Department that essentially says the president is above the director. Therefore, the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director. Therefore, it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern. Therefore, the Inspector General is done. The Inspector General cant investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals reading of the public opinion, that he is no longer allowed to investigate this. Is that your reading as well . Not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding and operation ability with the director of National Intelligence. Im trying to get to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law. No, sir. No person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Thats the way it should be, but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based upon the opinion that
you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesnt meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. Is that your understanding of the Department Opinion as well, that the Inspector General no longer has jurisdiction to look into this . It is my understanding that both the Inspector General and i and my team are waiting for we were waiting for the resolution of Executive Privilege to be determined. It is now no longer Executive Privilege. Im not sure exactly what the statute has as far as what michael can do, but we also are looking for a way if i did not send it forward, as you know, as an urgent concern within seven days, then the whistleblower would be allowed to come forward and be
protected. My point is this. The department of justice has said because this doesnt meet the statutory definition, because this involves the president , the Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate. Now, if this Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate because the president is above the agency, no Inspector General has jurisdiction to investigate. Thats the that is the effect of that opinion. Do you disagree . I believe that the opinion was based on the reading of the statute and whether or not the situation here is compliant and comes underneath the statute. The office of Legal Counsel opinion was that based on the criteria youre required to have in order to support this legal statute, it does not. It also said that because of that, it is not a matter of theIntelligence Community. But once again, however, you may go forward, and i have. Thats the key issue, director. Because it involves the president , it does not involve the Intelligence Community. That is the sum and substance. And the effect of that is the Inspector General has told us that he no longer has jurisdiction to investigate. And by the logic of that opinion, nor does any other Inspector General. Now, as you point out, this was referred to the Justice Department, it was referred to the fbi and Justice Department. That department under bill barr and with breathtaking speed decided there is nothing to see here. It decided that we dont believe that this constitutes a violation of the Campaign Finance laws, and therefore, were not authorizing an investigation. The fbi is not authorized to investigate any of this. Any of this. So the igs cant do it, according to the department of justice. The fbi cant do it because it doesnt meet their threshold that makes it worthy of investigation. So at this point, this committee and this congress is in a position to investigate. And i want to ask you, going to the whistleblower complaint, whether you believe these allegations are worthy investigation. The whistleblower says, i have received information from multiple u. S. Government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u. S. Election. You would agree that should be investigated, would you not . Chairman, the horse has left the barn. You have all of the information. You have the whistleblower complaint, you have the letter from the icig, you have the office of Legal Counsel opinion, and you have the transcript of the phone call. Im confident dthere is going t
be an investigation. You agree there should be an investigation . I believe it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee. Im asking you as a career military officer, someone who i greatly respect and i admire your service to the country. Do you believe that there is a credible admission by the whistleblower that the president of the United States is using his power to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, do you believe that should be investigated . I dont believe confidence corroborated by other folks. The whistleblower said he spoke or she spoke to about a dozen other people. This is secondhand information. Im not criticizing the whistleblower. But the Inspector General took those two weeks, as you well told us, to corroborate that information. We dont know which, if any, of these officials the inspector
general spoke to, and found it credible. And youve told us that you have no reason to believe otherwise. Am i right . I had no reason to doubt a career Inspector General lawyer in his determination on whether or not it was credible. That is something for michael to determine. Let me ask you this. The whistleblower also says, over the past four months, more than half a dozen u. S. Officials informed me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference. You would agree we should speak to those half a dozen u. S. Officials, would you not . I think you have all the material that the committee needs, and i think its up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. Im asking your opinion as the head of our intelligence agencies. Do you think we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistleblower was right . My responsibility was to get you the Whistleblower Letter and the complaint and other information released. I have done my responsibility. That is on the shoulders of the
legislative branch and this committee the whistleblower also says, i am also concerned that these actions pose risk to undermining National Security and undermine counterinterference to u. S. Elections. You would agree if there is a credible authorization along those lines, we should investigate it . I agree if there was Election Interference, the complaint is not about Election Interference. It was about a classified, confidential, Diplomatic Conversation involving Election Interference sought by the president. That doesnt take it out of the realm of seeking foreign assistance, it makes it all the more pernicious. Wouldnt you agree . As i said, i dont disagree with the igics assessment that it was a credible matter. The whistleblower further says, namely he, the president , sought to Pressure Ukranian leader to take action to help the president s 2020 reelection
bid. You would agree that that should be investigated . Not necessarily, sir. It was investigated by the federal bureau of investigation. No, it wasnt. It went to the department of justice concluded that this wouldnt violate the election laws. Now, no one can understand how they could reach that conclusion after the two years weve been through, but nonetheless, they didnt authorize the fbi to investigate it. You would agree someone should investigate this, wouldnt you . If i didnt, i would not have referred it to the Justice Department and the fbi. Then im glad were in agreement. The whistleblower says, they told me that there was already a discussion ongoing with the white house lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood and the officials telling they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. You would agree that should be investigated, wouldnt you . All i know is thats the allegation. Right, and its credible, and
therefore, should be investigated, right . Again, it is hearsay secondhand information. It should come to this committee for further investigation. Thank you. You have the documents. I just wanted to confirm that were in agreement that you think the committee should investigate it. The whistleblower also says donald trump expresses conviction that the new ukranian government will be able to quickly improve ukraines image and complete the investigation or Corruption Cases that have held Back Cooperation between ukraine and the United States. This is the whistleblower citing the ukranian readout. You would agree that if the ukranian readout, when theyre talking about Corruption Cases, is talking about investigating biden and his son, and that that has held back the failure to do that has held Back Cooperation between the two countries, that should be investigated, right . Thats a Security Measure . I did not agree that it should be investigated. What i said was i complied with my requirement to send you the
documents. It is up to the chair, the ra g Ranking Member and these Committee Members what to do with that information. I am in no position to tell the chair or the committee to do an investigation or not do an investigation. Okay. I find it remarkable that the director of National Intelligence doesnt think credible allegations of someone seeking foreign assistance in a u. S. Election should be investigated. Let me ask you this. The whistleblower further says, in the days following the phone call, i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that senior white house officials had intervened to lockdo down all the records the phone call. Do you have any reason to believe that the whistleblowers allegation there is incorrect . I have no idea whether it is correct or incorrect, sir. Someone should find out, though, right . Excuse me . Someone should find out if it is correct, shouldnt they . I do not know if that is an incorrect allegation. I just do not know. That is the business of the Executive Branch of the white house and the office of the
white house. Corruption is not the business, or it shouldnt be, of the white house or anyone in it. The white house decides to do with their privileged communication is the business of the white house. Do you believe thats true even if that communication involves crime or fraud . Im sure youre aware that there is an exception to any claim of privilege. The privilege cant be used to conceal crime or fraud . This is before any crime or fraud that should be referred to the Justice Department for investigation. As i did. The whistleblower further alleges that white house officials told the whistleblower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript, that is, of the call from the Computer System in which such transcripts are typically stored. And instead it was loaded into a separate Electronic System that is otherwise used to store and handle Classified Information of an especially sensitive nature. One white house official described this act as an abuse of the Electronic System. I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in. We should find out, shouldnt we . Chairman schiff, when i received the letter from Michael Atkinson on the 26th of august, he concurrently sent a letter to the office of white House Counsel asking the white House Counsel to control and keep any information that pertained to that phone call on the 25th. It was a lengthy letter. Michael would be able to address it better but i do believe the icig i know that the icig has sent a letter to the white House Counsel requesting that they keep all of that information. But you would agree that if there is a credible allegation from this credible whistleblower that white house officials were moving these records into a
system that was not designed for that purpose in an effort to cover up essentially potential misconduct. That ought to be looked into. You would agree with that, wouldnt you . To the best of my knowledge, when this allegation came forward, this whistleblower complaint, on the 12th of august, i have no idea what the timeline was as far as whether or not the white house, the National Security council or anybody involved in that conversation, what they did with the transcripts, where they put them. I just have absolutely no knowledge nor the timeline of that, chairman. It is not something that would be under my authority or responsibility. The Whistleblower Makes a series of allegations involving mr. Giuliani, critites a report the New York Times to pursue investigations that would help the president in his 2020 reelection bid. You would agree that if the president was instructing his
personal lawyer to seek again foreign help in a u. S. Election that that would be improper . I believe mueller described such efforts to seek public assistance as unethical, unpatriotic and possibly criminal . Would you agree with Director Mueller that to seek foreign assistance in that way would be unethical, unpatriotic and very possibly a violation of law . I believe that mr. Giuliani is the president s personal lawyer. And whatever conversation the president has with his personal lawyer i would imagine would be clientattorney privilege. Im in no position to criticize the president of the United States on how he wants to conduct that, and i have no knowing of what mr. Giuliani does or does not do. Let me ask you about the last couple allegations of the
whistleblower. I learned from u. S. Officials that on or around the 14th of may, the president had Vice PresidentPence Travel To Ukraine to attend zelenskys inauguration in may. He made it clear the president did not want to meet mr. Zelensky until he saw how he, quote, unquote, acted in office. I dont know who this was translated from and by whom. I also saw that a meeting with the president and mr. Zelensky would depend on whether mr. Zelensky showed the willingness to play ball. Do you know whether mr. Pence, Vice President pences trip was
pulled because of an effort to find out first whether ukraine was willing to play ball . Chairman schiff, no, i do not. I dont have knowledge of any of that until this information came to me from the icig. I have no awareness or knowledge of any of those facts. Would you agree that if the Vice President s trip was canceled in order to put further pressure on ukraine to manufacture dirt on mr. Biden that that would be unethical, unpatriotic and potentially a crime . I do not know why the Vice President of the United States did not do that. I do know what the allegation was within the whistleblower complaint, and i dont know whether that allegation is accurate or not, mr. Chairman. Finally, the whistleblower says, on july 18 an Office Of Management And Budget official informed departments and agencies that the president
earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Neither omb or the nfc staff knew why this instruction had been issued. Senator mcconnell said the other day that he spoke with the secretary of defense and secretary of state, and he didnt know why the instruction had been given. Doesnt that strike you as suspicious, director, that no one on the National Security staff, no one in the senior leadership, apparently, of the party here in congress that approved the aid understood why the president was suspending aid . Doesnt that strike you as just a little suspicious . Chairman schiff, im just unaware, to be honest with you, how those decisions are made. Once again, i have no Situation Awareness of what happened with the holding of funding. As a military man, if this military aid was held from an ally that was fighting off putins russia, and it was done so to be used as leverage to get dir