Transcripts For CSPAN Acting DNI Director Maguire Testifies On Whistleblower Complaint 20240714

Committee representative ted lieu. Join the discussion. Acting intelligence director testified today about handling a whistleblower complaint concerning President Trump and the president of ukraine. From the housens Intelligence Committee could you can read the whistleblower complaints at cspan. Org. [gavel bangs] chairman schiff the committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair reserves the right to reassess 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, of course, cannot be honored if the president does not first defend the country. If our National Security is jeopardized, if our country is left undefended, the necessity to faithfully execute the office becomes moot. Where there is no country, there is no office to execute. And so, the duty to defend the nation is foundational to the president s responsibilities. But what of this second responsibility to defend the constitution . What does that really mean . The founders were not speaking of course of a piece of parchment. Rather, they were expressing the obligation of the president to defend the institutions of our democracy, to defend our system of checks and balances that the constitution enshrines, to defend the rule of law, a a principle upon which the idea of 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 the most graphic evidence yet, that the president of the United States has betrayed his oath of office. Betrayed his oath to defend our National Security. And betrayed his oath to defend our constitution. For yesterday, we were presented with a record of a call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine, in which the president , our president , sacrificed our National Security and our constitution for his personal political benefit. To understand how he did so, we must first understand just how overwhelmingly dependent ukraine is on the United States. Militarily, financially, diplomatically, and in every other way. And not just on the United States, but on the person of the president. Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor, by our common adversary, by Vladimir Putins russia. It remains occupied by Russian Irregular forces in a long, simmering war. Ukraine desperately needs our help, and for years, we have given it. And on a bipartisan basis. That is, until two months ago, when it was held up inexplicably by President Trump. It is in this context, after a brief congratulatory call from President Trump to president zelensky on april 21, and after the president s personal emissary, rudy giuliani, made it abundantly clear to ukrainian officials over several months that the president wanted dirt on his political opponents, it is in this context, that the new president of ukraine would speak to donald trump over the phone on july 25. President zelisnky, either to establish himself at home as a friend of the president of the most powerful nation on earth had at least two objectives. Get a meeting with the president and get more military help. And so, what happened on that call . Zelinski begins by ingratiating himself, and he tries to enlist the support of the president. He expresses interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. And what is the president s response . Well, it reads like a classic, organized, crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character, and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. Weve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what . I dont see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor i want from you, though. And im going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I went you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it. On this and on that. Im going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. Im going to put you in touch , my attorney general bill barr. Hes got the whole weight of the american Law Enforcement behind him. And im going to put you in touch with rudy. Youre going to love him. Trust me. You know what im asking, and so, im only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And, by the way, dont call me again. I will call you when youve done what i asked. This is, in character, what the president was trying to communicate. It would be funny if it wasnt such a graphic betrayal of the president s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there is nothing the president says here that is in americas interest after all. It is, instead, the most consequential form of tragedy. For it forces us to confront the remedy the founders provided for such a flagrant abuse of office, impeachment. Now, this matter would not have come to the attention of our committee or the nations attention without the courage of a single person. The whistleblower. As you know, director maguire more so than perhaps any other area of government since we deal with classified information, the Intelligence Committee is dependent on whistleblowers to reveal wrongdoing when it occurs. When the agencies do not selfreport. Because outside parties are not allowed to scrutinize your work and to guide us. If that system is allowed to break down as it did here, if whistleblowers come to understand that they will not be protected, one of two things happen. Serious wrongdoing goes unreported, or whistleblowers take matters into their own hands and divulge classified information to the press in violation of law. And placing our National Security at risk. This is why the whistleblower system is so vital to us. And why your handling of this urgent complaint is also so troubling. Today, we can say for the First Time Since we have released this morning the whistleblower complaint, that you have marked unclassified, that the substance of this call is a core issue although by 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. And yet, it wasnt. Director maguire, i was very pleased when you were named acting director. If sue gordon was not going to remain, i was grateful that a man of your superb military background was chosen. A navy seal for 36 years and director of the National Counterterrorism center since december 2018. Your credentials are impressive. In the 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 will more bewildering. Why you chose not to provide the complaint to this committee as required by law. Why you chose to seek a Second Opinion on whether shall really means shall under the statute. Why you chose to go to a Department Led by a man, bill barr, who himself is implicated in the complaint and believes that he exists to serve the interest 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 the congress would ever see the complaint. Why you stood silent when intelligence professional under your care and protection was ridiculed by the president. Was accused of potentially betraying his or her country. When that whistleblower, by their very act of coming forward, has shown more dedication to country, more of an understanding of the president s oath of office than the president himself. We look forward to your explanation. Ranking member nunez. Ranking member nunez i thank the gentleman. I want to congratulate 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 nefarious promise to a foreign leader. The released transcript of that call has already debunked that central assertion. But that didnt matter. The democrats simply moved the goalpost and began claiming 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 their media we have many candidates for impeachable offenses. That was her quote. So there you go. If the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats and their media assets can always drum up Something Else. And what other information has come to light since the original false report of a promise being made . 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. So once again, the supposed scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told, and once again, the democrats 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. And without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past, including countless allegations that the Trump Campaign colluded with russia to hack the 2016 election. We are supposed to forget about all those stories. But believe this one. In short, what we have with this storyline is another steel dossier. I will note here that in the democrats mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the russia hoax, it was our intelligence agencies which were turned into a political weapon to attack the president. Today, the whistleblower process is the casualty. Until about a week ago, the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. But if the democrats were really concerned with defending that process, they would have pursued this matter with a quiet, sober inquiry as we do for all whistleblowers. But that would have been useless for them. They dont want answers. They want a public spectacle, and so, weve been treated to an unending parade of press releases, press conferences, and fake news stories. This hearing itself is another example. Whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. As our Senate Counterparts obviously understand, their hearing with mr. Maguire is behind closed doors. But again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. The current hysteria has Something Else in common with the russia hoax. Back then, they accused the Trump Campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians. And preparing the steele dossier. Today, they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. And 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 ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials, the Democratic National committee contractor alexandra chaluba tried to get ukrainian officials to provide dirt and tried to get the former ukrainian president to comment publicly on alleged ties to russia. Ukrainian official sergei b. Was a source for the wife of Department Justice official bruce orr as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted by fusion gps and funded by the democrats. And, of course, democrats on this very committee negotiated with people who they thought were ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of trump. People can reasonably ask why the democrats are so determined to impeach this president. When in just a year, 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, im concerned that if we dont impeach the president , he will get reelected. Winning elections is hard. And when you compete, you have no guarantee you will win. But the American People do have a say in this. And they made their voices heard in the last president ial election. This latest gambit by the democrats to overturn the peoples mandate is unhinged and dangerous. They should end the entire dishonest, grotesque spectacle and get back to work to solving problems, which is what every member of this committee was sent here to do. Judging by todays charade, the chances of that happening anytime soon are zero to none. I yield back. Chairman schiff i thank the gentleman. Director, would you rise for the oath and raise your right hand . Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will give today shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you. You may be seated. The record will reflect that the witness has been duly sworn. Director maguire, would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . Director maguire mr. Chairman, the whistleblower chairman schiff i apologize, director. Let me recognize you for your Opening Statement, and you may take as much time as you need. Director maguire thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Chairman schiff, Ranking Members of the committee, thank you. Good morning. I would like to postpone this hearing for one week. Mr. Chairman, i have told you this on several occasions and i would like to say this publicly. I respect you, i respect this committee, and i welcome and take seriously the committees oversight role. During my confirmation process to be the director of the National Counterterrorism center, i told the Senate Select committee on intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the Intelligence Community. Having served as the director of the National Counterterrorism center for eight months, and as the acting director of National Intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. As i pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while im serving either in this capacity as acting director of National Counterterrorism, and when i return to the National Counterterrorism center. To ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the Intelligence Community. The American People expect us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without this committees support. Before i turn to the matter at hand, there are a few things i would like to say. I am not partisan, and i am not political. I believe in a life of service, and i am 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 oath of office last december, when i became the director of the National Counterterrorism center. I agree with you. The oath is sacred. Its the foundation of our constitution. The oath to me means not only that i swear true faith and allegiance to that sacred document, but more importantly, i view it as a covenant i have with my 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 Public Servants who have stepped forward even in the most difficult times, in austere times, to support and defend our country. When i took my uniform off in july of 2010, it was the first time in 70 years that an immediate member of my family was not wearing the cloth of the nation. As a Naval Special warfare officer, i had the honor of commanding at every level in the seal community. It was, at times, very demanding. But the rewards of serving in americas special Operations Community more than make up for the demands. After my retirement, i was fortunate to work for a great private sector firm. I left the Business World after three years to lead a nonprofit charity. Some 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 lead a foundation dedicated to honoring the sacrifice of our fallen and severely Wounded Special operators to get the foundation i led and be able to help 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 request was totally unexpected and was not a position i sought. But then again, it was another opportunity to serve my country. In particular, i knew that many of the young sailors and Junior Officers that i had trained 20 years earlier were now senior combat veterans deploying and still sacrificing. I decided that they could continue to serve, returning to Government Service was the very least i could do. And now, here i am, sitting before you as the acting director of National Intelligence. With last months departure of dan coats and sue gordon, two exceptional leaders and friends, i was asked to step into their very big shoes and lead the Intelligence Community until the president nominates and the Senate Confirms the next director of National Intelligence. I accepted this responsibility, because i love this country. I have a deep and profound respect for the men and women of our Intelligence Community and the mission we execute every day on behalf of the American People. Throughout my career, i have served and led through turbulent times. 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 given away. If every action meets those criteria, you will always be a person of integrity. In my nearly four decades of Public Service, my integrity has never been questioned until now. Im here today to unequivocally state that as acting dni, i will continue the same faithful and nonpartisan support in a matter that adheres to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as i serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that i have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for the whistleblower and the rights and the laws. Whistleblowing has a long history in our country dating back to the continental congress. This is not surprising, because as a nation, we desire for good government. Therefore, we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace. Indeed, at the start of ethics training in the executive branch each year, we are reminded that Public Service is a public trust. And as Public Servants, we have the solemn responsibility to do whats right, which includes reporting concerns of waste, fraud, and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of congress under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistleblower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case, the complainant raised a matter with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The Inspector General is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complainant to be subject to any retaliation or averse consequences for communicating the complaint to the Inspector General. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and the workforce is my number one priority. Throughout my career, i relied on the men and women of the Intelligence Community to do their jobs so i could do mine. And i can 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 26, the Inspector General forwarded the complaint to me from an employee in the Intelligence Community. The Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern. A legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at length. 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 were advised that much of the information in the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege. A privilege that i do not have the authority to waive. Because of that, we were immediately able to share the details of the complaint with this committee. Yesterday, the president released the transcripts of the call in question, and therefore, we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the Inspector Generals letter transmitting to us. As a result, i have provided the house and senate Intelligence Committees with full, unredacted complaint as well as the Inspector Generals letter. Let me also discuss the issue of urgent concern. When transmitting a complaint to me, the Inspector General took the legal position that because the complaint alleges matters of urgent concern, and because he found the allegations to be credible, i was required under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act to forward the complaint to our Oversight Committees within seven days of receiving it. As we have previously explained in our letters, urgent concern is a statutorily defined term. To be an urgent concern, the allegations must, in addition to being classified, assert a flagrant, serious problem, abuse or violation of law, and relate to the funding, administration or operation of an 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 statutory framework, my office consulted with the u. S. Office of Legal Counsel, and we included the Inspector General in those consultations. After reviewing the complaint and the Inspector Generals letter, the office of Legal Counsel determined that the allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition of urgent concern and found that i was not legally required to transmit the material to our Oversight Committee under the whistleblower protection act. An unclassified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publicly released. As you know, for those of us in the executive branch, office of Legal Counsel opinions are binding on all of us. In particular, the office of Legal Counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the Intelligence Community, and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. While 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 that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint, mr. Chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process moving forward. I want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. First, i want to stress that i believe that 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 opinions on the issue of whether or not the issue is of urgent concern, i strongly believe in the role of the Inspector General. I greatly value the independence he brings and his dedication and role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Second, although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently, this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. The Inspector General, in consultation with my office, referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. Finally, i appreciate that in the past, whistleblower complaints may have been provided to congress regardless of whether they were deemed credible or satisfied the urgent concern requirement. However, i am not familiar with any prior instances where a whistleblower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege. I believe that this matter is unprecedented. I also believe that i handled this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and i am committed to doing so, sir. I appreciate the committee providing this opportunity to discuss this matter and the ongoing commitment to work with the congress on your important oversight role. Thank you very much, sir. Chairman schiff thank you, director. Would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . Director maguire the whistleblower complaint involves the allegation of that. It is not for me or the committee to decide how the president conducts his Foreign Policy or interactions with foreign countries, sir. Chairman schiff im not asking you to opine on how the president conducts Foreign Policy. Im asking whether as the statute rights, 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 . Director maguire that is the subject of the allegation of the complaint. Chairman schiff let me ask you about that. The Inspector General found that serious allegation of misconduct by the president credible. Did you also find that credible . Director maguire i did not criticize the Inspector Generals decision on whether or not it was credible. My question was whether or not it meets the urgent concern in the sevenday timeframe that would follow. Chairman schiff my question, Director Director maguire i have no question in his judgment that he considers it a serious matter. Chairman schiff you would concur, would you not, director, that this complaint alleging serious wrongdoing by the president was credible . Director maguire its not for me to judge, sir. Chairman schiff it is for you to judge. I agree its not for you to judge. You shall provide it to congress, but indeed, you did judge whether this complaint should be provided to congress. Can we at least agree that the Inspector General made a sound conclusion that this whistleblower complaint was credible . Director maguire that is correct. That is in the cover letter provided to the committee. I believe it has been made public. The recommendation by the Inspector General that in fact the allegation was credible. Chairman schiff can we also agree that it was urgent that if the president of the United States was withholding military aid to an ally even as you received the complaint and was doing so for a nefarious reason, that is 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, because the Inspector General said this was urgent as everyone understands that term. Can we agree that it was urgent . Director maguire 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. Chairman schiff and to adhere to the meaning of the term shall. Director maguire yes, sir. Chairman schiff in this case, you sought a Second Opinion on whether shall really means shall going to the white house. Director maguire no, sir. There were two things. As i said in my statement. One, it appeared that it also had matters of executive privilege. I am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to waive executive privilege. Chairman schiff at any time over the last month that you held this complaint, did the white house assert executive privilege . Director maguire mr. Chairman, i have endeavored chairman schiff i think thats a yes or no question. Director maguire they were working through the executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to exert executive privilege. Chairman schiff so they never exerted executive privilege. Is that the answer . Director maguire mr. Chairman, if they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday and all the information that had been forthcoming. Chairman schiff the first place you went was to the white house. Is that my understanding from your Opening Statement . The first place we went for a Second Opinion was to the white house . Director maguire i did not go for a Second Opinion. The question was is the information contained here subject to executive privilege not whether or not it meant urgent concern. Chairman schiff so the first place you went to for advice as to whether you should provide the complaint as the statute requires to congress was the white house. Director maguire i am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to provide executive privilege information. I think it is prudent as a member of the executive branch to check to ensure that in fact it does not. Chairman schiff did you first go to the white house to determine whether you should provide a complaint to congress . Director maguire no, sir. That was not the question. The question was whether or not it has executive privilege, not whether or not i should send it on to congress. Chairman schiff is the first party you went to outside your office to seek advice, counsel, direction, the white house . Director maguire i have consulted with the white House Counsel and we also consulted with the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Chairman schiff my question is, did you go to the white house first . Director maguire i went to the office of Legal Counsel for advice. Yes, sir. Chairman schiff did you go to the department of justice first or the white house first . Director maguire my team, my office went to the office of Legal Counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. They viewed it and said weve determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that fully to the committee. I worked with the office of Legal Counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. Its a very deliberate process. Chairman schiff im still trying to understand the chronology. You first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to white House Counsel . Director maguire repeat that please . Chairman schiff you first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to the white House Counsel . Director maguire no, sir. We went to the white house first to determine chairman schiff thats all i want to know, is the chronology. Went to the white house first. You went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress. Director maguire 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. Chairman schiff 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, or 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 administrations, involving people who never served in the Administration Even when they arent even talking to the administration. Were you aware that that is the unprecedented position of the white house you went to for advice over whether you should turn over a complaint involving the white house . Director maguire mr. Chairman, as i said in my Opening Statement, i believe everything in this matter is totally unprecedented. And that is why my directors forwarded them to you. 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. Chairman schiff i still have a couple of questions before i turn it over to the Ranking Member. 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. Director maguire mr. Chairman, i went to the office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the icig. He was part of that to receive whether or not this met the criteria. Chairman schiff but the icig vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the bill barr Justice Department, did he not . Director maguire he considered it a matter of urgent concern. However, as you know, opinions from the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. Chairman schiff let me ask you this. Do you think its appropriate that you go to a department run by someone 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 . Director maguire 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. Chairman schiff im just asking if the conflict of interest concerns you. Director maguire sir, i have to work with what ive got, and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch. Chairman schiff what you also had was a statute that says shall, and you had the discretion to provide it but you did not. Director maguire 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 we have 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 transcripts of his call with the president of ukraine, executive privilege no longer applied, and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint to the committee. Chairman schiff director, you dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . Director maguire i dont know who the whistleblower is mr. Chairman. To be honest with you i have done the utmost to you to protect his anonymity. Chairman schiff that doesnt sound like much of a defense of the whistleblower. You dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . Director maguire i believe as i said before, mr. Chairman, i believe the whistleblower operated in good faith. Chairman schiff they couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political hack, could they . Director maguire mr. Chairman, my job is to support and led the entire Intelligence Community. That individual works for me, therefore, it is my job to make sure i support and defend that person. Chairman schiff you dont have any reason to accuse them of disloyalty to our country . Director maguire absolutely not. I believe the whistleblower followed steps every step of the way. 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. Chairman schiff im just asking about the whistleblower right now. Director maguire i think the whistleblower did the right thing. I think he followed the law every step of the way. Chairman schiff then why, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she might be disloyal to the country, why did you remain silent . Director maguire i did not remain silent, mr. Chairman. I issued a statement to my workforce telling the committee my commitment to the whistleblower protection and ensuring i would provide protection to anybody inside the Intelligence Community that comes forward. But the way this was blowing out, i didnt think it was appropriate for me to make a press statement so that we counter each other every step of the way. Chairman schiff i think it was not only appropriate, but theres nothing that would have given more confidence to the workforce than hearing you publicly say no one should be calling this professional who did the right thing a hack or a traitor or anything else. I think that would have meant a great deal to the workforce. Mr. Nunes, you are recognized. Ranking member nunez welcome, mr. Director. Its a pleasure to have you here. And youre going to be part of a charade of legal word games. They are 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. I just want to get one thing straight, because one of the quotes they are going to use from you is you saying that this was a credible complaint. That will be used and spun as your saying that it was true. I want to give you an opportunity you have not investigated the veracity or the truthfulness of this complaint. Director maguire thats correct, Ranking Member. The determination on credible was made by the ic Inspector General. He made the determination that it is credible and he also made the determination of urgent concern. My question was not i did not question his judgment there. The question i had was, does in fact this allegation of wrongdoing meet the criteria, the statutory criteria, of urgent concern and the other issue, complicated things, did it in fact, the allegations within this whistleblower complaint, involve executive privilege . Ranking member nunez thank you for clarifying that. 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 and the public . Director maguire not to my knowledge, Ranking Member. I do not know. Ranking member nunez are you aware of any cases in the spotlight . Director maguire i believe the situation of why we are here this morning is because this case is unique and unprecedented. Ranking member nunez so why are some cases not in the public . Director maguire because they involved members of the Intelligence Community who were in fact in organizations underneath the dnis authority and responsibility. This one involved in individual who was not a member of the Intelligence Community or organization underneath the authority of the dni. This honest different from all others in the past that i am aware of. Ranking member nunez i want to get into how this all got out in the public. This has basically been an orchestrated effort over two weeks. We were first told about it a week and a half ago. We were told they were specifically that the whistleblower did not want to get any of this information out, 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. The people within the Inspector Generals office. And, the whistleblower and however that whistleblower gave this information to. What i am trying to ascertain is, how would it run in all the Mainstream Media outlets . Even though they got a lot of it wrong, they have the basics of it that involve the president of the United States talking to a foreign leader. So, did anybody, you or in your office leak this to the Washington Post or nbc news . Director maguire we know how to keep a secret in the Intelligence Community. As far as how that got into the press, i dont know. It has been reported by different media for the past several weeks. Where they get their information from, i dont know. It was not from the Intelligence Community, from me or from my office. Ranking member nunez thank you, director. It is not the first time this has happened to this president. It happened between a call with the mexican president , the australian prime minister, it has happened twice before, 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 the situation, as you said, it is unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have conversations leak out . This is the third time. Director maguire i would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that, Ranking Member, but to me, the president of the United States conversation with any other head of state, i would consider a privileged conversation. Ranking member nunez but those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies, so. Director maguire not necessarily, sir. Ranking member nunez i should say this, they are captured and disseminated. Disseminated to the intelligence agencies. Director maguire i have to be careful of how i respond to that. The Intelligence Community and the National Security agency, they collect things to protect Ranking Member nunez i just want to make sure. While we have the president of the u. S. Not talk to foreign leaders, or publish all the transcripts, because that is whats happening here. It is likely coming from the agencies you oversee. Director maguire Ranking Member, no, sir. Ranking member nunez we have the transcript with the mexican president , the australian prime minister, and now the ukrainian president. Director maguire there were about 12 people who listened and the conversation. Members of the National Security council, and others. Others were briefed of the transcripts because they have a region responsibility that they would be informed on the , so there were a number of people that from the white house, briefed from the call Ranking Member nunez the white house probably didnt leak this out. Director maguire i wouldnt say the white house. There are individuals within the white house that may or may not. I dont know. It would not be from an intelligence intercepts. I will say that. Ranking member nunez the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right . It is important for the state department and appropriate agencies. Im not saying it is all the intelligence agency, but when a president talks to a foreign leader, it is confidential, there could be some parts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the ic, i want to be clear about that. This is now the third time. Im not aware of this ever happening before. Of content of calls like this getting out. Director maguire i really dont know, Ranking Member. I dont have the numbers. It seems to me unprecedented. I would also say this decision by the president to release his transcripts of the call with ukraine is probably unprecedented, as well. Ranking member nunez i appreciate you being here. Be careful what you say, because they are going to use these words against you. Director maguire im honored to be here. Ranking member nunez i appreciate your service to this country for a long time. I am sure we will be talking again soon. Hopefully not in the public, but behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done. I yield back. Director maguire, thank you for being here, and thank you for your profound service and the service of your family to this country. Director, what i find bewildering about this conversation is that we are not sitting here today, and the American Public is not aware of the allegations of the president is asking for a favor into an investigation into his political opponent. We are not aware of the murky decision to withhold aid. We are not aware of a possible retaliation against the u. S. Ambassador. None of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, a man appointed by President Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate to come to 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 istic conspiracy theories that they think is happening. It was his decision 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 . Director maguire i applaud 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, did it or did it not meet the Legal Definition . It is a simple question. Without his decision, none of this is happening, correct . Director maguire we have to back it up to the whistleblower, as well. I should have noted the whistleblower deserves the same accolades as mr. Atkinson does. Director were you ever advised , by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason . Director maguire no, congressman. As i understand it, the opinion was that you were not obligated to convey, despite the clear wording of the law, to convey the complaint to congress. The decision was taken to defy a subpoena of this congress, a subpoena of september, to turn overptember 17, to turn the complaint. Who made the decision to defy that subpoena . Director maguire congressman, urgent concern i am asking a very simple question. Who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena . Somebody said, we will not abide by this subpoena. I would like to know who that somebody was. Director maguire nobody did. I endeavored once we have no longer had urgent concern with the sevenday timeline to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was 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 got a few other issues. I would have liked to have sent it to the chairman, perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process. Finally, it came to a head yesterday. All we did was lose those seven days. It may have taken longer than we would have liked, you would have liked, but i am focused on the subpoena. The subpoena is on your desk. It is pretty clear what it asks for. Yet somehow, it wasnt complied with. Im looking for the decisionmaking process to ignore the legal congressional subpoena. Director maguire i did not ignore them. 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 very supportive, it was not something that was ready to go, but i was fully committed to this committee and to the chairman to get that information. I finally was able to provide that yesterday. Thank you, director. Did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint . Director maguire congressman, i am the president s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times but the week. Did you ever speak to the president about this complaint . Director maguire my conversations with the president , because im 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. Rep. Himes but just so we can be clear, for the record, you are not denying that you spoke to the president about this complaint. Director maguire 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 himes instructed you to assert that privilege . Director maguire no, sir. Thats just a member of the executive committee i mean, executive branch. As a member of the National Security council and also the homeland committee. Rep. Himes you know, 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. Apparently the clock is broken, but ill yield back the balance of my time. Thank you for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither of us are lawyers. That might be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff, sir. Director maguire i do, congressman. And your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and have given you advice. Director maguire yes, congressman. If the black letter law was so clear in black letter, how is it that 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, did a very good job of telling us what he did, what he didnt do. We now know for sure what it is that he was able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president. 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. So even he did not try to overrun the white houses executive privilege over the conversation that the president had with the president. He also said in his letter, i also determined this is quoting michael i also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. Now, thats a different statement than a flat out its credible. Just again, a rhetorical statement. Is there anything, a statute from your lawyers 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. All right. To your knowledge, has the Justice Department ever weighed in to say that the fact 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 . Director maguire the matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. Its pretty much either yes or no. Rep. Conaway thats not the case, admiral. 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 chains of command, i know. Hes not youre not hes not in your chain of command. You are in his chain of command. So for very definite reasons that appear to be credible, it doesnt meet the definition with concern to the whistleblower protections of the ig, and your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. Director maguire no, sir. 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 that 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 exact involvement in making his case to Justice Department to his decision . Was he there physically or his lawyers there . Director maguire 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 is what they based their opinion on. Rep. Conaway okay. So you dont think he director maguire if im incorrect, ill come back to the committee and correct that, sir. Rep. Conaway okay. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. 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. The insult to your integrity was not justified. The fact we have differences of opinion, when we start losing those differences of opinion, we start to attack each other, 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 im paying. You had good legal advice on this issue in a really tough spot, wanting to make sure this whistleblower was protected but at the same time if, in fact, there was something awry here, that it would get the full airing its clearly getting. So thank you for your service, and i yield back. Director maguire thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director maguire, thanks 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 in 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 to 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 thats productive besides watching this. Right, and so my concern i think is a valid one, that in fact, what has happened with this whistleblower episode will have a Chilling Effect. I also want to ask you, have you given direction to this whistleblower that he can, in fact, he or she, can, in fact, come before congress . Director, when the president called the 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 also 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. And 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 . Director maguire well, congresswoman, there are several questions there. One, i do not know the identity of the whistleblower. Two, now that the complaint has come forward, we are working with his counsel in order to be able to provide them with security clearance. So 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. Director maguire right now 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. 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 after all, what is the whistleblower statute for if not to provide those full protections against retaliation, against litigation . Director maguire congresswoman, i am doing everything to endeavor to support that. Will the gentlewoman yield . Yes. Director, do i have your assurance that 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 that concerned wrongdoing by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the white house or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or 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 . Director maguire yes, congressman. Thank you. I yield back to the gentlewoman. So mr. Director, i also want to understand what youre going to do to try to ensure the trust of the employees and contractors that 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 is my highest priority. I dont consider that they work for me. As the director of National Intelligence, i believe that i well, sir, i just want to say and go on record being very clear that this will have a Chilling Effect, and that is exactly not what the 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. Director maguire thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Turner. Director, thank you for being here. Director maguire 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 admirable in the manner in which you approached this. Now, i 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 to 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 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 . And yes, he was. Because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the text. Luckily 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. Weve heard the clicks of the cameras in this Intelligence Committees room where weve not been focusing on the issues of the National Security threat but instead of the calls for impeachment, which is really an assault onlt the electorate, not just this president. The complaint we now have, mr. 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 plitolitical political issues. He 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 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 that had access to surveillance that related the president s conversations and has brought it forward to us. Id 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 we can have oversight. Because it certainly wasnt there for oversight of the president. It was there for oversight for the Intelligence Community. So if you could describe your thoughts on that. Then i was very interested in your discussion on the issue of executive privilege. Theres been much made of the fact the law says on the whistleblower statute that you shall. Clearly you have a conflict of laws when you have both 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 . Then your process, your effects of being stuck in the middle where you have these conflicts of laws, mr. Director. Congressman, the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act is to apply to the Intelligence Community. It pertains to financial, administrative, or operational activities within the Intelligence Community 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. So with that, i do believe that that is about the intelligence whistleblower protection act was the best vehicle the whistleblower had to use. It 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 just 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 that five are right and four are wrong. Theyre differences of opinion. But 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 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, sir. 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 part in parody. The fact thats not clear is a separate problem in and of itself. Of course, the president never said 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, chairman, schiff. 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 . Director maguire congressman carson, i believe that it might be. Once again, i said in my statement, it is, in fact, as far as im concerned, unprecedented. Rep. Carson it is unprecedented, sir. Do you know why its unprecedented . I think its because the law that congress at this very committee drafted really couldnt be clearer. It states that upon receiving such an 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, ands, or buts. Even when the ig has found complaints, not to be an urgent concern or even credible, your office has consistently and uniformly still transmitted those complaints to the Intelligence Committee. Is that true, sir . Director maguire congressman carson, in the past, even if they were not a matter of urgent concern or whether they were not credible, they were forwarded. In each and every instance prior to this, it involved members of the Intelligence Community who were serving in organizations underneath the control of the dni. This one is different because it did not meet those two criteria. Rep. Carson director, does executive privilege 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 . Director maguire no, chairman, carson, it does not. Rep. Carson not withstanding, director, 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 orders instead of the law. And if the Inspector General 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 understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here. Can you explain that to us, sir . Director maguire 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 is 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 that weve discussed several times here. So it did not. All that did, sir, was just take away the seven days. Now, 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 that was working while i was endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed so that it can then be forwarded. It was not stone walling. 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 . Director maguire if its required by the statute, congressman carson, yes, i will. Rep. Carson 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, chairman. Thank you. Director maguire thank you, congressman carson. Rep. Carson thank you. How much time does the gentleman have remaining . 27 okay. Director, you were not directed to withhold the complaint. Is that your testimony . Director maguire yes, that is absolutely true. So you exercised your discretion to withhold the complaint from the committee. Director maguire i did not, sir. What i did was i delayed it because it did not meet the statutory definition of urgent concern, and i was working through chairman schiff and director, youre aware we spent a lot of time focusing on the definition of urgent concern. Youre aware that the practice of your office has been that regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, regardless of whether Inspector General finds it credible or incredible, the complaint is always given to our committee. Youre aware thats the unbroken practice since the establishment of your office and the Inspector General . Are you aware of that . Director maguire chairman, every previous whistleblower complaint that was forwarded to the Intelligence Committee involved a member of the Intelligence Community and an organization under which the director of National Intelligence had authority and responsibility. Chairman schiff 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 definition, the past practice has always been to give it to this committee. Youre aware of that, right . Director maguire im aware this is unprecedented, and this has never happened. With that, sir, i agree. This has never happened before, but again, this is a unique situation. Chairman schiff 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. Director maguire not true, sir. What the office of Legal Counsel said, that it does not meet the Legal Definition of urgent concern. Chairman schiff so it said youre not required. It didnt say you cannot provide it. It said youre not required. That is, if you dont want to, were not going to force you. Youre not required, but it didnt say you cant. Am i right . Director maguire 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. But at no time was there any intent on my part to withhold the information from you as the chair, this committee, or the senate Intelligence Committee. Chairman schiff director, i wish i had the confidence of knowing that but for this hearing, but for the deadline 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. 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. 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 that were involved with the conversation agree with the parody that the chairman gave us. And unfortunately today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv, and the medias 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. But let me get to some questions, sir, if i can. Lets go to the word credible. Credible does not mean proven true or factual. Would that be correct in this situation . Director maguire i find no fault in your logic, congressman. Rep. Wenstrup okay. So the interpretation that was credible, but also was that decision made by the ig before seeing the transcript of the conversation . Director maguire i believe that the icig conducted to the 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. Rep. Wenstrup but the ig didnt necessarily have the transcript of the conversation. Director maguire he did not, no. Rep. Wenstrup okay. Thats my question. So to another point, you know, one of the issues that arose out of the russia investigation last congress was a 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 regarding more flexibility to negotiate after his 2012 election. And president medvedev replied he would transmit the information to vladimir and that 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 unwaverable. I think thats consistent with cia director brennan. Director maguire congressman, only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. The president exerts executive privilege, and only the white house and president can waive that. Rep. Wenstrup director brennan gave me the impression then that was the rule, thats the law. So im going to have to go with that. But do you believe the president s entitled to withhold his or her communications from congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblower case . Director maguire 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. 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. Rep. Wenstrup 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. Director maguire well, either that i believe that this committee wrote the law. And based on what we are doing today, perhaps it needs to be reworked. Ill leave that to the legislative branch. Rep. Wenstrup the 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. I think maybe this is a special circumstance, unprecedented. Maybe there needs to be some leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. I dont know if you know, did the i. G. Ever say that they felt rushed in making a decision because of the 14 day process . Director maguire no, congressman. Hes a very experienced Inspector General. Hes used to dealing with the 14 day process, and when you work under a timeline like that, he worked with his staff, he was following the statute is he believed it was written. I would think 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 14 day timeline, and he did the best of his ability to comply with that. Rep. Wenstrup did you feel rushed in any way, sir . Director maguire i did not. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman and thank you director maguire for your 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 . Director maguire no, congresswoman, i did not. I know that story has appears has appeared quite a bit. I issued a statement yesterday all right, thank you. When you read the complaint, were you shocked at all by what you read . Director maguire congresswoman, excuse me. I have a lot of life experience. I joined the navy. Rep. Speier i understand your record. Director maguire i realized full and well, the importance of the allegations. And i would also have to tell you congressman, congresswoman, when i saw that i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee some time to discuss it. Rep. Speier the complaint refers to what happened after the july 25th conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the United States. 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 that 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 was in the white house that the call was completely improper . Director maguire congresswoman, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. All i have is the knowledge that the whistleblower alleges in his allegation, the complaint. I do not know whether in fact that is true or not. My only Situational Awareness of that is from the whistleblowers letter. Rep. Speier so, knowing that the whistleblower up here to be credible based on the valuation by the Inspector General and knowing 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 . Director maguire congresswoman, the allegation that is made by the whistleblower is secondhand information. Not known to him or her firsthand. Rep. Speier except, mr. Maguire, it was determined to be credible. There was an investigation done by the inspecter general. Let me go on to another issue. President trump over the weekend tweeted it appears that an american spy and one of our intelligence agencies may have been spying on our own president. Do you believe the whistleblower was spying on one of our intelligence agencies or spying on the president . Director maguire as i said several times so far this morning, i believe that the whistleblower complied with the law and did everything that he or she thought was responsible under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. Rep. Speier but you did not protect the whistleblower, did you . Director maguire congresswoman. Rep. Speier yes or no. Director maguire i did. I thought that was enough stuff appearing in the press that was erroneous, that was absolutely incorrect, and i didnt think i needed to respond to every simple statement that was out there that was incorrect. What i did, my loyalty is to my workforce. Rep. Speier i appreciate that, thank you. The president on monday said who knows the correct facts . Who is this whistleblower . Is he on our countryside . Do you believe the whistleblower is on our countries side . Maguire i think the whistleblowers are doing what they perceived to be the right thing. So working on behalf of our country. Are you aware 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 . Director maguire im not the mayor with the dollar value but ive been in Government Service for four decades and im very much aware of the value of the program. Did theinal question president of the United States ask you to find out the identity of the whistleblower . I would not normally discussed my conversations with the president , i can tell you emphatically know. Has anyone else within the white house or the department of justice asked you . Director maguire no. These are my fathers air force wings and he served as well. For someone who has not served in the military, i dont think they realize how deeply offensive it is to have your honor and integrity question. Some on this committee have done that. They have accused you of breaking the law and i will read just part of many that i could from the chairman. This raises grave concerns that your office with the department of justice and possibly the white house have engaged in unlawful efforts to protect the president. Asre is others i could read they have sought to destroy your character so i will give you the opportunity to answer very clearly are you motivated by politics in your work or professional behavior . Know, congressman. I am not. Im not political, am not partisan and i did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of National Intelligence. I thought that were perhaps other people who were more qualified to do that. The president asked me to do this and it was my honor to step up to lead and support the Intelligence Community. Thank you, do you believe you have follow the laws and policies how you have handled this complaint . I do. Have you in anyway sought to protect the president or anyone else run a wrongdoing . I have not, what have done is in denver to follow the law. Do you believe you had a responsibility to follow the guidance of Legal Counsel . Its binding on the executive branch. Thank you, there has been a big deal made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint with help from congress but its also true, isnt it, that its the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falling under executive privilege and salsa the first time that it included information outside the authority of the dni . To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. I was say to my college that i think you are nuts if youre going to convince the American People that your cause is a is just by attacking this man and impugning his character when that there is a attention deficiency in the law and he was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what you did and yet the entire town here is that somehow you were a political student who has done nothing but try to protect the president and i think thats nuts anyone watching this hearing will walk away with the clear impression that you are a man of integrity who did what you felt was right, regardless of the questions and the innuendo that has been cast by some of my colleagues sitting your today. One more thing before i yield my time leaksk we can agree that are unlawful and damaging and for heavens sakes, we have seen plenty of that over the last three years. There is a long list of leaks that have clear implications for our National Security. Meaningful implications for our National Security. Whont to know, do you know was feeding the president 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 leaking information about this . No. Make at appropriate to referral to the department of justice to determine that question mark 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. Thats classified information. Yes, congressman, any wrongdoing. I dont know what time it is because our clock is not working. I suppose my time is up and i would conclude emphasizing once luck convincing the American People that this is a dishonorable man sitting here. Good luck convincing american anythingat he has done that he is done anything right and if you want to score political points then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. I would only say erector, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. No one has said so were suggested that. But it is certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority that when the Congress Says that something shall be done, it shall be done and when that is involving the wrongdoing of the president , its not an exception to the department of the statute and the fact that this whistleblower has been left twisting in the win for weeks and 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, were going to insist that the law be followed. Mr. Chairman, will you yield . Thank you 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, they are and how get clearance and you understand why that is done. Ifcivilianscig, from disclosing handlerder to be able to Sensitive Information whether be diplomatic or intelligence information, one must be vetted. Its the important part of protecting National Security. We cannot just ring people in and automatically waive a magic wand and put holy water on them to get a security clearance. For me to come back into government, the fbi went back for 15 years into my background and examined my financial records to make sure that i was in fact worthy of having an intelligence clearance. 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 at in order to do that, we need to ensure that any person who has access to the Sensitive Information of the United States has been thoroughly vet to make sure they can handle that information. Of its the issues National Policy that people have an official role they carry out on behalf of the United States and the no with their role is, correct question mark yes, congressman. What is your understanding right now will what mr. Giulianis role is . Congressman, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal lawyer. Far you call him his personal lawyer. In the complaint, the regions modified transcript hes mentioned five times. Your reaction to the fact that the civilian without vetting has played this role no, sir, all im saying is that i know what the allegations are. Im not saying the allegations are true and thats where the committee et al. Think theres any question, the credibility of the complaint and the transcript. The president speaks highly of mr. Giuliani, a highly respected man and the mayor of new york, i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Your reaction as a civilian dealing with these as a complaint. It talks about our National Security. Inspector general talks about this as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has an mr. Giuliani is playing this role, does he have security clearance . I dont know. Mr. Giulianihether has security clearance. Before this all happen, worry oh were you aware of his role doing what you do . Knowledge of what mr. Giuliani does, i would have to be honest with you, i get from tv and the news media. Im not aware of what he does in fact for the president. Are you aware of any condition by mr. Giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with his role given the classified nature, the National Security implications that are in the complaint, that are in the transcript in the role he is playing . I have read the transcripts just as you have so my knowledge of his activity in their is limited to the conversation the president had with the resident. In whyespect your role we have differences of opinion, we continue to respect your integrity and honor but we have this vast amount of experience you have and we need to understand how it plays in juxtaposition with what im reading. The present early that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that . I think that anything that has to do with the president lawyer in these matters should be referred to the white house and the president. Im just reading the complaint. I support the Intelligence Community and the 17 different departments and agencies under my leadership. I have no authority or responsibility over the white house. But you are aware with your experience the fact that we have this relationship with ukraine that they are dependent upon us in this complaint does not concern you . You cannot say publicly it concerns you . There is a lot of things that concern me. Im the director of National Intelligence and 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 or disapprove of it. That is the president s business on how he wants to conduct that. The issue is whether it conducts a crime and that bothers me. The director may complete your answer if you wish. If you want to respond, you may. Im fine, thank you, chairman. , thankk you, mr. Maguire you for being here and we appreciate your life of Public Service. To prior torelates the transmission on august 26 from the ig to the dni, were there any conversations that you had with the ig prior to august 26 related to this matter . Congresswoman, there has been a lot that has happened in the last several weeks as far as the timeline is concerned. I would like to take that and get back to you and get a full chronology and the actual timeline of events. That would be helpful to this committee if there were any preliminary conversations, what was discussed and if there was any action taken as a result of those conversations. I want to turn the could to the complaint itself for the American Public to read. Let me cap us this by saying i greatly appreciate your statement that you believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith. I think thats important for americans to hear. Im not going to improvise for parity purposes like the chairman of this committee did. I will quote directly. The complaint reads i was not a direct witness to most instances. This seems like a very important line to look into and i think the American Public will have questions in particular about that line. Fullye record, did the ig investigate the allegations into this complaint at that time . Has the ig investigator this complaint . Earlier, i believe the Intelligence Community Inspector General did an investigation with the 14 day timeframe he had an under that timeframe to the best of his ability, made a determination it was both credible and urgent. I have no reason to doubt that Michael Atkinson did anything but his job. There were many references to white house officials to know if the ig spoke with the white house officials. The truthfulness of these allegations or was it a parliamentary investigation question mark i would have to defer to the ig to respond on that. Do noto know although i know the identity of the whistleblower, i know that Michael Atkinson had in fact discussed this with the whistleblower and found his complaint to be credible. As far as who else he spoke with, i am unaware of what went on in the investigation into this matter. So as of today, the only isividual the ig spoke with the author and the whistleblower . What im saying is im unaware who else Michael Atkinson may have spoken to. Im unfamiliar with his investigative process and everybody spoke to in this regard. Thank you for the answer on the record. For the American Public, they will have many questions as they read this complaint today. Direct one, it says no knowledge, think its important that we conduct, that we have questions answered for individuals that have direct knowledge will stop with that i yield back. Thank you, congresswoman. Mr. Maguire, do you agree the definition of a coverup is an attempt to prevent people from discovering a crime . I would say thats close. Im sure theres others i dont disagree with that. In the whistleblowers complaint, the whistleblower alleges that immediately after the president s call with the president of ukraine on july 25, white house lawyers moved quickly to direct white house officials to move electronic transcripts from one Computer System where was normally stored to a secret classified information system, is that right . I apologize is thats what was alleged . Yes or no . All i know is that is the allegation. Thats the allegation. And you read that on the first people you go to after you read that allegation are the white house lawyers who are telling the white house officials who see this transcript and move it to a secret, compartmentalized system, those are the first people you go to. Is that a yes or no . Yes. , theu get this complaint Inspector General says urgent him a credible, you have no wiggle room to not go to sendess and instead you your concern to the subject of the complaint, the white house. Did the white house tell you after you sent your concern about privilege, did they tell you to go to the department of justice and a . Might team, my counsel in consultation with the Intelligence Community Inspector General went to the office of Legal Counsel. We were not directed to do that. You said this did not involve ongoing intelligence activities. However, the whistleblower said this is not the first time that the president s transcript with foreign leaders were improperly moved to an Intelligence Community system, is that part of the allegation . I believe thats in the letter and i will let the letter speak for itself. What also speaks for itself as if a transcript with a foreign leader is improperly moved into Intelligence Community classification system, that would involve your responsibility, is that right question mark not necessarily. It is not underneath my authority and responsibility. Once again, this is an allegation that has been made. It does not necessarily mean that is a true statement. The allegation was determined to be urgent and credible by the Inspector General . Yes, it was. Considering you are the director of National Intelligence and transmits are being moved into a secret intelligence system, whether other transcripts like conversations with Vladimir Putin are saudi arabia or turkey , would you want to know if those were also being improperly moved because the president is trying to cover up something . Congressman, how the white house, the office of the executive office of the president and the National Security council conduct their business is their business. Its actually your business to protect americas secrets. Its all of ours, this committee as well. Activityre is cover up because the president s working improperly with the Foreign Government, that could compromise americas secrets . There is an allegation of a coverup. Im sure an investigation before this committee might leave credence or disprove that but right now, all we have is an allegation with secondhand information from a whistleblower. Whether or not that is a true and accurate statement. Department justice opinions that you are not responsible for preventing foreign election interference, is that right . With the office of legal nsel did was over 11 pages they defined and explained the justification for it not complying with urgent are you responsible for preventing election interference by a Foreign Government . I hope you know this answer is yes or no . My election interference is it your priority . Yes, it is. So this complaint also alleges a shakedown with a Foreign Government by the United States president involving a rogue actor who has no clearance, no authority under the United States and an effort by the white house to move the transcript of this call to a secret system, is that right . Thats what was alleged. I believe Election Security is my most fundamental priority but this focused on a the president ith and a foreign leader, not Election Security. I yield back. If that conversation involves the president questioning help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election . Again, this once was sent to the federal bureau of investigation. I understand that, but you are not suggesting that this is somehow immune from the laws that preclude a u. S. Person from seeking foreign help in a u. S. Election . Is that nom saying one, none of us, is above the law in this country. Thank you. Its a pleasure to be here with you. I to my friends all the time of got more surveillance as a member of congress than i did as an undercover officer in the cia and i think you got more arrows dni you since you have been than you did in your for decades on the battlefield. A specific question the letter thats contained in the whistleblower package is dated august 12 and i recognize this may be a tough question to ask the ici gee, the letter is dated august 12 and is to the chairman of the Senate Select committee on intelligence and the chairman of this committee. Do you know if the whistleblower provided that letter to those concurrently with the ici g . Know, as i said earlier, i believe that the whistleblower and the icig acted in good faith and follow the law. We talked about the way the law on the whistleblower statute share if its decided to be an urgent concern, however best practices has always been to share regardless of whether that urgent concern. , negative any reason impact on the Intelligence Community if that legislation was changed to say all whistleblower complaints should be shared with the committee . Thats correct. Lets just say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. Committee,this although you are the Intelligence Committee, are not members of the Intelligence Community. As the dni, i have no authority, no responsibility over this committee. My question is, do you think that it every whistleblower complaint brought to the Intelligence Community, was always shared with this committee, would that have an impact on intelligence equities . I asked that because i dont know why when the statute was written that it didnt say all should be shared rather than only urgent concern. Think ifon is do you we change that law, would it have an impact on intelligence activities . Law could be changed to cover all things that might possibly director maguire i dont think that law could be changed to cover all things that might possibly happen. I think we have a good law. I think it is well written. However, this is unprecedented and this is a unique situation. This is why we are sitting here. Representative if we find ourselves in this position again, i want to make sure there isnt any uncertainty about when information should be shared with the committee. Was the odni aware of a decision to suspend ukrainian aid, as alleged in this complaint . Director maguire no, i have no knowledge of that. I am unaware if anyone within the odni is aware of that. I dont know the answer to that. Representative hurd i apologize for these legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else, but i feel like you have best perspective. When does the office of legislative Legal Counsel guidance override laws passed by congress . Director maguire the office of Legal Counsel does not override laws passed by congress. It passes legal opinion for those of us in the executive branch. In the office of Legal Counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. Representative hurd i have two questions. Two final questions. What is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode . When i say episode, im referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistleblower revelation. You alluded to it in previous questions, but i would like your assessment of how this could impact intelligence operations in the future. And i believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position. I know this is off topic. What do you see as our greatest challenges and threats in this country as director of National Intelligence . Director maguire let me answer the bottom part of that. The greatest challenge we face is not necessarily from a kinetic strike with russia or china or iran or north korea. The greatest challenge we have is to make sure we maintain the integrity of our election system. Right now there are foreign powers trying to get us to question the validity of whether our elections are valid. First and foremost, protecting the sanctity of our elections within the United States, whether it be national, city, state, local, is perhaps the most important job we have with the Intelligence Community. Outside of that, we face significant threats per number one is not necessarily kinetic, but cyber. This is a cyber world. We talk about whether great competition is taking place with russia and china, and we are building ships and weapons to do that. But in my estimation, great competition with these countries is taking place right now in the cyber world. Representative hurd the broader implications of this current whistleblower operation . Director maguire in light of this, i have a lot of work as leader of this community, to reassure that the Intelligence Community, that in fact i am totally committed to the whistleblower program. And i am absolutely, absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual, as well as making sure Michael Atkinson, our icig, is able to continue to do his job unfettered. But i have to be proactive in my communications with my team. Representative castro thank you for your testimony today. I want to say thank you also to the whistleblower for having the courage and bravery to come forward on behalf of the nation. Thank you to mr. Atkinson, the Inspector General, for his courage in coming forward to congress. You mentioned you believe the whistleblower report is credible and the whistleblower is credible, acted in good faith. You have had a chance as we have and the American People have, to review the whistleblower complaint at the transcript released of the phone call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine. Would you say the whistleblower complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released . Director maguire the whistleblower complaint is in alignment with what was released yesterday by the president. Representative castro i want to read you a quick section of both to underscore how accurate this complaint is. On page two of the whistleblowers complaint, the whistleblower says, according to white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the president pressured mr. Zielinsky, to initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President joseph biden and his son, hunter biden. And the third bullet point, meet or speak with two people the president named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, mr. Giuliani and attorney general barr, to whom the president referred to multiple times in tandem. On page four of the transcript in the first paragraph, into what looks like the third sentence, President Trump says the former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in ukraine was bad news, so i just wanted to let you know that. The other thing, there is a lot of talk about bidens son, that biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that. So whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, et in cetera. Do you have reason to doubt what the whistleblower has brought forward . Director maguire getting back into Michael Atkinsons and determination about whether it was credible or urgent concern, as the dni, it is not my place to ensure it is credible. That is the icigs job as inspector. He determined that it is credible. My only trouble was that in fact and involved someone who is not in the Intelligence Community or an organization under which i have authority and responsibility. Outside of that representative castro you agreed involved intelligence matters, it involved election interference, it involved investigations of u. S. Persons, including a former Vice President. If you had knowledge or the cia had knowledge that a government was going to investigate or drum up an investigation against her former Vice President , that wouldnt qualify as an intelligence matter . Would that qualify as an intelligence matter . Yes or no. Director maguire that is kind of a hypothetical question sir. Representative castro i dont think its hypothetical. Thats exactly what is in the transcript. That is what he is asking for. That is what the president is asking for, asking the president of the ukraine to do. He is asking the president of ukraine to investigate the former Vice President of the United States. Does that qualify as an intelligence matter the cia would want to know . Director maguire the conversation was by the president to the president of ukraine, as you know representative castro that cannot be an ultimate shield against transparency. It cant be an ultimate shield against accountability. The president is not above the law. One thing you havent told us is, if your office or the Inspector General is not able to investigate, then who is able to investigate . Director maguire once again, as i mentioned several times, although it did not come to the committee, the complaint was referred to the Judicial Department of criminal investigation. This was not swept under the rug. Representative castro why did your office think you should appeal the ig determination about urgent concern to the doj . That has never been done. That has never been done before. Director maguire this is unprecedented. In the past, there has never been a matter that the Inspector General has investigated that did not involve a member of the Intelligence Community or an organization that the director of National Intelligence representative castro you keep saying the president is not part of the Intelligence Community. I believe he is. He has the ability to declassify any single intelligence document. Is that true . Director maguire the president has classification authority. Representative castro how is that person outside the Intelligence Community . Director maguire he is president of the United States, above the entire executive branch. Representative ratcliff you served in the navy 36 years and commanded seal team to had retired as vice admiral of the navy, correct . Correct. Representative ratcliff you became acting dni 23 days after the trumpzielinsky call, and four days after the whistleblower made his or her complaint. You were subpoenaed to before this committee after being publicly accused of committing a crime, correct . Director maguire yes. Representative ratcliffe speaker congressman schiff accused you of being a coverup and the speaker keys do not once but twice of breaking the law in committing a crime. She said, the acting director of National Intelligence blocked him, meaning the icig, from disclosing the whistleblower complaint. This is a violation of the law. You were publicly accused of committing a crime, you were also falsely accused of committing a crime, as you have so accurately related. You are required to follow not just an opinion of what the law is, but the opinion from the Justice Department, and 11page opinion about whether you were required by law to report the whistleblower complaint, correct . Director maguire that is correct. Representative ratcliffe and that opinion says the question is whether such a complaint falls within the statue it statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the dni to forward to the Intelligence Committee. We conclude that it does not. Do i read that accurately . That is an opinion not from william barr, that is an opinion from the department of justice ethic lawyers, not political appointees but career officials that serve republicans and democrats, the ethics lawyers at the department of justice that determined that you did follow the law. So you were publicly accused and also falsely accused and get you are here today. I havent heard anything close to an apology. Welcome to the house of representatives with democrats in charge. That me turn to the matter we let me turn to the matter we are here for, a lot of talk about this whistleblower complaint. Given what we have, why all the focus on this whistleblower . The best evidence of what President Trump said to president zielinsky is a transcript of what President Trump said, not casting aspersions on the whistleblowe is good faith or their intent. But a secondhand account of something someone didnt hear isnt as good as the best evidence of what was actually said. Into that point, despite good faith, the whistleblower is in fact wrong in numerous respects. I know everyone is not going to have time to read the whistleblower complaint, but the whistleblower says, i am deeply concerned, talking about the president , that there was a serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law. The whistleblower goes on to say, i was not a direct witness to the events described, however i found my colleagues accounts i found my colleagues accounts of this to be credible, and then talking about the accounts of which this whistleblower complaint is based on, the whistleblower tells us, the officials i spoke with told me, and i was told that, and i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that, and white house officials told me that, and i also learned from multiple u. S. Officials that. In other words, all this is secondhand, none of it is first and information. The whistleblower firsthand information. The whistleblower site second sources that include Mainstream Media. The sources the whistleblower come bases his complaints on include the Washington Post, new york times, politico, the hill, bloomberg, abc and others. Much like the steele. Ca, the the steele dossier the , allegations in the whistleblower complaint are based on thirdhand media sources rather than firsthand information. The whistleblower also appears to allege crimes not just against president , but says with regard to this game to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election that, the president s personal lawyer, mr. Rudolph giuliani, is a central figure in this effort, and attorney general barr appears to be involved as well. But a couple of pages later, the whistleblower admits, i dont know the extent to which, if at all, mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating efforts on ukraine with attorney general barr. The attorney general does know, because he issued a statement saying there was no involvement. My point in all of this is again, the transcript is the best evidence of what we have. And so that the American People are clear what that transcript relates an illegal communications, the United States is allowed to solicit help from a Foreign Government in an ongoing criminal investigation, which is exactly what President Trump did in that conversation. So if the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct, be my guest. I yield back. Chairman schiff thank you congressman ratcliffe. Representative thank you for being here, sir. Thank you for your service. I want to step back and put in perspective what is at stake. Yesterday the white house released the transcript of that july 25 conversation between President Trump and president zelensky. We now know this phone call was part of the whistleblower complaint. Yesterday the chair, at a press conference, characterized the president s conversation as a shakedown of the ukrainian leader. He was not suggesting it was a shakedown for information or money, but instead it was a shakedown for help to win a president ial election coming up next year. I want to rewind to may 7 of this year, when fbi director Christopher Wray testified before the u. S. Senate that, and i am quoting now, any public official or member of the Public Campaign should immediately report to the fbi any conversations with foreign actors about influence about influencing or interfering with our election. The director was the top cop in the United States of america. Do you agree with director ray with director wray . Director maguire i do not disagree with director wray. Representative is that the same thing as you agree with him . Let me fastforward. Director maguire yes. It was forwarded to the fbi. Representative let me fastforward. June 13, five weeks in advance of that, when the chair of the federal Elections Commission made the following statement. Follow me please. Let me make something 100 clear the American Public and Anyone Running for public office. It is illegal for any person to accept, solicit or receive anything of value from a Foreign National in connection with a u. S. Election. This is not a novel concept. Election intervention from Foreign Governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Do you agree with the fec chair, mr. Director . Director maguire i agree our elections are sacred. Any interference from an outside source is just not what we want. Representative and to solicit or accept it is illegal . Director maguire i dont know about that. Im not a lawyer. I dont want to be evasive. Representative so you think it is ok maybe for a candidate or an elected official to solicit foreign interference in our election . You are not really saying that, right . Director maguire im not saying that at all. Representative the fec chair was prompted to say this, because it was just literally the day before that the president of the United States sat at the resolute desk, in the most iconic room in the United States, the oval office, and said that fbi director ray was wrong. Fbi director wray was wrong. You obviously disagree. He also said he would consider accepting foreign help. And we learned yesterday that the president did in fact, did in fact do exactly that, solicited that help. Director, whether it is this president or any president , do you believe it is ok for the president of the United States to pressure a foreign country and to helping him or her win an election . Director maguire i believe no one is above the law. We have discussed what we think applies to the law. Representative so it is illegal to solicit . Director maguire i cant answer that. Representative i cant reconcile your statements. Is it ok for any pressure for any president to pressure a Foreign Government for help to win an election . Director maguire it is unwarranted, unwelcome, it is bad for the nation, that outside interference. Representative thank you. And by extension, it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well . Director maguire all i know is that i have the transcripts, as you have. I have the whistleblower complaint, as you have. Representative i wasnt referring to the whistleblower complaint. But if any president were to do this, and i accept your answer, i think its beyond unacceptable, director. I think it is wrong and i think we all know it. I think we were taught this at a very young age. And there is a voice within most of us, unfortunately not all of us, that suggests it is wrong. It is illegal, and it is wrong. I thank you sir. With that i yield back. Director maguire if i may . Representative i have run out of time. Chairman schiff director, feel free. Director maguire once again, it was referred to the federal bureau of investigation. Representative not by the president. Director maguire by this office and by the office of the icig. Representative director wray said any candidate or official should immediately report it. He didnt say the director of dni should reported, although you did, and thank you, but the person involved did not do what director wray said they should. Period. Representative welch director, thank you. There is nobody in this room who can claim to have served the country longer and more valiantly than you. And in your opening remarks, your family before you has committed has been committed to this country. I say thank you. I appreciated your candor in your Opening Statement when, and your Opening Statement, you acknowledged the whistleblower acted in good faith. And third, i appreciated your acknowledgment that the Inspector General also acted in good faith according to his view of the law. I want to say this. When you said you are in a unique position, that is an understatement. You have a complaint involving the president of the United States and also the United States attorney general. I disagree with some decisions you made, but i have no doubt whatsoever that the same sense of duty that you applied in your illustrious career guided you as you made these decisions. Thank you for that. I want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that aim to your attention that came to your attention. The dni has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections, correct . Director maguire correct. Representative welch and you are aware of the Mueller Report on the russians that interfered in our elections, correct . Director maguire i have read the report. Representative welch its a huge responsibility your agency has. In this case, because of the two things you mentioned, that the president is the one person that is about the Intelligence Community, and your sense about executive privilege, you did not forward the complaint to us, correct . Director maguire yes, congressman welch, because i was still working with the white house. Representative congressman welch i understand that. Representative welch i understand that. But to show the dilemma you were in, lets say a u. S. Senator who is wellconnected, or private citizen who is wellconnected, has a conversation with the leader of a foreign country, and asks that person for a favor, the u. S. Senator, lets say, providing dirt on a political opponent. Is that something you would see that should be forwarded to this committee . Director maguire i dont need to be disrespectful, but it is difficult to answer hypothetical questions. Im not sure i understand. Representative welch i wont make it hypothetical. Lets say it was a u. S. Senator who was the head of the Foreign Relations committee and was asking for the foreign leader, would you forward that to our committee . Director maguire i mentioned that earlier, that the United States senator is not a member of the Intelligence Community. And the director of National Intelligence does not have the authority and responsibility for the u. S. Senate. So any wrongdoing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigation. Representative welch i respectfully disagree, because obviously that would be a solicitation by that u. S. Senator for interference in our election, and that is in your jurisdiction, correct . Director maguire election interference, yes. But once again, although it is, as far as the legal responsibility in compliance with the intelligence reform act, the whistleblower protection act, the statute does not allow for that to be done. Representative welch i disagree. But here is the dilemma that you were in and that we are now going to follow up because executive privilege, if it existed, was waived. Under your approach, as you saw it, it means that no one would be investigating the underlying conduct, because in this case executive privilege applies, or may apply, and number two, the president who had the conversation is above the law. So that is a dilemma for our democracy, is it not . Director maguire the complaint was sent to the federal bureau of investigation, disregarding any concern for executive privilege. Representative welch but the federal bureau of investigation never did a followup investigation, correct . Director maguire im not sure. I have other pressing matters. I apologize. Representative welch and the Justice Department run by mr. Barr, who is the subject of the complaint, is the department that provided the opinion that there is no action to be taken. Director maguire i believe the attorney general was mentioned in the complaint, not necessarily the subject of the complaint. Representative welch he was mentioned. Why yield back. Representative director, what was her first day on the job . Director maguire friday, the 16th of august. I think i set a new record in the administration for being subpoenaed. Representative the complaint is dated august 12. You had a heck of a first week. Whatever else you have done, your timing has got to be something you worry about. Director maguire dan coates timing is better than mine. Representative i want to summarize a couple of things. In your first couple of days on the job, you are hit with this complaint. It says the president pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponents son, that the president asked the foreign leader to work with private citizen mr. Giuliani and the attorney general of the United States, william barr, on that scheme. The president , not in dispute, was withholding 391 Million Dollars of assistance, holding that over that ukrainian president s head. The ukrainian president raises in the conversation u. S. Military assistant, javelins, defensive weapons. Hes got Russian Troops in his country. The wolf is at the door. The president asks for a favor, complains about ukrainian reciprocity. He is not getting enough, that is what reciprocity is, we have to get something from you if we are giving you something. He names the political opponents by name, the bidens. The ukrainian president says he will do it, he will do the investigation. That is what you are hit with. And you are looking at that complaint, and in the second paragraph it alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States. In the first thing you do is go to the president s men at the white house, and women, and say, should i give it to congress . And in the second paragraph of the complaint, it suggests the attorney general could be involved. And the second thing you do is go to the attorney generals people at the Justice Department and ask them if you should give it to congress . I have no question about your character. I have read your bio. I have questions about your decisions and judgment in those decisions. Do you see any conflict here . Director maguire i have a lot of leadership experience. And as you said, it came to me very early on in this. The fact that i am the acting dni, that this came to my attention involving the president of the United States, and the import of this. In the past i have always worked with Legal Counsel. Because of the magnitude of the decision, as a naval officer for years, i thought it would be prudent. My life would have been a heck of a lot simpler without becoming the most famous man in the United States. Representative when you were considering prudence, did you think it was prudent to give a veto power over whether the congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the two people implicated by it . Is that prudent . Director maguire i have to work with the situation as it is, congressman maloney. Only the white house can determine or waive executive privilege. There is no one else to go to. As far as a Second Opinion, my only avenue of that was to go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Representative maloney and if unchallenged by your own Inspector General, that prudence would have prevented these serious allegations from ever reaching congress. I think you left the door open that you spoke to the president of the United States about this whistleblower complaint. Did you speak personally to the president of the United States at any time about this complaint . Director maguire i am the president s intelligence officer. I speak to the president. Representative maloney its a simple question. Did you speak to him about this whistleblower complaint . Yes or no. Director maguire my conversation is privileged. Representative maloney you are not denying you spoke with the president. Im not asking for the contents. I dont want the contents. Did you speak to the president about the whistleblower complaint . Director maguire i speak to the president about a lot of things and anything i say to the president in any form is privileged. Representative maloney are you denying you spoke to the president . Director maguire anything i say to the president is confidential. Thats the way it is. Chairman schiff director, you understand we are not asking you about conversations with the president about National Security, Foreign Policy, counterterrorism. We want to know, did you discuss this subject with the president . You can imagine what a profound conflict of interest that would be. Did you discuss this whistleblower complaint with the president . You can say, i did not discuss it with him, if that is the answer. That doesnt tray any privilege. That doesnt betray any privilege. And you can say, i did discuss it with him but i am not going to get into the content of those conversations. That question you can answer. Director maguire once again, my conversation, no matter what the subject is with the president of the United States, is privileged conversation between the director of National Intelligence and the president. Here is a look at our live coverage friday on cspan. The house returns at 9 a. M. As eastern to continue on a with bordero deal wall security. At 3 30 p. M. , the National Security adviser will be speaking at the Texas Tribune festival in austin. On cspan2, the president of columbia will discuss its countrys future and relations with the u. S. At 8 30 a. M. On cspan3, a look at efforts to protect the 2020 election run interference. The House Judiciary Committee gets underway at 9 a. M. Eastern. Coming up this morning on washington journal, we will discuss the impeachment inquiry of President Trump with House Oversight and Reform Committee members. A 7 30 a. M. , we will hear from kentucky republican