Transcripts For CSPAN2 House Hearing On DHS Intelligence Oversight 20240712

Policy. The committee will come to order. Without objection the chair is authorized to recess the hearing at any time. Before we turn to the substance of todays hearing let me address a House Keeping matter. First let me remind members should during these proceedings with the exception of when theyre speaking take precautions in light of covid19 including by wearing a face cover such as a mask. Were also limiting staff attendance at the hearing. I would encourage and urge unless youre speaking to please be wearing your mask. Were also conducting this hearing in the Capital Visitors Center auditorium, which affords Additional Space for those present to remain fizz any distant from one another. Before i get into the other House Keeping matter let me just express my best wishes to the president and first lady for a speedy recovery from covid19. I know were all quite shocked and distressed this morning to learn of their illness. And we hope for a very speedy recovery. Theyll be very much in our thoughts. All right, the department of Homeland Security and todays witness mr. Joseph maher who leads dhs office of intelligence and analysis or as well refer to that office throughout the hearing, ona, left the committee no choice but to issue a subpoena on tuesday for his appearance at this hearing today. The department has persistently slow walked security clearance requests for counsel from their client mr. Murphy, a lawful whistleblower and the former acting head of ina, the Intelligence Community element within dhs in proceedings before this committee. The committee repeatedly offered to dhs that it would withdraw the subpoena for mr. Mahers appearance if the department authorized the attorneys clearances in time for mr. Murphys often rescheduled deposition. Unfortunately, dhs refused to do so. Therefore were Going Forward today with this testimony. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. On august 3rd amid public reporting of americans being snatched off the streets of portland by Homeland Security this committee launched an investigation into serious allegations that dhs intelligence and Analysis Office or ona, an element of our nations Intelligence Community may also have played a role in the apparent abuses documented in portland. The specter of domestic surveillance activities by the nations intelligence apparatus, which is supposed to be focused outside the country has setoff alarm bells. Soon after the committee began its review additional serious and credible allegations emerged that senior officials at dhs had ingabling engaged in efforts to politicize intelligence efforts. And sought to downplay the threat posed by white supremacist violence. Our investigation is still in its early stages but already the Trump Administration has engaged in the now familiar strategy of obstruction. Despite those efforts over the past 2 months a deeply disturbing picture has come sharply into focus. Time and again dhs office of intelligence and analysis faced pressure to deploy resources in a way to benefit the president of the United States and his Reelection Campaign at the expense of our National Security. Specifically the committee has information that, number one, Trump Administration officials sought to influence the production of election Threat Intelligence by elevating and emphasizing activity by china and iran despite acute ongoing interference operations by russia. The committee has also learned dhs leaders sought to influence the production of classified and unclassified intelligence assessments related to foreign threats to our election by encouraging ina to report more on china even though they the Intelligence Communitys Public Statements indicate only russia is engaged in active measures to denigrate one candidate and support another and sway the outcome of the president ial election. Treating these three actors of differing intent and capability, russia, china and iran, as equal threats to our election creates a false equivalency. It dilutes the fact the most significant threat to our election is in fact from russia which is seeking to denigrate Vice President biden and boost President Trump. These politicized changes did nothing to serve our National Security but would serve to avoid embarrassing the president with a focus on the dangerous facts of russias interference on behalf of his campaign. Number two, similarly dhs officials have sought to modify the unclassified homeland threat assessment, which has yet to be released to this day. Specifically the committee has learned that senior dhs officials have pressed for the assessment to elevate the threat to our election posed by china and iran which would have the effect of misleading the American Public but again bolster efforts by the administration to downplay the severity of the most significant and active foreign election threat coming from russia. Number three, the committee has also confirmed that dhs ina send personnel deporment at the height of response to protests in the city and ina as an element of the Intelligence Community was asked to the gauge in activity that raises profound Civil Liberties concerns. Specifically the committee has learned ina participated in questioning protesters who were detained by other dhs officers and issued Intelligence Reports on reporters. We have learned that the federal protective service, another component of dhs seized phones from protesters and asked ina, a member of the Intelligence Community to extract data from those phones. Thankfully that request appears to not have been ultimately fulfilled. The committee is also examining allegations that dhs officials sought to modify assessments related to domestic security threats. In service of President Trumps preferred narrative that antifa and socalled leftwing anarchists are the most important domestic threat. This is despite evidence to the contrary and testimony just last week by fbi director Christopher Wray that white supremacist violence now makes up a significant share of domestic terrorism. And this is also in the wake of the president s refusal to fully and forcefully condemn White Supremacists. Its a very dark hour which when some of our leadership in the Intelligence Community is comma commandeered instead of speaking truth to power. 45 years ago the committees investigated the abuses of another corrupt administration, abuses that included not only secret attempts to uhuh sasinate foreign leaders but efforts by our Intelligence Community by monitoring their political activities. 1975, seems like a long time ago but some of those abuses seem all too familiar today. They produced a series of recommendations including to create standing permanent congressional committees that would act as a check on the Intelligence Community. These committeeerize a direct outgrowth of Richard Nixons abuse of the Intelligence Community. Our job today and every day on this committee is to ensure those abuses do not happen again. That is why we have called you here to testify, mr. Mahere. Hes the current official performing the duties as Undersecretary Office of intelligence and analysis at the department of Homeland Security. Mr. Maher is here persupt to a subpoena issued by the Committee Earlier this week. It became necessary when dhs continue today slow walk. The committee always expects hearing witnesses to answer its members questions, but today the issuance of the subpoena compels you to answer them fully and completely. In opening our investigation on august 3rd the committee requested documents. On august 19th we requested additional documents as well as testimony from senior dhs, ina officials. On september 9th the committee released a whistleblower complaint filed by the former head of dhs intelligence and Analysis Office, brian murphy, who alleged serious misconduct related to our Ongoing Investigation. Following substantial back and forth the department agreed to make available a number of witnesses for transcribed interviews and to provide some, only some of the documents we requested. However, the department is still withholding the vast majority of documents relevant to this committees Ongoing Investigation and oversight of the Intelligence Community more over, were displayed the department has slow walked thereby denying him the right to have counsel present for a deposition where we could learn Additional Details of his classified allegations. Allegations that the committee has a duty to independently investigate. Some of those allegations may prove accurate, others may not, but we have a duty to find out given their seriousness. We need to find out now and without delay. Because some of mr. Murphys allegations are classified and particularly those regarding the politicization of intelligence related to russian threats to our upcoming election itll be necessary for you to testify at least in part in closed session. Mr. Maher is also here today to explain in open discussion the departments obstructive efforts and to testify to matters under investigation by the committee. Well hold a classified session with mr. Maher following this open hearing so he may further testify about the allegations of misconduct were investigating. Finally, we may ask you broader questions in todays open hearing about the nature of the threats facing our country. That is because you represent an elomt of the Intelligence Community whose spaulkt is to Keep Congress fully and correctly informed of the threats to our nation, and because the director of National Intelligence has refused to appear publicly before this committee or the Senate Intelligence committee to discuss these threats, responsibilities his pred scissors respected on an annual basis. Instead senator rad california has chosen to publish unverified material which he admits may be fabricated before an election only weeks away, an error even john durham seems unwilling to perform. Mr. Maher, we expect you to level with the American People today and to speak truth to power. Thank you, and i now recognize mr. Nunes for his opening remarks. Welcome to another hearing of the trump impeachment committee. Ill begin by noting theres no reason for this hearing to be held in public except to stir up media interest in the democrats latest publicity stunt. Their attack on the leadership of the department of Homeland Security. The only reason mr. Maher is subpoenaed here today is leverage. Its fooforce dhs to rush through top secret security clearances without the appropriate background checks. In fact, there was no reason for the democrats to make this whistleblower complaint public at all. But of course the whistleblower complaints with discretion as this committee had always done before this congress is not helpful for publicity stunts. So here we go again. Lets recall the democrats on this committee were at the forefront of the russian collusion hoax. For years they falsely claimed they found secreteds of trumps conspiracy with russia. They showed memos on the fisa warrant to spy on Trump Associates and even tried to get nude pictures of trump from russian prank centers. They also touted the credibility of the steele dossier, that they had paid for themselves, the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign. They even read the steele dossier into this committees congressional record during hearings in the past. After a two year investigation, however, special counsel mueller vowed to find the secret collusion evidence the democrats claimed to secretly possess. And since then weve learned the steele dossier the democrats championed was a mix of fake stories, rumors, bar room gossip and jokes collected by a suspected russian spy at the behest of the Democratic National committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign. Furthermer the department of justice Inspector General found the fisa warrant application the democrats defended for years was riddled with mistakes, omissions, even withheld exculpatory evidence and relied on a doctored email hiding a Trump Associates past cooperation with a u. S. Intelligence agency. The democrats have not called a single hearing to investigate any of these issues even though this committee is supposedly dedicated to overseeing the Intelligence Community and investigating abuses. Theyve held a hearing on Global Warming but dont care about documented corruption of the fisa process or suspected russian agents compiling political dirt for the Democratic Party. After mueller testified to this committee and again failed to expose the mythical collusion conspiracy, the democrats suddenly switched tracks and impeached President Trump based on an anonymous whistleblower complaint from a bureaucrat who we later learned had coordinated his attack with the democratic staff of you guessed it, this very committee. Despite the democrats insisting theyd never had any contact with this whistleblower. Although the democrats brought our oversight work to a halt for months and completely transformed this committee to an impeachment committee, even holding ridiculous secret depositions that were leaked nightly to their media stooges followed by public show trials with the witnesses they found most useful. The impeachment of the house was such a transparent fraud that not a single republican voted for it. After the collapse of the russian collusion hoax and failure to oust President Trump via impeachment the democrats suddenly ginned up a new investigation, issued their usual slew of press releases and have now forced us into an open hearing. And its certainly amusing although this complaint is supposed to be handled by the Inspector General first the democrats have dispensed with the ig as an unnecessary middleman. Probably because the ig investigations take time, and the democrats are operating on an election deadline. This all has a familiar ring to it. Almost all the democrats are following a play book. I would note usually you dont follow a play book from a game youve lost multiple times, but once again theyre pushing into the limelight a complaint by a whistleblower. Small world. It may seem the whistleblower has some credibility problems. After the whistleblower certainty an email directly contradicting his allegations. Furthermore the democrats themselves called him a liar, just a few weeks before he filed his complaint, even threaten today criminally refer the whistleblower. But now suddenly hes their star witness. Nevertheless i doubt my democratic colleagues will breeze right past these contradictions and the media mouthpieces wont draw any attention to these awkward problems just like theyll ignore the testimony of multiple career officials delivered during the interviews that weve scheduled and conducted over the last few months which directly contradicts their new whistleblowers claims. So here we go again indulging the democrats dream that theyll find the holy grail of scandals that finally gets rid of trump. Without beating him in the election. Of course foreign threats and intelligence challenges dont dprie grind to a halt while they persee these sick fantasies. And this one is clearly sick. Weve had violence all over this country. It involves a bizarre sympathy for antifa. Theyve been burning down many of our countrys major cities. I know some of you antifa has an idea. Thankfully the Trump Administration does not. Yield back. Well now proceed to questions under the fiveminute rule. Mr. Maher, the allegations leveled against your office are credible, serious and wide ranging. They cover everything from abuse of authority and mismanagement of intelligence programs to the politicization of intelligence. Were going to review these allegations during the course of the hearing, and i want to give you a chance to respond as well to other important issues under your purview. Let me start with a few what should be fairly easy questions. Is russia interfering in our election . Yes or no . Youll have to turn your mic on, sir. Yes. Is russia actively spreading disinformation about our elections . I would refer to the director of National Intelligence statement in august he made public about election interference and talked about russias efforts. Were those statements out lined russia did spread disinformation. Do you have reason to quarrel with that . I have no reason to quarrel with it. Have you issued a bulletin on this subject . We issued a number of bulletins on russias maligned foreign influence, and those are usually issued not for public consumption, and so we have issued a number of bulletins on foreign influence by russia. Is russia actively trying to denigrate joe biden . Yes. And im sure you saw recently the director wrays testimony. The Intelligence Communitys consensus is russia has tried to influence our elections. We certainly have seen active efforts by the russians to influence our elections in 2020. He also said that the russians were trying to, quote, denigrate Vice President biden and what the russians see as a kind of antirussian establishment. You agree with director wray, do you not . I do agree. That makes it hard to explain a september press report that dhs leadership delayed publication of an intelligence bulletin in july that warned russian efforts to denigrate joe biden. The dhs bulletin was at one point titled, quote, russia likely denigrate health of u. S. President ial candidates to influence 2020 election. Do you recall that bulletin, mr. Maher . Im familiar with the bulletin, yes. Was the title of that bulletin later changed to remove the name of russia . Im not going to discuss internal deliberations about products, but i can tell you that product was issued in aurally september, and ina stands behind the content of that product including its title. So you will not answer the question whether russia was deliberately removed from the title of that product . Im not going to discuss internal deliberations. So there was an internal deliberation on changing the title. On that product there was internal deliberation on a number of aspects. I think the committee has that product in its possession. And like i said the intelligence and Analysis Office stands behind the content of it from its title to substance. Why would the title be changed, mr. Maher, when the idna issued a Public Statement during that same period that, quote, russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President biden. Again, to discuss the content of it, its a nonpublic document that was issued by our Intelligence Office. When we go into close session will you explain to us why the title was changed . Again, im not going to discuss deliberations but the committee can read the document and it speaks for itself the threats. Is it your position if you were given improper political instructions or others were to alter the intelligence analysis and work product that you would somehow decline to answer our questions about it because it would be considered internal discussions . If i was given improper political direction on intelligence product i would need to alert various officials, the Inspector General and possibly others, but ive not been given political direction on any intelligence product. Youre not drafting the it intelligence products, mr. Maher. But if you are aware of others who are exerting political interference to change the content title with hold materials you would answer those questions in closed session, will you not . I will clearly tell you i will naul have anybody taking political directions on anyway intelligence products within ina or my current position. I have not see that having been at ina, and if i did i would alert the correct officials. And how long have you been in your position . Since early august. And if you became aware or you have become aware, are you going to decline to answer those questions . I will be glad to talk about the decisions or actions of the agency, but im not going to talk about internal deliberations. Even if those involve the politicization of intelligence to suit the president ial political narrative . At this point today im not free to talk about internal deliberations. I will note, however, that Inspector General both the Intelligence Community and department of Homeland Security is aware. They have full access to any documents or any communications within dhs to look at those allegations. Mr. Maher, do you want to tell the American People who are watching why it is you wont be able to Tell Congress and through Congress Tell the American People whether youre privy to evidence of discussions of the politicization of intelligence regarding the upcoming election. Im not asking if youve been involved in discussions, but if you become aware of intelligence that Intelligence Reports were altered, withheld for political reasons, are you telling the American People you will not share that information with the congress . No, im telling them that if i become aware of evidence of that i would disclose it to the appropriate authorities im asking about congress. Youre under subpoena. Were asking the questions. Are you telling the American People youre not going to answer them . No, im not going to sayimate. So when we go into closed session youre going to tell Us Intelligence product were withheld or altered toitute a political narrative . Im not free to discuss internal deliberations about intelligence products. If im aware of things being directed to change things for a political narrative i would tell you that. Mr. Maher, youre aware of the public press reports about a bulletin of russian interfeerps in our election produced in july was withheld from distribution, are you not . Im aware of the press reports, yes. Are those press reports accurate . The activity it discusses that occurred before i got to the intelligence and analysis director let me just askia was that bulletin withheld from publication to those Law Enforcement agency snz. I dont think it was withheld. It was actually published in early september. There was additional work done on the bulletin, on the intelligence product. And it was released in early september. But it was finished in july. Did chad wolf, the president s political appointee intervene to with hold the distribution of that document . I dont have firsthand knowledge of what happened to the document before i got to a intelligence and Analysis Office in august. Well, what is your understanding of why it was withheld . Well, my understanding is that there were concerns raised about concerns with respect to the report in particular. It was reviewed and reworked by intelligence professionals in a product that is consistent with intelligence standards with a product produced in early september. And that was the trade craft concerns were raised by chad wolf, is that correct . I dont know exactly who all raised them. I know there were some raised, but i dont have firsthand knowledge. I dont want to speculate. So you havent looked into this issue enough to know who withheld the document for a period of months . No, i know it was reworked within the office of intelligence and analysis. I know there were concerns raised at some point. I dont know the details of who and when and what exactly, so i dont want to speculate. I can tell you that intelligence professionals looked at the Intelligence Report that was actually reworked and produced and stands behind the product that was produced. And when was that reworking done . I dont know exactly. I became aware of it i dont know exactly when i became aware of it, but i would say some time last august is my guess. I dont know to what extent what reworking was done on it before then. And was that reworking done because it became public that the document was withheld . Not to my knowledge. I became aware of it around the time of the auricles came out, was told what the status was and subsequently it was sent to me to review, and it was published. Mr. Maher, do you commit right here and now on behalf of ina to never with hold, delay or change intelligence bulletins due to political pressure or suspected political preferences by dhs leadership or the white house . Yes, i do. Mr. Maher, let me turn now to the delay thats brought you here. We have repeatedly sought to schedule brian murphy, the whistleblowers deposition. And the clearance for his attorney has been continually delayed. What are you doing to make that witness available to congress . Let me just kind of explain for the committee the security clearance process is run and managed by the Security Office with the undersecretary for management, so its not an intelligence and Analysis Office responsibility. But my understanding is that that process has actually been expedited quite a bit. That office is currently working on doing the professional work that it takes to grant a high level security clearance to those individuals. Weve never seen a problem like this and delays like this for the simple matter of an attorney to be present with his client during a hearing. Whos making this decision, and is the politically appointed general counsel to your knowledge intervening, discussing, involved in any way with the attorneys that would normally be doing the clearance . Ive not been involved in any discussions about how that clearance is going to run or how it should run. The decision is made for screening security clearances by the chief Security Officer at the department and or the deputy undersecretary for management. Has the politically appointed general counsel been in contact with those that have been doing the security clearance . I dont know. When we met a couple of weeks ago, mr. Maher, and i asked for your cooperation, i asked you whether you were the decisionmaker. And as i recall the answer wasnt particularly clear. The decision to provide documents or in this case with hold documents, the decision to with hold the security clearance, are those decisions being made by others, or are you taking responsibility for them in. Those are not decisions ultimately made by me. The leadership of the department besides contested decisions about release of documents, were there suspected security clearance issues suspected by the chief Security Officer and the deputy undersecretary for management and not by me. So the document production decisions are not made by you. Theyre made by political appointees . Yes. And the decision to make this witness available through a clearance for his counsel, thats being made by the internal Security Office of dhs, but you dont know whether the political appointees have been in communication with them, is that correct . Thats correct. Mr. Nunes, youre recognized. Welcome, mr. Maher. How are you doing today . Thank you, sir. I dont know what youre doing here to be honest with you. Youve been on the job a couple of months, month and a half . Yes, sir, less than two months. So this committee as i said in my opening statement, weve had unfortunately the last couple of years weve brought many people like yourself before this committee. Weve ruined a lot of peoples lives, and im going to try to make sure that doesnt happen to you here today. You have no business being here. First of all, where were you in 2016. I know you just came over to ina. What were you doing in 2016 . I was in the general Security Office. In the course of my job i am read into some intelligence activities, yes. Are you a russian expert . No. Are you familiar with any of the history of russia or what the Old Soviet Union has done throughout the last 70 years . I wouldnt describe myself as an expert in that area, no. I didnt think so, but you are aware of generally press reports and you follow the news, im assuming the last 4 years. To some extent, yes. Did you read and this is not a trick question, and i know its really boring, but did you read our committees report on russian active measures by any chance . I have not, no. Its great reading. You should maybe read it at some point. In that report we found for many decades we kept intelligence very, very quiet. It was classified. But what we put in that report essentially is that we knew the russians and before that the sove soviet union were always actively involved in election interference. In fact, during the Obama Administration the russians did a lot of election interference in other countries. And of course they were doing what they usually do to this country. It was nothing new. We always knew about it. That intelligence was shared with this committee. But in early 2016 the republicans on this committee had become so concerned about the inaction by the Obama Administration on russia, it became so peculiar and odd that russia was essentially doing whatever they wanted. Theyd march into ukraine, take crimea, be involved in syria, libya, all over the globe and consistently the Obama Administration didnt do a damn thing about it. This committee made very clear statements, at least the republicans did that the largest intelligence failure since 9 11 2001 was our intelligence agencys inability to understand putins plans and intentions. That was the republicans plans in 2006. The mead kwu will egnor it. They even ignored the work we did because what we ultimately found was during that same time frame in 2016 the Clinton Campaign and democrats were up to some really, really nasty stuff theyve continued to hide from the American Public. They developed and paid for a series of dossiers. They hired a former British Agency through cut outs no less. Those cut outs, they went through a law firm. They laundered money to a company that then hired this former british spy who then went and actually claimed he was working with a russian, but it actually ended up being a rug that was only a few miles from here and previously worked for the brookings institute, now we just find out he was specced of being a russian spy at one point. They put together the dossiers. Have you heard of the steele dossiers . Yes. So did you read those steele dossiers when they came out and they were published in 2016 . I didnt read them specifically. Theyre fairly salacious, arent they . Yes. 17 years dhs public servant, not a political appointee. Correct. Were you surprised that the Fbi Department of justice would use these dossiers that were osalacious and unverified, not my words, the words of the former fbi director, they would use them to get a fisa warrant . Thats an area im not an expert in. I dont have the particular details of it, so id refer to the committee. But the dossiers you do know were paid for by the Democratic National committee and the Clinton Campaign. Thats what ive read. So here we are now 4 years later where you have the democrats continuing to try to cover up and blame russia for something that we knew russia had been doing for the last 70 years. But they decided to make it public. You know who really interfered in the election . They did, the democrats. They interfered in the 2016 election. They interfered in the 2018 election. They poisoned the minds of americans with their vile lies and dirt and covered up what the National Republican party had paid for and fed into our Intelligence Services. They used it to raise money in the 2018 election. Even the other night in the debate i dont know did you have a chance to watch the debate, mr. Maher . Portions of of it. Joe biden, their candidate who was in the room when they began investigating Trump Officials based on anonymous dirt that they had paid for, general flynn, three star general, former head of the Defense Intelligence agency, paid for dirt on him, fed it into the fbi, got fisa warrants on Trump Campaign officials. They poisoned the minds of millions of americans. Joe biden the other night still made the claim even though he was in the room back in 2016 that trump had something nefarious, some nefarious dealings with russia. You know what question he didnt answer and what the moderator didnt even ask . Why would joe bidens son get 3. 5 million from a Russian Oligarch closely tied with putin . Its almost like we live in a fantasy land here where they accuse you, the democrats accuse you what theyre doing themselves. The media will ignore it. Theyll continue to ignore it. I have no idea how youll have the son of the Vice President receiving millions of dollars not just from people with ties to putin, kazakhstan, ukraine, even china. Fbi didnt seem interested in investigating any of that. They took the democrats dirt and the clinton dirt, and they opened up an investigation into the Trump Campaign and republican party, their adversaries. This committee has met with countless countries, all of us on this dias, Intelligence Services all over the world, allies, adversaries, people in the middle. Were always concerned about whether or not theres any election interference especially by the countrys Intelligence Services and intelligence agencies. Ive sat in so many meetings with Senior Intelligence officials around the world, and its one of the first things you always talk about. I hope youre speaking truth to power, that youre not getting involved in elections, that youre trying just to gather intelligence and protect your own country and hopefully we can work with you. And yet here we are, shiny city on a hill and the Democratic Party corrupted our Intelligence Services. And im really sad youre here today. Department of Homeland Security, which granted we have we have some small jurisdiction over you, but i heen were really supposed to be making sure our intelligence agencies are protecting this country. And look, i dont have all the details yet. Weve been doing lots of tribed interviews from your employees and officials that work for you, but i know this much. Cities are burning all over this damn country, and antifa is not an idea. And i expect the department of Homeland Security to do what they can to protect our federal property, statues, and this city just a mile from here torn down, all over the country, torn down. Even africanamericans leeaders were torn down. This is the department of Homeland Security, mr. Maher and a simple question, but im going to state the obvious here. Dont you have a responsibility to protect federal property . Yes, we do. Under title 40 we have a specific statutory responsibility to do that. So you were doing that. Youre providing intelligence in portland, seattle. Youre feeding these reports i know that go out around the country, correct . Correct, yes. Weve even seen some foreign involvement in these protests around the country. Its pretty alarming. Antifa is not an idea, mr. Maher. Its a radical group, and theres a lot of groups like them. And i have no idea why the democrats would be protecting antifa. This is bizarre, bizarre strange events were witnessing right here. And hopefully someone in the media will cover this. But i doubt it. Yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Maher. What is truly bizarre was the Ranking Members statement any democrat would protect antifa. Thats never happened, its never been alleged. That is truly bizarre. But what we are here to talk about is not antifa but a myriad of conspiracies, but quite serious allegations of a violation of american Civil Liberties. Id like to ask you about information the dhs intelligence personnel tried to extract information from messages. The Homeland Security Investigations Division within i. C. E. One of those innocent suivalians told the post, and i quote, i didnt know iffiest going to be seen again. Another dhs official was wrongly classified as a foreign national. We understand many detained had their phones confiscated. At least some of those protesters had not had their phones returned months later. Those phones appear to have been in the possession of the federal protective Services Without a search warrant. Again, without a search warrant. Witnesses have testified to the committee that the federal protective service seized phones of protesters and discussed with ina the extraction and exploitation of data from those phones in order to identify connections between protesters those requests apparently came down to dhs Hitech Office whose director testified they did not ultimately accede to the request to exploit the data because there was no search warrant. Now, Law Enforcement regularly reviews thecontents of electr electronics taking from criminals, for example if theyre part of an organized crime or a gang of some kind. What im concerned about is this is an element of the United States Intelligence Community, not Law Enforcement personnel, is being asked to use tools meant for countertearism or National Security threats against americans who are exercising their constitutional rights. So my question to you, sir, is did dh ssina, the unit you now lead, receive a request to exploit Network Analysis of the phones of protesters in portland . Congressman, my understanding is we have not exfiltrated or exploited any cell phones of private individuals. Sir, with due respect, that wasnt my question. My question was, did ina receive a request to exploit those phones . I have heard that, but let me also kind of say that the Inspector General of our department is investigating activities in portland. He is specifically asked me not to interview individuals within ina about things that are under investigation, so i have not spoken to all of the people that one might normally speak to if you were investigating that. Sir, you just said you had heard that. Those were your words, you had heard that. From who had you heard that ina received such a request . I dont recall. You said you heard it. You repeated it here today. Do you believe that theres credibility to what you heard . I didnt repeat it, but i did say i heard it. And i cant remember which who told me that within the office. I dont recall. Okay, but you dont have reason as evidenced by the tact that you reported it here to us today, you dont have reason to doubt that there was a request to exploit the phones of american citizens . I dont have reason to doubt that. I didnt report it today, but i dont have reason to doubt it. Okay. Would ina, an Intelligence Community unit, typically or commonly look at personal information of protesters or would you characterize that as rare and maybe even unprecedented . Well, the authorities for our Intelligence Office are different than Law Enforcements. Theyre different than other intelligence agencies which operate outside of the United States in that we do not have authority to covertly collect information like that. We collect information overtly and through open source means. Right, and for that reason, it would be pretty legitimate, in fact maybe even shocking if an intelligent Community Element for precisely the reason you just outlined were in fact asked to exploit the phones of american citizens, especially without a warrant. Is that correct . I suppose someone who is not familiar with our authorities may ask that. I dont know. I dont know the specifics of what those conversations were. So you have said that you heard that there were discussions that occurred. Did you hear who the people were or what the elements were that were asking ina to exploit those phones . No, i dont know those details. Okay. I yield back my time. Mr. Conaway. Let me mention, the votes are started, but as were voting in shifts, were going to work through the vote. I would suggest that members that have already had a chance to ask questions vote and come back or those of you that wont have a chance to ask questions for some time in the order might want to go vote now. Mr. Conaway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Maher, im not sure why youre here either. Just the previous questioner may have trapped you into saying something i dont know if you wanted to say. I actually heard about the allegations that ina was asked to exploit those telephones from the questioner. And so your question, your answer could have been that you heard it from him. So just be careful when youre answering questions. The background check process is important to our nation, right . It is. It is very important. Who has access to tssci information that doesnt go through a background check other than members of congress . Nobody. Nobody. Is there something about the law profession, and i know youre a lawyer. Im a cpa. Theres a bit of is there something about the law profession, some oath that they take that makes a lawyer more or less likely to be a risk to misuse classified information . That would exempt them from the background check . No. In our practices at the departments, it doesnt matter what your profession is. You need to go through a background check. This committee, i have been here a long time, maybe the only person longer is our chairman, and we have had constant conversations about the length of time it takes to do background checks. Its a constant thorn in the side of everyone out there because they cant get the background check done. And the system has worked to try to shorten that timeframe, not for purposes like this, but for the purposes of getting people employed. Its not an unusual circumstance that it does take some time to do that. You wear two hats today. Deputy Principal Deputy chief general counsel and acting undersecretary of ina. To be clear, under either one of those hats, do you have the authority to waive a background check . I do not. Do you have the authority to grant a background check . A conclusion of a background check . No, the chief Security Officer exercises the authority. And does he work for you . He does not. Okay. So you look like to me to be a hostage. The chairman mentioned that in his opening statement. Youre here simply because the majority could not bully the agency into doing something that the agency should not do. And that is grant security clearance to somebody who hasnt gone through the background check, who hasnt had to answer the questionnaire that is appropriate for anyone who is requesting a background check. The Committee Majority is wanting to circumvent that to the detriment of our nation. And i know they think its for their purposes because they get this attorney in and get mr. Murphy in here. This is an open session. Mr. Murphy could be here today, he could be sitting right there. So is it your professional judgment that it would be appropriate to waive background checks in these circumstances . No, its not. Are you aware of any conversation among folks at dhs to use the background check as obstruction to slow down mr. Murphys testimony in front of this committee . No, im not. And nobody is playing games that youre aware of . No. You have been in Government Service for a long time. I have. Is the Trump Administration the First Administration to have political appointees at your agency . No, every administration has political appointees. From the earlier conversations, it sounds as if its almost unique and somehow untoward for the Trump Administration. So what im hearing you say is the Obama Administration had political appointees at dhs. Yes, sir. Were they simply figureheads . Did they sit in an office and collect a salary or did they have a role to play . They take a significant role. And that role is inappropriate in your mind . Its not inappropriate for political appointees to take a role. Hard to tell that from questioning that you got earlier that somehow political appointees are automatically, you know, bad or a risk to our nation and are doing things they shouldnt do without any evidence to that fact. How long the documents that you fill out to start the background check process, how many pages is that . Its quite a few pages. And a lot of it, the length of what has to be reviewed depends on things like how much foreign travel you have done, the individuals you have interacted with, things of that nature. Okay, so if a lawyer has been extensively involved in those types of things, the packet could be extensive and the review could take some time. It could. I apologize on our side of the committee. You should not be here. I yield back. I would just point out, mr. Maher, were not talking about a background check for the purposes of a new hire in an intelligence agency. Were talking were talking about a background check for the purposes of sitting in on a deposition or interview. Those are normally conducted in 24 hours, at the most a few days. During the two hours that mr. Nunes, chair of the russia investigation, we never had a delay of this kind, so this is unprecedented. Mr. Sewell. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to turn to the disturbing allegations that dhs has tried to minimize the threat posed by violent white supremacist groups and play up the threat from antifa and radical whats perceived at radical leftwing groups in a bid to support President Trumps political narrative. On september 17th, director wray testified that White Supremacists posed the greatest domestic security threat. He said, and i quote, within the domestic terrorism bucket, the category as a whole radically motivated violent extremism is, i think, the biggest bucket within that larger group. And within that radically motivated violent extremist bucket, people subscribing to some kind of white supremacist type of ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that. Sir, do you concur with director wrays assessment regarding the fact that white supremacist groups are the largest, quote, chunk in that bucket . I agree with him, yes. Do you have any reason to question the accuracy of director wrays recent testimony that racially motivated violent extremism mostly from White Supremacists makes up the majority of the domestic threats . No. During earlier this week, President Trump seemingly ignored his fbi director and refused during the president ial debate to denounce White Supremacy. In fact, he did just the opposite. He told the proud boys, a notorious violent white supremacist group, to quote, stand down and stand by. They interpreted the president s remarks as an endorsement, equally disturbing, your predecessor acknowledges that in may and june of this year, he met with acting director deputy secretary cuccinelli to ask about the release of a dhs intelligence assessment on domestic Terror Threats. Mr. Cuccinelli is alleged to have ordered that the assessment be modified to make the threat of White Supremacy appear less severe. And include information on violent leftwing groups and antifa. In addition, mr. Cuccinelli and acting secretary wolf allegedly directed your predecessor, mr. Murphy, to change other Intelligence Briefings that were shared with federal and state and local enforcement agencies to insure that they match President Trumps description of the danger posed by antifa. Mr. Maher, did mr. Wolf and mr. Cuccinelli direct mr. Murphy to modify dhs intelligence assessment to play down the threat of White Supremacists . I have not been involved in any of those conversations so i dont i dont want to speculate. So you can either confirm nor deny that such an assessment was done, a downgrade was made in the assessment . I would say thats correct, although i would say its out of character for i have never been asked by mr. Wolf to change an intelligence assessment to minimize anything. But youre not saying that mr. Murphy would not have been asked by them. You dont know whether or not thats true or not . I was not at those conversations so i cant speak to them. Earlier, you acknowledged that part of the authority of dhs is to protect Federal Buildings. Irrespective of who actually damages them. Is that correct . Thats correct. So do you commit to insuring that dhs does produce intelligence assessments and would treat any Extremist Group that violates the law or damages any Federal Building the same . Yes, i think our department is committed to protecting federal facilities regardless of whos committing the violence. Do you also commit to insuring that dhs produces intelligence assessments that are based on intelligence and other information and not based on the opinions and thoughts of President Trump . Yes. That is correct. Or his political appointees . Yes. Thank you for appearing before us today. I know that you have a very tough job. I think the American People deserve to make sure that the assessments that are given by the Intelligence Community, whatever component, whether its within the 17 agencies or within dhs, are based on intelligence and not on conjecture. Thank you, sir. Dr. Winstrop. Thank you, and thank you for being here. Before we begin, i want to correct something high colleague from connecticut said. Two career ina officials testified that a formal request to exploit phones was never received. Phones were taken from people arrested for federal crimes. Thats normal procedure for Law Enforcement. Ina determined a warrant was required before they would ever exploit the phones. Moving from there, i again, want to thank you for being here. And understand that many on this committee have aspirations outside of the work here. This committee should never be used as a platform for fictional playwrighting. But here we are again. You know, in 18, we went to the minority, we lost seats. They went to majority and gained seats. I look down and i see some of my colleagues here and i feel badly because i dont know that theyre ever going to know what this committee should be doing and how it should function. And thats a shame. And to go back to the point about foreign influence on elections, russia and others, we know this has been happening for decades. They try to sway our elections. They try to disrupt our society. Thats not news, but its our role to prevent it. Thats what we should be doing for the American People. Trying to prevent it so that we have free and Fair Elections without outside influence. And frankly, to me, as i have sat here for the last few yearser thereyears , theres nothing more revoting that the idea of a Political Campaign paying russians or any other foreign adversary for misinformation against their opponent. Let me get to the point at hand, mr. Murphy. We know mr. Murphy was reassigned to dhs management director when an ig investigation was launched into allegations about his department and his actions. Is that correct . Yes, sir. Do you know if acting secretary wolf was concerned that the ig investigation could not be done in a fair and unbiased manner if mr. Murphy remained as head of ina and continued to direct or manipulate staff during the investigation . I know the secretary was concerned about some of the reports that were issued and wanted to make sure that the Inspector General was able to look at the situation and provide a report to him. Are you aware of any efforts by mr. Murphy to contact ina employees since he filed his reprisal complaint on september 8th . I am aware of that, yes. And because we wouldnt want him to try to explain away any inconsistencies from things that he said or did in their presence that his complaint expressly contradicts, would we or would you . Im sorry, can you rephrase the question . I have the concern that, you know, he may be going back to staff to try to explain away the inconsistencies that have been presented to us from the things he said or did in their presence and that his complaint expressly contradicts. I agree that thats not a good course of action. That would be a concern. Do you know if mr. Murphy tried to ask for his former subordinates to support the allegations he made or to try to explain away the inconsistencies about things he said or did in their presence that his complaint expressly contradicts . I dont know the specifics of the conversations. I know it was somewhat disconcerting to a number of people to basically have their former boss call them about this and for, you know, their knowledge, he may be their future boss, so its you know, its disconcerting to some people. Did any of those Staff Members come forward to you to express their concerns with this taking place . I heard from a number of people that calls like that had happened. You heard from them directly or indirectly . From someone else . I heard from some directly, some indirectly. It sounds like concerns that he might be inclined to direct or manipulate ina staff are pretty reasonable. Would you agree with that . I would rather not characterize it. I think that the people at ina are somewhat distracted by a lot of this. I think that they have a passion to focus on the work of securing the country and producing excellent intelligence products, and so i think they will be more than glad when this chapter is passed. But i think that they, as a workforce, are focused on protecting our homeland, and thats what they want to be doing. And thats what we want them to be doing as well. I want to thank you for your time here today. And appreciate your service to the country. Thank you. Mr. Quigley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Maher. Let me ask you, sir, about the creation of intelligence products on journalists, two that youre aware of in particular. Mike baker of the New York Times and vin wben wittes of lw fair. Why were these created . I dont know why they were created. The Inspector General is doing an investigation and asked me not to interview particular employees about them so i dont know why they were created but they have been rescinded and they shouldnt have been created. They what . They should not have been created. Are you aware of any other reports, intel products created on any other journalists . Um, not that i can think of. There are a number of other reports, so after i came in, we had were having two reviews done. We had an initial review done of all of the reports created since may. There were a number that we found that were inappropriately issued. Those have been rescinded. We had a subsequent review done by a different part of the office thats independent. And that is ongoing, so there were a number of other reports that were issued that shouldnt have been issued. I dont recall any of them being about reporters specifically. Is it that you dont know if they were about a specific reporter or you dont know whether they were about any other journalists or not . I dont think that they were about journalists specifically. There were other reasons why the reports were not appropriate under intelligence tradecraft. And the acting secretary put out a statement condemning the activity, and as you say, it said there would be an open investigation. We all hope he is as we assume sincere about that. My understanding is that some of the information on these two reporters relating to what was called baseball cards that ina has created on protesters, youre familiar with this term . Im familiar with the term, yes. These cards gather information on protesters, correct . They were in this case. I dont know the specifics, again, because the Inspector General is doing a review of that, so i dont know the specifics of the ones youre mentioning. Well, not about these two reporters but to your knowledge, were these baseball cards used to collect information on Peaceful Protesters or any protesters . Not to my knowledge with a caveat, again, i have not specifically delved into that in a way you would if there was not another investigation going on. Typically, they are used on terrorists, correct . Correct. Theyre usually used by someone who has been convicted or arrested for violence. Or terrorism. So in a sense, using the baseball cards in this manner is equating anyone out there protesting as terrorists, correct . Again, i dont know specifically that any were created about people who were just protesting. There should not be reports created about people who are only exercising First Amendment protected activities. Could you restate that . Sure. I dont know specifically about the reports youre mentioning, but Intelligence Reports should not be generated about americans who are just exercising First Amendment protected activities. And baseball cards are part of that, correct . In the manner of collecting and using it in that fashion . Well, like i said, my understanding of that term is its typically used by to identify people who are either terrorists or have been convicted of violent activity. But at this point, does the agency believe that protesters in portland are akin to terrorists . No, there are a lot of protesters who are simply exercising First Amendment protected activitieactivities. There are other people who are committing violence in those circumstances, but there are a lot of people who are just exercising First Amendment protected activities. Youre agreeing we shouldnt be creating files on american citizens, correct . Correct, unless theyre terrorists or other committing other federal crimes. But the assumption is the fact theyre out there protesting doesnt make them a candidate to be a terrorist . Correct, the fact someone is just protesting in portland or anywhere in the United States is not a basis for intelligence officials to be collecting information on them or reporting on them. Thank you. My time is complete. I yield back. Mr. Stewart. Welcome again, sir. Were grateful youre here. I think i speak for i hope all of us. Thank you for your 17 years of service. But i gotta echo something that i think the Ranking Member said, and thats in many ways im sorry youre here. You are part of what this committee unfortunately has proven that they can do so well. And that is to seek to destroy the reputations and the lives of innocent people. And sometimes it appears that they do this with ease. They do it with false accusations, malicious accusati accusations, everything from treason to working with foreign agents to cohorting with prostitutes and every single one of these malicious accusations made for years, every one of them is untrue. And i gotta tell you, i have it appears to me you have little firsthand knowledge of the primary concerns here. You have been weeks on the job. As i said, you appear to have no firsthand knowledge. You wouldnt expect to have firsthand knowledge. Its outside of your responsibility. I think i could put my boot up there behind that microphone and it would have as much information as you have regarding these. And thats unfortunate you would be here and drug before a committee in open session, which is nothing but a political exercise, to be asked questions for which you have no responsibility. And i dont mean to minimize your role, but honestly, sir, this isnt about you. You are unfortunately a prop, because it allows this committee to hold hearings and to rail against the president once again over nonsense, and you get a front row seat to what some hope is impeachment 2. 0. And i think this hearing is another example and some of the absurd accusations that have already been made is another example of why this committee has lost its way. And why this committee no longer does its job of providing credible, honest oversight of important intelligence at work. And its another example of why this committee, what used to be the crown jewel of bipartisanship, what used to be the reason that most of us wanted to be on this committee, i would hope the reason every one of us wanted to be on this committee was because of important work we did in a bipartisan manner. And now its become the most partisan, untrusted, and minimized committee in all of congress. Because we have watched what is happening to you happen for years now. Again and again and again, to innocent people. And its why so many of us who are on this committee to came here to do serioUs Intelligence work are so disappointed that once again were doing this bit of a television drama. And i want to correct the record on a couple things in the time i have left and then ask you something i think is important. In this hearing, there are a number of things that have been said that we know are untrue. Im not going to spend the time i have reviewing them but i want to hit a couple quickly because theyre relevant and important. Its been said only russia is using active measures to influence this campaign or support one candidate over another. We know thats not true. Every one of us have been to the hearings. Every one of us have seen the analysis. We know thats not true. China is doing the same thing. So are a number of other countries. Its been said, and this is just so absurd to me, its been said the president continues to refuse to condemn White Supremacy. What nonsense. He has done so again and again and again. He did so as recently as two nights ago. Now, if youre Washington Post or cnn reporter, i can understand why they keep going with that story, but this committee shouldnt be involved in nothing but political hackary like that. Making accusations and saying things that we know are not true, but its not the first time thats happened. In the little less than a minute i have for you, i have a question that i think is very relevant. What would happen to our National Security if we set the precedent that all you have to do is have a whistleblower complaint and we will waive all National Security concerns and read in any attorney that individual chooses and waive all of our standard procedures as background checks . What would that do to our National Security if we did what this committee is asking to be done now . I think if you dispense with the professional checks that are done to do that, i think it could present a grave danger. Top secret information is information that if its disclosed is reasonably expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to National Security. So there are reasons why the professionals who are experts in conducting background checks and granting security clearances spend a lot of time on that. And ill conclude, my time has expired, but it doesnt take a genius to figure that out. This endangers our National Security if we do what this committee has asked you and others to do. Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, mr. Maher. Thank you chairman. I want to correct something that is your microphone on . Thank you. I want to correct something that my colleague from utah just said. Mr. Maher, it is not the view of the Intelligence Community that china and russia are equally acting in this election. In fact, mr. Maher, the Intelligence Community, and you have cited the odni assessment earlier, says russia has a preference for donald trump. Is seeking to denigrate joe biden, and is seeking to help President Trump. Is that correct . Right. I would agree with the statement of the director of National Intelligence on this. So when my colleague from utah says china is doing exactly the same thing, has a preference for a candidate, and is actually actively seeking to help a candidate and seeking to tear down a candidate, thats not accurate, is that right . I think any kind of conversation i would have on that should be done in closed session. I can say in open session that is false. And its false for the American People to walk away and believe theres any equivalence between what russia and china are doing. In fact, yesterday, the National Security adviser for the former National Security adviser for the president , mcmaster, said donald trump is aiding and abetting putins efforts. This is the president s former National Security adviser. He went on to say that the sustained campaign of disruption, disinformation, and denial is aided by any leader who doesnt acknowledge it. Do you agree with the former National Security adviser . Im not going to comment on political statements like that. Mr. Maher, is it your understanding that beginning in march 2020, that dhs stopped providing to congress certain products on the threat from russia . Im not familiar with that. That was before i joined the intelligence and Analysis Office. Is it your understanding that dhs continued to produce intelligence products internally on russias attack on our election between march and september 2020 . We have produced a number of products that go to the Intelligence Community as well as the committee on russias influence. But nothing was sent to congress during that period, is that right . Im not familiar with that. Do you agree that internally if you were producing products on russia, congress should be made aware . My understanding is this committee in particular has access to our finished intelligence, so there are a number of finished intelligence products we have on topics like that. Are you aware of an alleged direction by National Security adviser obrien to dhs to stop producing intelligence assessments on russias election interference and instead to focus on china and iran . Im not aware of that. Are you aware of the same allegation regarding acting dhs secretary wolf passing the same instruction to your predecessor . Im aware of the allegation. Im not aware of that as a fact. Do you know whether former acting dni Richard Grenell directed or requested that the Intelligence Community including dhs report more on china and iran despite russia being the most direct threat. Im not aware of that. And im not asking if you were directly told that. Are you aware from others that former acting dni grenell instructed your colleagues to focus more on china or iran . I have never been told that by the people who work in my office. According to testimony provided to our committee, are you aware that mr. Wolf and mr. Ken cuccinelli both told intelligence and analysis leadership to expand the scope of election interference Intelligence Reporting to china even though the Intelligence Communitys Public Statements indicate that the only that only russia is engaged in active measures to denigrate one candidate and support another . Im not aware of that. Ill yield to the chairman if he has any questions. I do not. Lets see. Mr. Heck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Maher, im sure you would agree that the southern border has been a preoccupation of the administration for some time. It was obviously a Campaign Issue in 2016. Leading to chants of build that wall. And in fact, during the last four years, funds were illegally diverted for that purpose. All of this, of course, to keep foreigners out of our country. You will recall that in 2017 and 18, the president rallied for the hardening of our borders to purportedly protect the country from migrant caravans coming from central america. At the time, there were all kinds of conspiracy theories floating around about who was funding the caravans and on october 17th, 2018, one of my colleagues made accusations that george soros or u. S. Backed ngos offered cash to migrants to encourage them to join the caravan. Mr. Maher, are you aware of any efforts by ngos or george soros to secretly give out cash to migrants to encourage them to join a caravan . I am not. But i think the officials within customs and Border Protection are probably much more closer youre personally not aware of any information to that effect . Correct. The day after that, by the way, the president suggested on twitter that democrats were somehow supporting the caravans. No surprise. Im sad to say that this whole issue has raised its ugly head again during the course of our investigation. We have learned that individuals at ina, individuals in leadership positions, discussed whether the Intelligence Community should collect and report on the Funding Sources of these migrant caravans. These ina employees not just at one illadvised meeting but over the course of numerous conversations discussed a possible plan to collect and report on ngos who might be assisting migrant caravans. We learned that ina engaged with other intelligence agencies about this idea of tracking Funding Sources for migrant caravans. Mr. Maher, were you aware of any discussions about collecting intelligence or reporting on ngos who were purportedly assisting migrant caravans . No. As an attorney in the ic and in your current role as senior official performing the duties of undersecretary, do you believe the ina should be conducting intelligence activities with respect to ngos . I would have to go a lot more details. I think the mission of the Intelligence Office is spelled out in executive order 12333 and the guidelines that go along with that executive order. And so whenever youre looking at whether its an appropriate activity for our Intelligence Office to be collecting or reporting on various activities, you need to look to see whether that activity fits within the mission set thats laid out there. So you think its possible its appropriate to spy on american ngos . You would never one, our office doesnt spy. Two, its not appropriate to collect information on an organization just because theyre a nongovernmental organization. I hope not. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, i dont know how many more times im going to have an opportunity to speak on this committee, certainly in open session. But the truth is, i have about had it. And there are a lot of parts of this place im going to miss considerably. It is a privilege to be here and an honor to be here. When i was in the state legislature, we had a rule against imputed the motives of other members of the body, and yet today i have sat here and listened to our members be accused of vile lies and malicious accusations. And again, i have had it. The fact of the matter is, this institution cannot function if as a course of regular diet we impugn the motives of our colleagues. We should keep our arguments to the subject matter at hand, to the policy at hand, and not impugn the motives of one another. We cant function that way. We cant craft legislation. We cant reach principled compromises. And we sure as hell cant exercise our constitutional responsibility and obligation to conduct oversight. And i apologize, but thats been boiling up in me for quite some time. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Heck. And we are going to deeply, deeply miss you on this committee and this congress. And im sorry, mr. Castro, i didnt see where you were seated. Well now recognize mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. I want to follow up on some of the questions that mr. Heck was asking and give you some context first. On january 11th, 2019, chairman schiff wrote a letter on behalf of the committee to mick mulvaney, dan coats, and then head of ina david gulaw we, concerning efforts from the white house to exagg ratd the threat of alleged caravans of y migrants from central and south america who were heading to the southern border. At the time, President Trump was trying to convince congress to fund the border wall. The letter noted that the white house and dhs had repeatedly claimed that in 2016, dhs had prevented 3,755 known or suspected terrorists, ksts, from entering the country in fiscal year 2017 when making its case for congress to fund the border wall. But dhs and the white house misleadingly failed to discloe how many of those so called ksts tried to cross the southern border. In mr. Murphys whistleblower complaint, he claimed dhs leadership at the time was potentially aware of the misleading statistics dhs and the white house were citing to support President Trumps argument for a border wall. What was not disclosed is that the number of alleged terrorists who attempted to cross the southern border was nowhere near the 3,755 figure the administration was using. In fact, according to mr. Murphy, it was less than ten. So heres my question. Were you involved in the discussions in late 2018 or early 2019 with dhs leadership or the white house about the number of alleged terrorists crossing the southern border, yes or no . No. Since then, has there been any pressure or request from the white house, dhs leadership, or anyone else to modify or underplay dhs intelligence assessments to support President Trumps continued crusade to build a border wall on the southern border . Not that im aware of. Are you aware of anybody elses activities in the department that would fit that bill . No. Okay. Have you heard any complaint about that, any allegations, anybody else in the department who made a comment to you or an offhand remark that would suggest this . No. I mean, i read newspaper reports just like you guys do, but im not familiar with specifics on anything like that. And those reports, if you have seen that alleged in news reports, have you followed up with anyone who was quoted or trying to figure out who an anonymous source was within the department, for example . No. Were get aglittle away from the specific details that i can think of, as im sitting here, no. Okay. As we sit here today, can you tell us how many known or suspected tear rshs were stopped at the southern border in 2017, 2018, and 2019 . I dont have that information right with me right now. Im sure the department has statistics on things like that. Will you provide us that information . Ill take it back to customs and Border Protection, which is the body that would have information like that. The efforts by this administration to manipulate intelligence and to deceive the American People about the real threats facing this nation are beyond disturbing. The president s efforts to justify his inhumane and wasteful wall on the southern border by misleading the American People about the number of alleged terrorists tr s tryie cross the border is just one more example of that. Its not just cynical, but it does real damage to our National Security. When our intelligence agencies begin falsifying information in order to appease the president or allowing the president to use their work product to mislead the American People, we have truly gone the way of authoritarianism. And then, i also want to say, mr. Maher, as chair of the congressional hispanic caucus, that over the last few years, the department of Homeland Security and some of the people who work there have committed, encouraged, or ignored severe human rights abuses that will be a stain on the history of this nation for many years to come. And the records and the reputations of the people who contributed to that work will also not be forgotten beyond these years. I yield back, chairman. Mr. Herd. Thank you, chairman. Very basic question. What is ina . Can you describe that . I think sometimes in these conversations, we make it sound Like Department of Homeland Security, intelligence and analysis is like mi5. Can you give us what is ina . Sure. The office of intelligence and analysis is an element of the department of Homeland Security that was created in the wake of 9 11 and the attacks there. Our office is a part of the larger Intelligence Community. Our office has limited authorities to collect information. We collect open Source Information and collect information overtly. We analyze that information in addition to other classified and unclassified information from both the Intelligence Community as well as operators within the department of Homeland Security in order to provide analysis and intelligence so that not only the department of Homeland Securitys operators in the field have that intelligence but also so that state and local officials have intelligence information for their operations. So you said you have limited authority to collect. And you collect information overtly. So do you run clandestine sources . No. You have no authority to conduct human intelligence operations . We do have some limited authority to do that. Its always noncovert, so an example would be our officials can interview people, letting them know who they are, not ubfuskating who they are or who they work for. As a former Intelligence Officer, its hard for me to hear the word intelligence and then overt, right . And so sometimes we conflate the two. And so what is an osir, an open source Intelligence Report . So thats raw Intelligence Report which is based on when you say raw, right, what does that mean . Its not finished intelligence. So finished intelligence involves analysis that analysis of the information thats looked at and is a product that is a finished product thats not subject to revision typically. But if Homeland Security or ina is doing an osir, would that raw intelligence have been humans that you have collected . It is possible that there is nonclassified human intelligence, for example, in the circumstance, the example i gave where it might involve even interviews of Law Enforcement officers that our officials might interview, get information about tactics that are being used, things like that. Those type of things could be put into an open source Intelligence Report or more likely finished intelligence. So is sending someone a newspaper article considered intelligence . No, if youre referring to the three open source Intelligence Reports that involved the journalists, that is not inappropriate production of Intelligence Report. But is it, you know, i think government officials all the time send information about this reporter just wrote this thing about something that may have something to do with us. Right. Is that considered espionage or collecting intelligence . No. Thats usually not that wouldnt be done in an Intelligence Report. I know these are very basic questions but i want to make sure we clarify all this. Yes, sir. Because i still think finka is the definition of intelligence, so this is this is new to me. Are you aware of any politicization of intelligence in ina . I am aware of some thats under review by the Inspector General. And that was the subject of news articles just before i came to ina. Got you. And this whistleblower, he filed his complaint on september 8th and then had to file a corrected complaint two days later. Is that your understanding . Thats my understanding. To correct falsehoods, potentially . Im not sure about the specific dates, but i understand that happened. And are you aware that the whistleblowers own emails contradict his complaint . I am aware of that. Got you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Welch. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Of the committees investigation, mr. Maher, and thank you for being here and thank you for your service, revealed a fact that i find alarming. And it is that the ina Intelligence Officers debriefed protesters who were taken into custody in portland. And as you know, ina is supposed to be in the business of intelligence gathering and analysis, not questioning u. S. Persons arrested at a protest. And i worry that the recent reports suggest that ina may have crossed the line in that questioning, who are citizens engaged in constitutionally protected activity. The specific allegations are that witnesses have testified that during the protests, ina surged Intelligence Offices from its Field Operations division to portland, and according to a former ina executive who testified on wednesday, some of these people were involved in questioning protesters when they were being held in federal custody. And that persons testimony is corroborated by two other witnesses who previously testified before this committee. Mr. Maher, would you clarify for the record on this issue. Please describe for us what role ina personnel played in responding to the protests in portland . So, i dont know all of the details, as i mentioned before, the Inspector General is doing a review and investigation of activities in portland. And i assume that would include those activities. Generally, our office, to the extent not generally, specifically in portland. I wasnt there. I wasnt at ina at the time that happened, so i cant speak to the specifics there. Thats being investigated by the Inspector General, youre saying . Thats my understanding. Did ina personnel question any protesters directly . Again, i dont know the specifics because thats under investigation. Thats not specifics. Its just a specific question. If there was a surge in personnel to portland, they had something they were intending to do there. And normally, they try to get intelligence, and intelligence gathering includes questioning people. So were they there and did they question protester snz. My understanding, again, subject to the Inspector Generals Ongoing Investigation, is ina officials were not there to be kind of Milling Around with protesters, collecting information of that fashion. Why were they there . Well, again, this is what happened before i came to the office. My understanding is they engaged in activities such as, like i said, interviewing Law Enforcement officials as they would come off duty or come off their standards out there. So im just trying to get specific here. And i understand you, quote, werent there, but you now have a very important position. Do you have any information to corroborate what these witnesses have said that ina personnel did in fact question or were in the room during questioning of protesters who were in custody . I dont im not trying to avoid the question. I dont know the specifics because i havent interviewed people. I havent kind of gone to tleeng lengths to discover that because of the Inspector Generals Ongoing Investigation and his role. Youre now the acting head, but youre telling me, as i hear it, that you dont want to find out what happened. Thats incorrect. Thats not correct. I do want to find out what happened. And i will find out what happened. When the Inspector General conducts his investigation. And would you tell us what happened . I would have no problem with telling the committee what happened. Is it your understanding that its improper for ina officials to be questioning protesters . Generally your job . Generally, yes. Ina, as i said, does have the authority to in an open fashion, on a voluntary basis talk to people. That would assume ina people identified themselves to protesters. Yes, they should be identifying themselves. Did they do that . I dont know the specifics. My understanding is that they did not just randomly interview protesters out there. So what im hearing is you dont know yet but you will know at some point. Yes. And the reason you dont know is because you werent in your job at that time, correct . Correct. Do you know whether ina has any written regulations or policies that govern whether and under what circumstances ina personnel can participate in questioning u. S. Persons in federal custody . There definitely are written guidelines with respect to the conduct of human intelligence for ina. And it talks about the parameters under which that can be done. All right, i yield back. My time is up. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Maher. Mr. Maloney. Good morning. Sir, lets get a couple of things straight. Because some of my colleagues seem to be confused about why youre here today. Am i correct that you are now currently the acting Principle Deputy undersecretary of the department of Homeland Security office of intelligence and analysis . Is that right . Not quite right but its a long title. But youre filling that job, right . Im filling im performing the duties of the undersecretary. Why are you doing that . Im sorry . Why are you doing that . The secretary asked me to do that in early august. Was there an opening, sir . No. No, there was not. Excuse me. Arent you performing mr. Murphys duties at this time . Yes. Thats what im getting at. And mr. Murphy was the Senior Intelligence official at the department of Homeland Security, am i right . He was, yes. And that office is the intelligence component of Homeland Security, am i right . Yes. Right. When we refer to the Intelligence Community over which this committee has primary jurisdiction, that office is one of those 17 elements of the Intelligence Community . It is. The reason youre doing this is because your immediate predecessor has been he alleges in a retaliatory way, dismissed, and hes filed a whistleblower complaint, in fact, and i think you and i could agree that whistleblower complaint is is, well, contained very serious allegations. Is that fair to say . Contains serious allegations. Those allegations, those allegations include improper political interference in the reporting of russian interference in an american president ial election, abuse of Civil Liberties of american protesters, and perjury before congress. Thats whats in that whistleblower complaint by the senior official in the intelligence component of the department of Homeland Security. I think thats a fair summary, right . Thats what hes alleged. In fact, hes alleged violations of law. I mean, youre nodding your head, right . Theres nothing controversial about what im saying. Im not trying to trap you. Not a trick question. Yes. Thats what were doing here, right . Right. And your department is also blocking right now, your department is blocking your predecessor, who we just agreed is the Senior Intelligence official at the department of Homeland Security over which this committee has jurisdiction, who has issued a whistleblower complaint alleging those serious allegations and violation of law, your department is right now blocking that official from testifying before this committee, before this congress, on those abuses. Thats what were doing here. Thats not my question. My question is, in case theres still confusion up here about why some of us are showing up for work today and doing our job, to oversee serious violations or allegations of violations at the highest levels of the Intelligence Community. So my question for you is, who is david glawe. Hes the former undersecretary for intelligence and analysis. You work with him . I do not work with him now. In the fall of 2018, he testified before the Homeland Security committee, did he not, that russia was he confirmed russia had interfered in the election, and he was subsequently dragged up in front of the Senior Leadership of the department, were told from the whistleblower complaint, and he was told that secretary nielsen and secretary of staff john kelly had convinced the president to give him another chance even though the president wanted to fire him. Is that right . Are you familiar with those allegations . Im familiar with the allegations. Im not familiar with that happening. You had no knowledge of that . You ever talk to him about it . No. Ever talk to mr. Murphy about it . No. And can you would you agree with me if an intelligence official testifies truthfully before congress and is threatened with termination for that, that could create a Chilling Effect . If an intelligence official testifies before congress mr. Glowy testified before the Homeland Security committee. He apaurnparently committed the of telling the truth, he was dragged and was told the president wanted him fired for that, and they convinced the president to, quote, give him another chance. Sounds like thats the kind of situation that could have a Chilling Effect on somebody testifying before congress. Would you agree . I dont know the specific facts related to that complaint, so im not going to comment on those. I yield back, mr. Chairman. Mr. Cri thank you, mr. Maher for your service. You know, when Christopher Wray, the fbi director, testified before the house Homeland Security, at that point, he said quote unquote, racially motivated violent extremism remains the top domestic threat in the United States, or the u. S. , he said. Then he said within that racially motivated violent extremism bucket, people ascribing to some kind of white supremacist type ideology is certainly the biggest chunk of that, wray said. You have no reason to doubt that testimony, correct . Thats correct. Now, sir, do you condemn White Supremacy . Yes. And why is White Supremacy a threat . Well, there there are a lot ideology that they adhere to, many of which people disagree with. It is when it is connected to violence that it becomes a concern for my department and other parts of the federal government. So it is this ideology connected to violence that makes White Supremacy threatening. Now what is your do you interact with secretary wolf about this particular issue. I interact with him about a lot of issues. Including this one, right . Yes. And what is your plan to deal with this particular threat that so many people are concerned about right now . The department has a number of activities associated with that threat. One is we, as part of the intelligence arm of the department, put out a number of intelligence products to make sure that the audience for our intelligence products knows about situations that the department has a Grant Program for organizations that work to counter that type of violent activity. You have heard acting secretary wolf cob dem White Supremacy publicly . I dont listen to all of his public comments. It is just a yes or no. Have you heard him say that publicly . Im sure that he condemned the white supremacist you have heard him say it publicly. I cant recall a time. It is yes or no. I cant recall a time. It is easy. Yes or no. I said i cannot recall a time. Now, sir, let me ask you another question. The reason why we brought you on capitol hill is actually very simple. There is no mystery. It is because dhs among other things refuses to grant a security clearance to mr. Murphys attorney to facilitate him coming to our skiff and testifying about his whistleblower complaint. Now, sir, im going to ask you a couple of very easy questions. Have you eninteracted with nusst dhs with regard to the issue of granting mr. Murphy a security clearance . I know generally that the office that handles those clearances is handling it. Im told it is being done in an expedited fashion. Hold on a second. Expedited fashion. When the average person watching at home hears you saying expedited fashion, that means perhaps it is done in hours, perhaps it is done in days but now it is weeks and approaching months. So why is it the case that this gentlemans attorney cannot receive any basic security clearance to be able to testify before us . First of all, this is not a basic security clearance. It is asked for a very high security clearance. Second, the ordinary course for these type of clearances does take months. It has not been months since the process has been started. When i say when you say expedited it could be months, is that what youre saying in this particular case. That is not what im saying. But what does expedited mean, when will he receive a security clearance under an expedited fashion. You cant say because you dont know what is in his background until you look. So if there is no in his background. Well what is in his background. Is there something in his background precluding this attorney from receiving a clearance. Im not part of the organization. You just brought it up. You said there could be something in his background, im asking you to not to identify the problem, im asking is there something in this attorneys back ground that precludes him from getting security clearance to testify one month after we ask him to come here. Youre putting words in my mouth. The answer is as a general matter to get a top secret security clearance it takes months for that to happen. My understanding is that the process for these individuals is being expedited, and that means they put this ahead of some of the other ongoing work they have there. Theyre probably trying to do it more quickly than they ordinarily would. And you dont know what concerns there may or may not be. I dont have any familiarity with these particular individuals or the status of what is being done on this their particular case. Im asking you to prejudge. It has been a month. You have to determine whether or not there is something wrong with this guys background. It is not that simple. Im not asking you to predict or prejudge or anticipate, is there something wrong that disqualifies this attorney from showing up to defend his whistleblower client. As i said im not involved in the process for those individuals so i could not tell you what may or may not be in his background. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Were going to take a brief recess to move to another secure room. Before we wrap up, i want to follow up on one question, mr. Maher. Mr. Heard asked if you were aware of politicization of intelligence at your agency and you said you were aware of it and what were you referring to. The email from mr. Mur fear that was subsequently reported in the press. And what does that instruct. To characterize activities of se certain individuals in a certain way and that is under review by the Inspector General. And what individuals in what way. My understanding, and i would need to look back at the emails, but my understanding is there was an instruction to characterize certain individuals as anarchists or antifa affiliated or something along those lines. So youre aware of some evidence of an effort to politicize intelligence by accentuating a threat from antifa and downplaying the threat from White Supremacists. No, that is not what im saying. What are you saying. The word politicization involves trying to predetermine how a Intelligence Report will be written rather than based on the reasonable beliefs of the intelligence professionals gathering and analyzing the situation. And so my understanding is that instruction went out and that was a cause for concern. It is being looked at as i understand it. Do you have any final comments you want to make before we go into closed session. Yes, thank you, chair. Mr. Maurer, were going to submit questions for the record, both in the public portion of this and we may or may not send some classified questions and hopefully you will respond quickly on those. If you could turn those around quickly wed appreciate it. Some members are voting at other additional hearings. So i know there are additional questions for the record. Will you respond to those. Yes. I yield back. Before we break i want to underscore something that my colleague mr. Maloney was pointing out, mr. Maurer, about why we take these issues so seriously. There was a time where both parties took politicization of intelligence more seriously and there was a time it would have gotten more than a passing bit of attention that a National Security adviser said that the president was aiding and abetting a foreign adversary in that interference in our democracy. There was a time when that kind of thing would be of concern to both parties. Apparently that time has passed. But for us, mr. Maurer, we are still concerned when we hear serious allegations that president of the United States and political appointees including dhs are with holding intelligence because it would be embarrassing to the president if it were revealed that a foreign power was intervening on his behalf. Never mind what it means to the country or elections, were going to withhold it because they are embarrassing. We take those allegations seriously. We take allegations that intelligence agencies to fit a political narrative are hyping a threat at our southern border. Or reporting falsely to congress whether it is the Homeland Committee or our committee or any other committee. We take that seriously. We take it seriously when a predominant domestic Terror Threat like white supremacist is buried or diminishes or deemphasized to something that is more pleasing to the president like antifa. We take those allegations seriously. And so im baffled when i get correspondence from your office saying you dont really have jurisdiction to look into a whistleblower complaint alleging these things. Of course we do. And i also get concerned when i hear people make the disingenuous argument that it takes months to do a security clearance for a lawyer for a day. A lawyer, by the way, who already has a security clearance in the four years, two chaired by mr. Nunes and two chaired by myself, we have never seen a security clearance for oneday testimony of a whistleblower take so long. And i guess you would ask us and the whole country to believe that this is for a perfectly benevolent reason. There is too much history for us to take that for granted. I wish it were otherwise. There is just too much history of stalling and stonewalling and avoiding the necessity of responding to lawful requests from congress. Too much evidence. So that is why we are here. That is why were here. Now i hope in closed session you will feel able to be more forthcoming about what youve heard and what you know. And not simply defer to an Inspector General investigation. You are for the moment, for however long the administration leaves you in that position, running Intelligence Unit of one of our agencies. Given the seriousness of these allegations, you cant simply look away and say, im just going to wait for the Inspector General. Any more than we can. We will resume in half an hour in the secure spaces for the classified portion of this hearing. Thank you. An hour. Debate night here at the Academic Center at stockholm university. Jeff will be joining the republican party. Jeff van drew made National Headlines after public party switch. The reason i left is because the Democratic Party is lurching to the left. His opponent amy kennedy, former Public School teacher and a member of one of the most famous political dynasti