it depends on his, quote, willingness to play. You have officials saying we sent rick perry to go because the president didnt want to elevate thats two pieces of leverage. The leverage then is the Military Assistance it appears and a face to face meeting. With the vicepresident. I wont meet with you until you do so. Thats a quid pro quo. You could see this as you know, officials dialing 911 from in the building. They are. Thats really the takeaway here if you take a step back. Yes, this is all reported by this whistleblower. Assuming that what this whistleblower is saying is accurate and it is easily to find the facts that Jeffrey Toobin is so fond of, by interviewing these officials, that what you have here are
people inside the white house, working for the president who are so alarmed by what they are not just seeing but being probably being asked to do, they are calling 911. They are calling the Fire Department saying, please help. This is not normal. This is not okay. We know its not the only time. Who is going to be john dean . Who is going to be in the white house and say, i cant do this anymore . Or somebody who left the white house. Who is going to say theres a cancer on this presidency that i am no longer going to be a part of . Its not just the white house. Its not just the white house. Look at how the Justice Department, it appears, has been corrupted by their involvement with this presidency. Look at how they became part of the coverup of this process. To your point, the question about quid pro quo how could
holding back on a president ial visit, one, but at the saum tmee withholding Military Assistance in light of what the president wanted from ukraine, how can that its a Willful Ll Lly Obtuse reading of the complaint. Its right there. They are talking about aid. Then he says, do me a favor. You dont get more quid pro quo than that. There was an understanding. I think we cannot get caught in the trap of unless it says only if you investigate the bidens will i give you the money. If that phrase isnt spoken that somehow its not there, we need to look at the common understanding. What you are seeing we will keep this going until they gavel in. You see members of the house Intelligence Committee. They are getting seated to begin this critically important hearing of the acting dni who
will have very important questions to answer. They were starting a few minutes late perhaps because more and more people were reading this. More people are reading this, giving everyone a chance to digest this and understand the severity of it. To jeffreys point about who was it your point . Who is going to come forward and testify . Dont forget, theres been a 77 turnover in this white house. There are a lot of people that have left this white house with a bad taste in their mouth for donald trump. That, of course, is Joseph Mcguire there, the acti ining director of National Intelligence. His long service in government, former head of the National Counterterrorism center. Someone who worked for republican and democratic administrations. He is a man widely respected in the Intelligence Community and National Community circles National Security circles. This is going to be quite a moment. He has only been in this job
for two months. Poor guy. I mean, it was going to be temporary. Now its way temporary. He is obviously in the witness chair. Im going to be fascinated to see what happens on the republican side. Yesterday, aside from a very few small cracks from senate republicans, they were in lockstep. This is going to be the test. First big test of, can the president shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it . Its hard to read this in any other way than this is very, very bad. The Washington Post reporting that just yesterday, he threatened to quit if he was not allowed to, according the post fully testify that. He denied that. The seriousness of this makes you understand the position that the Inspector General was in and why the Inspector General went to congress and said, look, why the Inspector General said this was credible and urgent and
secondly why the Inspector General went to congress and said, i really want to talk to you about this, but they are holding me back. You understand why the white house was trying to hold him back. They understood one thing we should note because this is contained in here we will hear it, i imagine from some republican lawmakers. The gavel is in. Adam schiff, chairman of the house Intelligence Committee. Lets listen in. Without objection, the chair reserves the right to recess the hearing at any time. The president ial Oath Of Office requires the president of the United States to do two things. Faithfully execute his or her office and protect and defend the constitution. That oath cannot be honored if the president does not first defend the country. If our National Security is jeopardized, if our country is left undefended, the necessity to faithfully execute the office becomes moot. Where there is no country, there is no office to execute. So the duty to defend the nation is foundational to the president s responsibilities. What of this second responsibility to defend the constitution . What does that really mean . The founders were not speaking, of course, of a piece of parchment. 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, upon
which america was born that we are a nation of laws, not men. If we do not defend the nation, there is no constitution. But if we do not defend the constitution, there is no nation worth defending. Yesterday, we were presented with a most graphic evidence yet that the president of the United States has been betrayed his Oath Of Office. Betrayed his oath to defend our National Security and betrayed his oath to defend our constitution. For yesterday, we were presented with a record of a call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine in which the president our president sacrificed our National Security and our constitution for his personal political benefit. To understand how he did so we must understand how overwhelmingly dependent ukraine is on the United States, militarily, financially,
diplomatically and in every other way. Not just on the United States, but on the person of the president. Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor by our common adversary, by Vladimir Putins russia. It remains occupied by Russian Forces in a long simmering war. Ukraine desperately needs our help and for years we have given it. On a bipartisan basis. That is until two months ago when it was held up in by President Trump. It is in this context, after a brief congratulatory call, and after the president s personal emissary Rudy Ghouliuliani made clear to officials 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. 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. So what happened on that call . He begins by Engratrying To Enl the support of the president. He expresses his interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. What is the president s response . It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. In not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We have 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. Im going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent. Lots of it. On this and on that. Im going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, i am going to put you in touch with the Attorney General, my Attorney General bill barr. He has the whole weight of the american Law Enforcement behind him. Im going to put you in touch with rudy. You are 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. By the way, dont call me again. I will call you when you have 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 portrayal of the president s Oath Of Office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, theres nothing the president says here that is in americas interest after all. It is the most consequential form of tragedy. For it forces us to confront the remedy the founders provided for such a flagrant abuse of office, impeachment. 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 mcguire, more so than perhaps any other area of government since we deal with Classified Information, the Intelligence Committee is dependent on whistle blowers to reveal wrongdoing. When the agencies do not self
report. Outside parties are not allowed to skrcrutinize your work and guide us guide us. If that system is law allowed t break down, 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. Why you are handling of this urgent complaint is also so troubling. Today we can say for 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 Weeks ago and by you, mr. Director, under the clear letter of the law. Yet it wasnt. Director mcguire, 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 background was chosen. A navy seal and director of the National Counterterrorism center. Your credentials are impressive. In limited interactions we have had since you became director, 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 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 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, 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 noa promise to a foreign leader. The transcript of that call has debunked that central assertion. That didnt matter. The democrats simply moved the goalposts 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 and we have candidates we have many candidates for impeachable offenses. That was her quote. There you go. If the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats and their media assets can always drum up Something Else. What other information has come to light since the original false report of a Promise Being made . We have 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. Once again, this supposed
scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told and once again the democrats, their Media Mouth Pieces and leakers are ginning up a fake story with no regard to the monumental damage they are causing to our Public Institutions and to trust in government. Without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past, including countless allegations that Trump Campaign colluded to hack the election, were supposed to forget about all those stories, but believe this one. In short, what we have with this story line is another still dossier. I will note here in the democrats mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the russia hoax, it was Intelligence Agencies which were turned into a weapon to attack the president. Now today, the whistleblower
process is the casualty. Until a week ago, the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. 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. That would have been useless for them. They dont want answers. They want a public spectacle. So we have been treated to an parade of Press Conferences and fake news stories. This hearing itself is another example. Whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. As our Senate Counterparts democrats and republicans obviously understand, their hearing 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 of Trump Campaign of colluding when the democrats were colluding with russi russians. Today, they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. Yet, there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. Joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating bidens own son. Three Democratic Senators wrote a Letter Pressuring the ukrainian general prosecutor to reopen the investigation. Into former Trump Campaign officials. Another democratic senator went to ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate Corruption Allegations on involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials, the Democratic National committee Contractor Alexandera Chalupa tried to get ukrainian officials to provide dirt on Trump Officials and tried to get the former president to comment on alleged ties to russia. Ukrainian official was a source for nellie orr, wife of Department Of Justice official bruce orr, as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted by fusion gps and funded by the democrats. Of course, democrats on this very committee negotiated with people who they thought were ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of trump. People can reasonably ask why the democrats are so determined to impeach this president when in a year, they will have a chance. In fact, one democratic congressman, one of the first to call for trumps impeachment, gave us the answer when he said, quote, im concerned that if we dont impeach the president , he will get reelected. Unquote. Winning elections is hard. When you compete, you have no guarantee you will win. The American People do have a say in this. They made their voices heard in the last president ial election. This latest gambit is unhinged 57 and dangerous. They should end the dishonest 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 any time soon are zero to none. I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Director, would you rise for the only 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 mcguire, 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. You may take as much time as you need. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Chairman schiff, Ranking Member nunes and members of the committee, good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the chairman and the committee for agreeing to postpone this hearing for one week. This provided sufficient time to allow the Executive Branch to successfully complete its consultations regarding how to accommodate the committees request. Mr. Chairman, i have told you this on several occasions and i would like to say this publically. I respect you. I respect this committee. I welcome and take seriously the committees oversight role. During my Confirmation Process to be the dreprocess, i told the committee that Congressional Oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the Intelligence Community. Having served as the dre ed and director of naths aNational Intelligence, i believe strongly that the role of Congressional Oversight. As i pledged to the senate, i pledge today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i am serving in this capacity as Acting Director of National Counterterrorism or when i return to the National Counterterrorism center. To to ensure uriyou are informed t facilitate your ability to perform oversight. The American People expect us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without the committees support. Before i turn to the matter of hand, there are a few things i would like to say. I am not partisan and i am not political. I believe in a life of service and im honored to be a public servant. I served under eight president s while i was in uniform. I have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times. The first time when i was sworn into the United States navy in 1974 and nine times during my subsequent promotions in the United States navy. Most recently, former director dan coats administered the onat of office. I agree with you, the oath is sacred. Its a foundation of our constitution. The oath to me means not only that i swear a true faith and allegiance to that sacred document but more importantly i view it as a covenant i have with my work force that i lead and every american that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. I come from a long line of
publicer er ier i er iservants forward to defend our country. When i took my uniform off in jewel july of 2010, it was the first time in 70 years that a member of my family was not wearing the cloth of the nation. As a Navy Special Warfare officer, i had the honor of commanding at every level. It was very demanding. 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 question why i would leave a Promising Business career to run a charity. The answer was quite simple. It was another opportunity to serve. I led a foundation dedicated to honoring the sacrifice of our fallen and wounded special
operators. The foundation i led enabled hundreds of children of our fallen to attend college. It was extremely meaningful and rewarding. In the winter of 2018, i was asked by former director dan coats to return to Government Service to lead the National Counterterrorism center. This was totally unexpected and was not a position i sought. Then again, it was another opportunity to serve my country. In particular, i knew that many of the young Sail Ersailors and officers were deploying and still sacrificing. I decided if they could continue to serve returning to Government Service was the very least i could do. Now here i am sitting before you as the Acting Director of National Intelligence. With last months departure of dan coats and sue gordon, two exceptional leaders and friends, i was asked to step into their very big shoes and lead the
Intelligence Community until the president nominates and the Senate Confirms the next director of National Intelligence. I accepted this responsibility because i love this country. I have a deep and profound respect for the men and women of our Intelligence Community and the mission we execute every day on behalf of the American People. Throughout my career, i have served and led through turbulent times. I have governed every action by the following criteria. It must be legal. It must be moral. And it must be ethical. No one can take an individuals integrity away. It can only be give and way. 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. I am here today to 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 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, the Executive Branch each year, we are reminded that Public Service is a public trust. As public servants, we have a responsibility to do whats right, which includes reporting concerns of waste, fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of congress
under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring all Whistleblower Complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case, they race aised a matter with the instructor general. They will not permit the complainant to be subject to consequences for communicating the complaint. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and work force 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. I could personally attest that their efforts saved lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. On august 26th, the Inspector General forwarded a complaint to me from an employee in the Intelligence Community. The Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern, a legally defined term under Whistleblower Protection Act, that has been discussed at length 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, i first want to talk about an even more fundamental issue. Upon reviewing the complaint, we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another foreign leader. Such calls are typically subject to Executive Privilege. As a result, we consulted with the White House Counsels Office and we were advised much of the information in the complaint was in fact subject to Executive Privilege. A privilege that i do not have the authority to wave. Because of that, we were unable
to immediately share the details of the complaint with this committee. Continued to consult with the white House Counsel 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 Generalsmitting. I have provide the full, unredacted complaint as well as the Inspector Generals letter. Let me also discuss the issue of urgent concern. When transmitting a plaintiff to me, the Inspector General took the legal position that because it alleged urgent concern and because he found the allegations credible, i was required under the whistleblower protect action to forward the complaint to our Oversight Committees within serb enseven days. As we have explained in our
letters, urgent concern is a statutory term. To be 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 intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. However, this Complaint Concerns conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community unrelated to funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. Because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the 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 the complaint allegations do not meet requirement of urgent concern and found i was not legally required to transmit the material to our Oversight Committee under the whistleblower protect act. An unclassified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publically 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 this 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 Privilege issues i discussed, neither the Inspector General nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. When the Inspector General informed me he intended to notify the committee of the complaint, mr. Chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of the process moving forward. I want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. First, i want to stress i believe the whistleblower and the Inspector General have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law. Respecting the privileged nature of the information and patiently waiting while the Executive Privilege issues were resolved. Wherever possible, we have worked in partnership with the Inspector General on this
matter. While we have difference of opinion, i believe in the role of the Inspector General. I value the inpend ens he brings. This does not mean 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 are deemed krkre 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. I am committed to doing so, sir. I appreciate the committee providing me this country to discu discuss this matter. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, director. Would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . The whistleblower complaint involved the allegation of that. It is not for me in the Intelligence Community to decide how the president conducts this. Im not asking you to opine
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. Two things, mr. Chairman let me ask you about that. The Inspector General found that serious allegation of misconduct credible. Did you also find that credible . I did not criticize the Inspector Generals decision on whether it was credible. My question was whether it not it meets the urgent concern in the sevenday time frame that would follow. I have no question in his
judgment that he considers it a serious matter. The issue i dealt with you would conquer, director, that this complaint alleging serious wrongdoing by the president was credible . Its not for me to judge. It is for you to judge. I agree its not for you to judge, you shall provide it to congress. But you did judge whether this complaint should be provided to congress. Can we at least agree that the Inspector General made a sound conclusion that this whistleblower complaint was credible . That is correct. In the cover letter thats been provided to the committee, i believe thats also being 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 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 . Im talking about the common understanding of what urgent means. 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. To adhere to the meaning of the term shall. Yes, sir. In this case, you sought a Second Opinion of 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 wave Executive Privilege. At any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the white house assert Executive Privilege . Mr. Chairman, i have endeavored i think thats a yes or no question. Did they assert Executive Privilege . They were working through the Executive Privilege proceedings in deciding whether or not to exert Executive Privilege. Erted Executive Privilege . If they did, we would not release all the information. The first place you went was to the white house. Do i understand that from your Opening Statement . 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 whether it met urgent concern. So 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 it does im asking about the sequencing. 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 servnd to congress. Is the first party you went to outside of your office to
seek advice, direction, the white house . I have consulted with the white House Counsel and eventually we also consulted with the department of 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 who you went to first. Did you go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel first or do 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. It might be 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. I worked with the office of Legal Counsel for the past
several weeks to get resolution on this. Its a very deliberate process. Im still trying to understand the chronology. So you first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to white House Counsel . We went to excuse me. Repeat that, please. Im just you 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. So you went to the white house first. So you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress . There were issues within this, a couple of things. One, it did appear that it has Executive Privilege. If it does have Executive Privilege, it is the white house that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of national
intelligence. But in this case, the 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 talking to the president . Were you aware that that is the unprecedented position of the white house, the white house you went to for advice about whether you should turn over a complaint involving the white house . Mr. Chairman, as i said in my Opening Statement, i believe everything here in this matter is totally unprecedented. And that is why my former directors of National Intelligent 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 before i turn it over to the Ranking Member and he may consume as much time as i did. The second place you went to was the Justice Department and you went to that department headed by a man, bill barr, who was also implicated in the complaint. And you knew that when you went to the Department Of Justice for an opinion. Correct . That bill barr was mentioned in the complaint . Mr. Chairman, i went to the office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the icig. He was a part of that. To receive whether or not this met the criteria. Yes, but that icig vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the bill barr Justice Department. Did he not . He still considered it a
matter of urgent concern. However, as you know, opinions from department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the Executive Branch. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think its appropriate that you go to a Department Run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice or who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint for advice as to whether 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. Sir, i have to work with what ive got and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the Executive Branch. I had no other
what you also had was a statute that said 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 timeline. I have endeavored to work with the office of Legal Counsel in order to get the material to you which you have had provided to you yesterday. Now, i have to tell you, chairman, it is not, perhaps, at the timeline that i would have desired or you. But the office of Legal Counsel has to make sure they make prudent decisions. And yesterday when the president released the transcripts of his call with the president of the ukraine, then they could no longer Executive Privilege no longer applied and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint to the committee. Director, you dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . I dont know who the whistleblower is, to be honest
with you. Ive done my best to protect his identity. You dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you, director . I believe, as i said before, mr. Karm, i beliechairman, i be whistleblower has acted in good faith and has followed the law. They couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack, could they . My job is to support the entire intelligent commute. That individual works for me. Therefore, it is my job to make sure that i support and defend that person. You dont have any reason to accuse them or disloyalty to our country or suggest theyre beholden to some other country, do you . 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 asking about the
whistleblower right now. I think the whistleblower did the right thing, he followed the law every step of the way and we got why when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested he or she might be disloyal to the company, why did you remain silent . I did not remain silent, mr. Chairman. I issued a statement to my workforce telling them and committing 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 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 to 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. So 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 veracity or the truthfulness of this complaint. Thats correct, Ranking Member. The determination of 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 Complaints in the public . Not to my knowledge, Ranking Member. I do not know. Are you aware of any cases like this that were put into the spotlight . Would this be the way to handle it out in the public like this . I am not aware of any, but i want to say once again, i believe that the situation we have and why were here this
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.