Transcripts For KPIX CBS This Morning 20240714

Told very specifically that the whistleblower did not want to get any of this information out, they didnt want it to leak out. So there were only a few potential groups of people that would have known about this complaint, you and your people within your office. Yes, sir. The people within the Inspector Generals Office and the whistleblower and whoever that whistleblower gave this information to. So what im trying to ascertain is how would it run in the all the Mainstream Media outlets . Even though they got a lot of it wrong but they had the basics of it that it involved the president of the United States talking to a foreign leader. Did you or anybody in your office leak this to the Washington Post or nbc news . Ranking member, i lead the Intelligence Community. We know how to keep a secret. As far as how that got into the press, i really do not know, sir. I just know that its all over the place and as you said its been reported by different media over the past several weeks. Where they get their information from i dont know. It was not from the Intelligence Community, from me or from my office. Thank you, director. So this is not the first time this happened to this president. It happened with a call between the mexican president , the australian Prime Minister. So its happened twice before that pieces of transcripts leaked out. And of course this time it was leaked out again and the president thankfully was able to put this out because of the actions of the situation, as you said thats unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have their conversations leak out . This is the third time. I would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that there, Ranking Member. But to me, the president of the United States conversation with any other head of state i would consider privileged conversation. Clearly those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies. Not necessarily, sir. I mean, if president i should say this, theyre captured disseminated to the intelligence communities. I have to be careful how i respond to that. Were not supposed to have the either president of the United States not talk to foreign leaders or lets publish all the transcripts because thats whats happening here. Ranking member somebodys leaking this and its likely coming from the agencies that you oversee. Ranking member, no. Sir im not saying that you dont know, but we had the transcript with the mexican president , the australia Prime Minister and now contents of a call with the ukraine leak out. The allegation in the whistleblower complaint was there were about 12 people who listened in on the conversation, members of the National Security council and otothers. Others were briefed from the state department as well of the transcripts because they have an area responsibility and a regio be informed on the interaction. So there were a number of people that from the white house briefed on the call. Im quite sure this. The white house probably didnt leak this out. I wouldnt say the white house, but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not. I dont know. But it would not be from an intelligence intercept, i will say that. Right. Im just saying the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right . It is important for the state department and the appropriate agencies to get im not saying its all the intelligence agency, but when a president talks to a foreign leader, its confidential. Those contents are confidential. There could be some facts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the i. C. I want to be clear about this. This is now the third time. Im not aware of this ever happening before, of contents of calls like this getting out. I dont know, Ranking Member. Im not aware. I dont have the numbers. It just seems to me, though, it is unprecedented. I would also say that i think the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of the ukraine is probably unprecedented as well. We appreciate you being here and have fun. Be careful what you say because theyre going to use these word against you. I tell you what, Ranking Member. Either way, im honored to be here. I appreciate your service to this country for a long t i sur well behopey not in the public, hopefully behind closed done. Like this is supposed thank you very much. I yield maguire, thank you for being here and thank you for your profound service and the service of your family to this country. Director, what i find bewildering about this whole conversation is that we are not sitting here today and the American Public is not aware of the allegations of the president asking for a favor of investigation into his political opponent, were not aware of the murky decision to withhold aid, were not aware of mr. Giulianis apparent establishment of a personal state department. Were not aware of a possible retaliation against a u. S. Ambassador. None of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, a man who was appointed by President Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate to come to this committee seven days after the complaint was required by law to be tra it was his decision, personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of fantastic conspiracy theories the Ranking Member thinks is happening here, but it was the decision of Michael Atkinson, an appointee of this president , to come to this committee, following not advice from you or any law but following his own conscience. Without his decision to do this, none of this is happening, correct . I applaud michael. I applaud michaels the way he has done this. He has acted in good faith. He has followed the law every step of the way. The question is, did it or did it not meet the Legal Definition no, sir. I asked a very different question. Its a simple question. Without his decision, none of this is happening, is that correct . Weve got to back up to the whistleblower as well. I should have noted that the whistleblower also deserves the same accolades that mr. Atkinson you ever advised by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason . No, congressman. Okay. As i understand it, the opinion was that you were not obligated to convey the complaint to congress. So the decision was taken to defy a subpoena of this congress, the subpoena of september 17th to turn over the complaint. Who made the decision to defy that subpoena of september 17th . Congressman, urgent concern sir, im asking a very simple question. Who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena . Somebody said, we will not abide by this subpoena and id like to know who that somebody was. Congressman, nobody did. I endeavored once we no longer had urgent concern with the 7daytime line to work to get the information to the committee, what i needed to do was to get work through the executive privilege hurdles with the office of Legal Counsel at the white house. Although this was the most important issue to me, you know, the white house has got quite a few other issues that they dealt with. I would have liked to have had, as i said to the chairman, that perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process and finally it came to a head yesterday. When i received the information on the 26th of august we had seven days based on the whistleblower protection act. All we did was lose those seven days. It may have taken longer than we would have liked or you would have liked but you have the information. So im focused on the subpoena. Yes, sir. The subpoena is on the desk, the subpoena of the congress of the United States. Its pretty clear what it asked for. Youre saying a decision was never made not to comply with that subpoena, yet somehow it was never complied with. Im looking for the Decision Making process to ignore a legal congressional subpoena. Congressman, i did not ignore. I dealt with the chairman of this committee and asked to have one more week to be able to do what i needed to do to get this information released. He was gracious enough and this committee was also very supportive. I was committed to this committee and the chairman to get that information and i was finally able to provide that yesterday. Thank you, director. Did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint . Congressman, tim the president s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times throughout the week. Listen to my question. Did you ever speak to the president about this complaint . My conversations with the president , because im the director of National Intelligence, are privileged. It would be inappropriate for me because it would destroy my relationship with the president in Intelligence Matters to divulge any of my conversations with the president of the United States. Just so we can be clear for the record, you are not denying that you spoke to the president about this complaint . What im saying, congressman, is that i will not divulge privileged conversations that i have as the director of National Intelligence with the president. Has the white house instructed you to assert that privilege . No, sir. Its just a member of the executive branch as a member of the National Security council and also the homeland committee. I just have to maintain the discretion and protect the conversation with the president of the United States. I appreciate that answer. Apparently the clock is broken but i will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Conaway. Thank you for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither of us are lawyers. That may be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff, sir . I do, congressman. Your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and have given you advice . Yes, congressman. If the black letter law was so clear in black letter, how is it weve got different attorneys giving you and i different opinions. Thats a rhetorical question. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was in our group in front of us last week, did a very good job of telling us what he did, what he didnt do. We now know for sure what it is he was able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president. The reason is he cited the difficulty of working through all of that would have probably meant he couldnt comply with the 14daytime fram time frame. He also said in his letter, i also determined this is quoting michael. I also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. Now thats a different statement than a flatout its credible. Again, a rhetorical statement. Is there anything of statute that your lawyers have been advising you that says the determ ccern lies solely with the icig . No, sir. I was never advised that. Has the Justice Department ever weighed in to say the fact that dni cant make a separate decision of that sevenday process, that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided . The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. Its pretty much either yes or no. Thats not the case because the i. G. Said it was and youre saying its not under that Legal Definition because it involved the president. Last time i checked youre pretty familiar with chain of command, i know. Hes not in your chain of command. Youre in his chain of command. So it doesnt meet the statutorily urgent concern definition with respect to the whistleblower protections of the i. G. And your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. No, sir. John ratcliffe. It was the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that made the determination that it was not urgent concern. All we wanted to do was just check and see. And to me, it just seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now to be able to just make sure that in fact it did. And when it didnt, i want to say once again i endeavored to get that information to this committee. Just to clarify the role that the Inspector General had with respect to the department of justice, i heard you say he was involved in the conversations, allowed to make his case, but also said you gave the Justice Department the letter. What was his exact involvement in making his case to the Justice Department . Was he there present physically or his lawyers there . To the best of my knowledge, the icigs transmittal letter as well as the complaint from the whistleblower were forwarded to the office of Legal Counsel for their determination. I believe that that is what they based their opinion on. Okay. If im incorrect, i will come back to the committee and correct that sir. Okay. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. I appreciate your long storied history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens in this arena a lot, sometimes justified and most of the time not and your insult to your integrity was not justified. The fact that we have differences of opinion, when we start losing those differences of opinion we start to attack each other, call each other names and those kin things. My experience is when youve got a legal matter, ive got lawyers i pay, youve got lawyers you pay. I typically stick with the lawyers that im paying. So youve got good legal advice on this issue in a really tough spot wanting to make sure this whistleblower was protected but at the same time if there was something awry here it would get the full airing that its been getting. Thank you for your service. Mi wanto turn to what i fear may be one of the most longterm damaging effects of this whistleblower episode and that is the Chilling Effect it will have on others in government who may witness misconduct but now may be afraid to come forward to report it. Sir, im worried that Government Employees and contractors may see how important this situation has played out and decide its not worth putting themselves on the line. The fact that a whistleblower followed all the proper procedures to report misconduct and then the department of justice and the white house seems to have weighed in to keep the complaint hidden is problematic, sir. I want to know whether or not you see how problematic this will be in having a Chilling Effect on members of the ic that you are sworn to represent and ostensibly protect. Congresswoman, i think thats a fair assessment. I dont disagree with what youve said. I have endeavored to transmit to the Intelligence Community my support of the whistleblower. Im quite sure for at least two hours this morning there are not many people in the Intelligence Community doing anything productive besides watching this. My concern is a valid one that what has hammoppened with s whistleblower episode will have a Chilling Effect. I just want to ask you have you given direction to this whistleblower that he or she can in fact come before congress . When the president called the whistleblower a political hack andge sstedug to the country, you remained silent. Im not sure why, but i also think that adds to the Chilling Effect. The statute seems pretty clear that you shall everybody has a role to play. The process is pretty clear. And part of it also includes you directing the whistleblower of his or her protected rights. Can you confirm that youve directed that whistleblower that he or she can come before congress . Well, congresswoman, there are several questions there. One, i do not know the identity of the whistleblower. Two, now that the complaint has come forward, we are working with his counsel in order to be able to provide them with security clearance. Sir, i think my question is pretty simple. Can you assure this committee and the American Public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections of the whistleblower act . Can you confirm that . Thats a yes or no question. Right now im working through that with the chair. To the best of my ability, i believe the chair was asking to have the whistleblower come forward. Im working with counsel, with the committee to support that process. Can you assure the American Public that the end result will be that the whistleblower will be able to come before this committee and congress and have the full protections of the whistleblower act . After all, what is the whistleblower statute for the not to provide those full protections against retaliation, against litigation . Congresswoman, i am doing everything to endeavor to support that. Will the gentlewoman yield . Yes. Once you work out the security claerearances for the whistleblowers counsel, that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge that concern wrongdoing by the president or anyone else that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the white house or elsewhere sitting next to them and telling them what they can and cant answer. Can they enjoy fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law . Yes, congressman. I also want to understand what youre going to do to try to ensure the trust of the employees and contractors that you represent to assure the American People that the whistleblower statute is, in fact, being properly adhered to and that no further efforts would be to obstruct an opportunity for a whistleblower who has watched misconduct to actually get justice . Congresswoman, supporting the members of the Intelligence Community is my highest priority. I dont believe they work with me. I just want to say and go on record as being very clear that this will have a Chilling Effect. That is exactly not what the statute was intended for. It was intended for transparency. It was intended also to give the whistleblower certain protections and i think the American People deserve that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Turner. Director, thank you for being here. Morning, congressman. Thank you for your service and the clarity at which you have described the deliberations you went through in applying the laws with respect to this complaint. It is incredibly admirable the manner in which youve approached this. Ive read the complaint and ive read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of ukraine. Concerning that conversation, i want to say to the president this is not okay. That conversation is not okay and i think its disappointing to the American Public when they read the transcript. The allegations in the complaint are not the allegations of the subject matter of this conversation. What else its not, its not the conversation that was in the chairmans Opening Statement. While the chairman was speaking, i actually had someone text me, is he just making this up . And yes he was because sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the text. Luckily the American People are smart and they have the transcript. Theyve read the conversation. They know when someones just making it up. Weve seen this movie before. Weve been here all year litigating impeachment long before the july 25th conversation happened between the president and the president of the ukraine. Weve heard the clicks of the cameras in this Intelligence Committees room where weve not been focusing on the issues of the National Security threats but instead of the calls for impeachment, which is really an assault on the electorate, not just this president. The complaint we now have, director, is based on hearsay. The person who wrote it says i talked to people and they told me these things. The American Public has the transcript and the complaint so they have the ability to compare them. Whats clear about the complaint is its based on political issues, mr. Director. He or she is alleging that the actions of the president were political in nature. Thats my concern about how this is applied to the whistleblower statute. The statute is intended to provide those in the community an ability to come to congress when theyre concerned about abuses of powers and laws, but its about the Intelligence Community. Its abuse of surveillance, the abuse of the spy mechanisms that we have. This is about actually the product of surveillance. Somebody has had access to surveillance that related the president s conversations and has brought it forward to us. Id like for you to turn for a moment and tell us your thoughts of the whistleblower process and the concerns as to why it has to be there so that the Intelligence Community can be held accountable and we can have oversight. It certainly wasnt there for oversight of the president. It was there for oversight of the Intelligence Community. So if you could describe your thoughts on that. And i was very interested in your discussion on the issue of executive privilege. Theres been much made of the fact that the law says on the whistleblower statute that you shall. Clearly you have a conflict of laws when you have both the executive privilege issue and the issue of the word shall. So first, could you tell us the importance of the whistleblower statute with respect to accountability of the Intelligence Community and our role of oversight there . And then your process, your effects of being stuck in the middle where you have these conflicts, mr. Director . Congressman, the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act is to apply to the Intelligence Community. It pertains to financial, administrative or operational activities within the Intelligence Community under the oversight and responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. It does not allow a member of the Intelligence Community to report any wrongdoing that comes from anywhere in the federal government. So with that, i do believe that that is about the intelligence whistleblower protection act was the best seattle seahavehicle t whistleblower had to use. It came to me and discussion with our icig, who is a colleague, and the determination was made by the well, that he viewed that in fact credible and it was a matter of urgent concern. And i just thought it would be prudent to have another opinion. I have worked with lawyers my whole career. Whether it was the rule of armed conflict, admiralty claims or engagement or just the uniform code of military justice. I have found that different lawyers have different opinions on the same subject. We have nine justices on the supreme court. More often than not, the opinions are 54. That doesnt mean five or right and four are wrong. When this matter came to me, i have a lot of life experience. I realized the importance of the matter that is before us this morning, and i thought that it would be prudent for me to ensure that in fact it met that statute before i sent it forward in compliance with the whistleblower protection act. And i hope that responds to your question. I yield back. I want to mention that my colleague is right on both counts. Its not okay, but also my summary of the president s call was meant to be at least part in parity. The fact that thats not clear is a separate problem in itself. Of course, the president never said if you dont understand me, im going to say it seven more times. My point is thats the message that the ukraine president was receiving in not so many words. Mr. Carson . Thank you, chairman schiff. Thank you director maguire for your service. Director maguire, this appears to be the first Intelligence Community whistleblower complaint that has ever, ever been withheld from congress. Is that right, sir . Congressman carson, i believe that it might be. Once again, i said in my statement it is, in fact, as far as im concerned, unprecedented. It is unprecedented, sir. Do you know why its unprecedented . I think its because the law that congress, that this very committee drafted really couldnt be clearer. It states that upon receiving such an urgent complaint from the Inspector General, you, the director of National Intelligence, quote, shall, end quote, forward it to the intel committees within seven days, no ifs, ands or buts. Even when the ic has found complaints not to be of urgent concern or credible, your office has still transmitted those complaints to the Intelligence Committees, is that right, sir . In the past even if they were not a matter of urgent concern or they were not credible, they were forwarded. But in each and every instance prior to this, it involved members of the Intelligence Community who are serving in organizations underneath the control of the dni. This one is different because it did not meet those two criteria. Director, does executive privilege, sir, in your mind or laws that regulate the Intelligence Community preempt or negate even the laws that safeguard the security of americas democratic elections and her democracy itself, sir . No chairman carson, it does not. Notwithstanding this ambiguous mandate and the consistent practice of your auf office that you withheld this urgent complaint. You followed their orders instead of the law. If the Inspector General had not brought this complaint to your attention, you and the Trump Administration might have gotten away with this unprecedented action. Sir, you released a statement yesterday affirming your oath to the constitution and your dedication to the rule of law. But im having trouble understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here. Can you explain that to us, sir . A couple of things. The white house did not direct me to withhold the information. Neither did the office of Legal Counsel. That opinion is unclassified and has been disseminated. The question came down to urgent concern, which is a Legal Definition. It doesnt mean, is it important, is it timely. Urgent concern met the certain criteria that weve discussed several times here so it did not. All that did, sir, was take away the seven days. As i said before, just because it was not forwarded to this committee does not mean that it went unanswered. The icig and the Justice Department referred it to the federal bureau of investigation for investigation. That was working while i was endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed so that it can then be forwarded. It was not stonewalling. I didnt receive direction from anybody. I was just trying to work through the process and the law the way it is written. I have to comply with the way the law is, not the way some people would like it to be. And if i could do otherwise, it would have been much more convenient for me, congressman. And lastly, director, as you sit here today, sir, do you commit to providing every single whistleblower complaint intended for congress as required by the statute, sir . If its required by the statute, yes, i will. I certainly hope so because i think the unprecedented decision to withhold this whistleblower complaint from congress, i think it raises concerns, very serious concerns for us and for me. And i think that we need to get to the bottom of this. I yield the balance of my time, chairman. Thank you. How much time does the gentleman have remaining . 27. Okay. Director, you were not directed to withhold the complaint, is that your testimony . Yes, that is absolutely true. So you exercised your discretion to withhold the complaint from the committee . I did not, sir. What i did is i delayed it because it did not meet the statutory definition of urgent concern. Deck tor, youirector, your the practice of your office has been that regard he less of whe the Inspector General finds it credible or incredible, the complaint is always given to our committee. Youre aware thats the unbroken practice since the establishment of your office and the Inspector General . Are you aware of that . Every previous whistleblower complaint forwarded to the Intelligence Committee involved a member of the Intelligence Community and an organization under which the director of National Intelligence had authority and responsibility. But youre aware that the past practice has been were talking about urgent concern here. The past practice has always been to give it to this committee, youre aware of that, right . I am aware this is unprecedented. With that, sir, i agree. This has never happened before but this is a unique situation. You made the decision to withhold it from the committee for a month when the white house had made no claim of when i have, when the department of justice said you dont have to give it to them, but you can. You made the decision not to . Thats not true, sir. What the office of Legal Counsel said that it does not meet the Legal Definition of urgent concern. So it said youre not required. It didnt say you cannot provide it. It said youre not required to. That is if you dont want to, were not going to force you. Youre not required, but it didnt say you cant, right . I said that in my Opening Statement but even so it was referred to the fbi for investigation and i was endeavoring to get the information to you shs mmr. Cha but i could not forward it as a member of the executive branch without executive privileges being addressed. I felt that the white House Counsel was doing the best they could to get that. It took longer than id like thats for sure. But it came to conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts. Because the transcripts were released, no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was then free to send both the Inspector Generals cover letter and the complaint to you. At no time was there any intent on my part ever to withhold information from you as the chair or the Intelligence Committee. But for this hearing, i dont know that we would have ever seen that complaint. Thankan thank you, mr. Maguire for being here today. I think its a shame that we started off this hearing with fictional remarks. The implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting words into it that did not exist. I would contend that theyre intentionally not clear. The president intended it as parity and i dont believe this is the time or the place for parity when were trying to seek facts. Unfortunately today many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv and the media is only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say. But im also glad to say that Many Americans have seen this movie too many times and theyre tired of it. Let me get to some questions if i can. Lets go to the word credible. Credible does not mean proven true or factual, would that be correct in this situation . I find no fault in your logic. Was that decision made by the i. G. Before seeing the transcript of the conversation . I believe that the icig conducted to the best of his ability the investigation. And he found to his ability that based on the evidence and discussing it with the whistleblower that he thought that in fact it was credible. But the ig didnt necessarily have the transcript of the conversation. He did not. No, he did not. Thats my question. To another point, one of the issues that arose out of the russia investigation last congress was the question over the latitude provided to the u. S. President to conduct foreign affairs. In 2017 i asked then cia director brennan how he viewed statements made by president obama to russian president medvedev. President medvedev replied that would transmit the information to vladimir and that medvedev today with obama. That was in an open hearing. Director brennan wouldnt entertain my question and insisted on not answering due to the fact that the conversation was between heads of government. One, you said this executive privilege is unwaiverable. I think thats kind of consistent with what cia director brennan was implying. Only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. Director brennan gave me the impression then that thats the rule, thats the law. Thvere going to have to go with entitled to withhold his or her communications from congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblower case . I think that the president when he conducts diplomacy and deals with foreign heads of state, he has every right to have that information be held within the white house and the executive branch. Yesterday i think the transmission of the call is unprecedented and also i think that other future leaders when they interact with our head of state might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction that they have with the president because of that release. So we may need to change our process here because i a decision regarding executive privilege maybe it should be made prior to submitting the communication to congress. Either that i believe that this committee wrote the law. And based on what were doing today, perhaps it needs to be relooked. I dont know. I leaf thve that to the legisla branch. The 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. I think maybe this is special circumstance, unprecedented. Maybe there should be some leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. I dont know if you know. Did you feel or did the ig ever say they felt rushed to making a decision because of the 14day process . No, congressman. I believe hes a very experienced Inspector General. Hes used to dealing with the 14day process. He worked with his staff and i think endeavored to the extent because he was following the statute as he believed it was written. Like any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to collect the facts and other things but Michael Atkinson was under the 14daytime line a time did his best to comply. Did you feel rushed in any way . I did not. Thank you director for your extraordinarily long service to our country. At any point during this process did you personally threaten to resign if the complaint was not provided to the committee . No, i did not. I know that that story has appeared quite a bit. I issued a statement yesterday. All right. Thank you. When you read the complaint, were you shocked at all by what you read . Congresswoman, as i said, i had a lot of life experience. I joined the navy i understand your record. Could you just answer it . I realized full well, full and well the importance of the allegation. And i also have to tell you, congresswoman, when i saw that, i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee sometime to discuss it. The complaint refers to what happened after the july 25th conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the United States. And the white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location in order to lock down and that was the term used in the complaint all records of the phone call. Did that reaction to the transcript seem to you like a recognition within the white house that the call was completely improper . Congresswoman, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. All i have is the knowledge that the whistleblower alleges in his allegation, the whistleblower complaint. I dont know whether in fact that is true or not. My only Situational Awareness of that is from the whistleblowers letter. So knowing that the whistleblower appears to be credible based on the evaluation by the Inspector General and knowing that that effort was undertaken by the white house to cover it up, why would you then as your first action outside of the Intelligence Community go directly to the white house to the very entity that was being scrutinized and complained about in the complaint . Why would you go there to ask their advice as to what you should do . Congresswoman, the allegation that is made by the whistleblower is secondhand information, not known to him or her firsthand. Except mr. Maguire, it was determined to be credible. There was an investigation done by the Inspector General. Let me go on to another issue. President trump over the weekend tweeted, it appears that an american spy in one of our intelligence agencies may have been spying on our own president. Do you believe that the whistleblower was spying on one of our intelligence agencies or spying on the president . As i said several times so far this morning, i believe that the whistleblower complied with the law and did everything that they thought, he or she thought was responsible under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. But you did not speak out to protect the whistleblower, did you . Common yes or no . I did. I felt there was enough stuff appearing out in the press that was erroneous, that was absolutely incorrect. I didnt feel i needed to respond to every single statement that was out there that was incorrect. Thank you. Yes, maam. The president on monday said who is this socalled whistleblower . Who knows the correct facts . Is he on our countrys side . Do you believe the whistleblower is on our countrys side . I believe that the whistleblower and all employees who come forward in the icig to raise concerns of fraud, waste and abuse are doing what they perceive to be the right thing. So working on behalf of our country. Are you aware of the fact that whistleblowers within the federal government have identified waste, fraud and abuse of over 59 billion that has had the effect of benefitting the taxpayers and keeping our country safe as well . Congresswoman, im not familiar with the dollar value, but having been in Government Service for nearly four decades, i am very much aware of the value thank you. Let me ask you one final question. Did the president of the United States ask you to find out the identity of the whistleblower . I can say although i would not normally discuss my conversations with the president , i can tell you emphatically no. Has anyone else within the white house or the department of justice asked you . No, congresswoman, no. Thank you. I yield back. Youre welcome, maam. Mr. Stewart. Mr. Maguire, thank you for being here today. I want you to know the good news is im not going to treat you like a child and im going to give you a chance to answer your questions if i ask you something. I want to thank you for your service. Id like you to remind me how many years of military service do you have . I have 36 years of service in the United States navy, 34 of those as a navy seal. Thats great. I had a mere 14 years as an air force pilot. I proudly wear these air force wings. These are actually my fathers air force wings. He served in the military as well, as did five of his sons. For someone who hasnt served in the military, i dont think they realize how deeply offensive it is to have your honor and integrity questioned. Some on this committee have done exactly that. Theyve accused you of breaking the law. Im going to read just one part of many that i could for the chairman. This raises grave concerns. The chair office together with the department of justice and the white house have engaged in unlawful effort to protect the president. And theres others that i have read as they have sought, i believe, to destroy your character. Im going to give you the opportunity to answer very clearly. Are you motivated by politics in your work or professional behavior . Excuse me, sir. Are you motivated by politics in your work or protection behavior . I am not political, i am not partisan and i did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of National Intelligence. I thought there were other people who would be best and more qualified to do that but the president asked me to do that and it was my honor to step up and lead and support the Intelligence Community. Thank you. Do you believe you have followed the laws in the way you have handled this complaint . I do. I know i do. Have you in any way sought to protect the president or anyone else from any wrongdoing . I have not. What ive done is endeavored to follow the law. Do you believe you have a responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of Legal Counsel . The opinion of Legal Counsel is binding on the executive branch. Its the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and its also the first time that it included information that was potentially outside of the authority of the dni, is that true . To the best of my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. I would say to my colleagues here i think youre nuts if you think youre going to convince the American People of your cause by attacking this man and impugning his character when its clear that he felt there was a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law. He was trying to do the right thing. He felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. Yet, the entire tone here is that somehow youre a political stooge who has done nothing but protect the president. I think thats nuts. Anybody is surely going to walk away with the clear impression that youre a man of integrity and you did what you thought was right. Id like one more time before i yield my time. I think we can agree that leaks are unlawful and that leaks are damaging. And for heavens sake, weve seen plenty of that over the last three years. Theres a long list of leaks that have had clear implications for our National Security. I want to know do you know who was feeding the press information about this case and have you made any referrals to the department of justice for unlawful disclosures . Yes, sir. Do you know who is feeding information about this case . No. Do you think it would be appropriate to make a referral to the department of justice to try to determine that . I believe that anybody who witnesses or sees any wrongdoing should refer any wrongdoing or complaint to the department of justice for investigation. Including investigation about leaks. That is correct. Of classifies information. Yes, congressman, any wrongdoing. I dont know what time it is because our clock isnt working. I suppose my time is up, but i would conclude by emphasizing once again, good luck convincing the American People this is a dishonorable man sitting here. If you think it scores political points with your friends who have wanted to impeach this president from the day he was elected, then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. No one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. Youve accused him of breaking the law, mr. Chairman. It is certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority that when the Congress Says something shall be done, it shall be done. When that involves the wrongdoing of the president , it is not an exception to the requirement of the statute. The fact that this whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind now for weeks, has been attacked by the president , should concern all of us, democrats and republicans, that this was ever allowed to come to be, that allegations this serious and urgent were withheld as long as they were from this committee. That should concern all of us. But no one is suggesting this is a dishonor here, but nonetheless we are going to insist that the law be followed. Mr. Chairman, will you yield . Mr. Quigley. Thank you for your service and for being here. Those in public life who work and deal with other countries, ambassadors, secretaries of state, theyre vetted. They go for approval before the senate. They have to get clearance. You understand the policy reasons for that, correct em. Yes congressman. Do you have any issues with civilians without approval, without vetting, without clearance taking on those roles . Yes, i do, congressman. Why would you have those concerns . In order to be able to handle Sensitive Information, whether it be diplomatic or certainly intelligence information, one must be vetted. This is the important part of protecting National Security. We just cant bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand or put holy water on them to give them a security clearance. It is a matter of vetting firefighter ffor me to come back into government, the fbi went back 15 years in my background, examined all of my financial records to make sure i was in fact worthy of having an intelligence clearance. We do the same thing with the Intelligence Community. Everybody who is subject or privileged to have access to intelligence information is a sacred trust. The American People expect us to keep them safe. In order to do that, we need to ensure that any person who has access to this Sensitive Information of the United States has been thoroughly vetted to ensure they are able to handle that information. Its not just the intel issues. Its the issues of national policy, that people have an official role that they dairy out carry out and we know what their role is. Yes. What is your understanding right now of what mr. Giulianis role is . Congressman, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal law. So far you say hes his personal lawyer, but read in the complaint, we reed in thad in t transcript hes mentioned five times. No, sir. All im saying is that i know what the allegations are. Im not saying that the allegations are true and thats where the committee i dont think theres any question of the credibility of the complaint. In the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. Giuliani. I would like him to call you, i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. Your reaction to a civilian dealing with these . In the complaint it talks about our National Security. The Inspector General talks about this as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has. Obviously mr. Giuliani is playing this role. To your knowledge, does he have security clearance . I dont know. Congressman quigley, im neither aware or unaware whether mr. Giuliani has a security clearance. Before all this happened were you aware of his role or understanding what his role was doing what you do . Congressman, my only knowledge of what mr. Giuliani does, i have to be honest with you, i get from tv and the news media. I am not aware in fact of what he does for the president. Are you aware of any communication by mr. Giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with this role . I have read the transcripts just as you have, so my knowledge of his activity in there is just limited to the conversation that the president had with the president of ukraine. We respect your role. While we have differences of opinion, we continue to respect your integrity and your honor, but we have this vast amount of experience you have and we need to understand how it plays juxtaposition with the complaint. Im reading an omb official informed departments and agency that is the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that . Congressman quigley, i think that anything that has to do with the president s lawyer and these matters should be referred to the white house and the president. Im just reading the complaint. I lead and a spoerupport the Intelligence Community and the 17 different departments and agencies under my leadership. I do not lead the president and i a or respon youre aware with all yo experience the fact that we have this relationship with ukraine, that they are dependent upon us. You cant say publicly that it concerns you . Theres a lot of things that concern me. Im the director of man intelligence. I just have to refer back to the conversation that the president had is his conversation, how the president of the United States wants to conduct diplomacy is his business and its not whether or not i approve it or disapprove of it. That is the president east business oftn how he wants to. The time of the gentleman has expired. If you wanted to respond, you may. No. Im fine. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, mr. Maguire. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your life of Public Service. My question relates to briprior the were there any conversations you had with the ig prior to august 26th related to this matter . Congresswoman there has been a lot that has happened in the last several weeks, as far as the timeline is concerned, i link thatouu ild w givee you a full chronology if may on the actual timeline of events. That will be helpful to the committee in terms of if there were any preliminary conversations, what was discussed and if there was action taken as a result of the conversations. I want to turn to the complaint itself which is made public for the American Public to read, and let me preface by saying i appreciate your statement that you believe the whistleblower complaint was made in good faith. I will quote this directly. On page one the complaint reads, quote, i was not a direct witness to most of the events described. This seems like a very important line to look into. I think the American Public will have questions in particular about that line. So my question to you is, for the record, did the ig fully investigate the allegations into this complaint at this time . Has the ig fully investigated the complaint . I think the Inspector General and Intelligence Community made the determination that it was both credible and urgent. I have no reason to doubt that Michael Atkinson did anything but his job. So when you talk about a full investigation where the veracity of the allegations of the complaint looked into . There were many references to white house officials. Do you know if the ig investigated the truthfulness of these allegations, or was it a preliminary investigation . I would have to defer to the ig to respond on that. All i do know although i do not know the identity of the whistleblower, i do know that Michael Atkinson had, in fact, you know, discussed this with the whistleblower and found his complaint to be credible. As far as who else he spoke with, i am unaware of what went on in Michael Atkinsons investigation into this matter. As of today the only individual we know that the ig spoke with is the complainant, the author and whistleblower . What i am saying is i am unaware who else Michael Atkinson may have spoken to. I am unfamiliar with his investigative process and everybody that he spoke to in this regard. Thank you for the answer oag fhe American Public, they are going to have many questions as they read this complaint today, and because on page one it says no direct knowledge, i think its very important that we conduct our that we have questions answered for individuals that do have direct knowledge and with that i yield back. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Swallow. Thank you. Mr. Maguire do you agree the intention of a coverup is to prevent people from discovering a crime . I am sure thats close. I dont disagree with that, sir. In the complaint the whistleblower alleges immediately after the president s call with the president of ukraine on july 25th, white house lawyers moved quickly to direct white house officials to move electronic transcripts from one Computer System where it was normally stored to a secret classified information system. Is that right . Congresswoman excuse me, sir, i apologize is that what was alleged in the complaint . Congressman yes or no . All i know is thats i am asking, thats what is alleged . Thats the allegation. You read that allegation, and the first people you go to after that allegation are the white house lawyers who are telling the white house officials who see this transcript and move it into a secret system, and those are the first people you go to . Lets say a couple things is that yes or no . Yes, but i will keep going here. So you get this complaint, and Inspector General says urgent, credible, and you have no wiggle room to not go to congress, and instead you send your concern to the subject of the complaint, the white house. So did the white house tell you after you sent your concern about privilege, did they tell you to go to the department nex . My team, my counsel in consultation with the Intelligence Community Inspector General went to the office of Legal Counsel. We were not directed to do that. Mr. Maguire, you said this does not involve ongoing intelligence activities, however the whistleblower says this is not the first time that the president s transcripts with foreign leaders were improperly moved to an intelligence covert system . I will let the letter speak for itself, sir. What can also speak for itself is if the transcript with a foreign leader is moved to a classification system, that would involve your responsibilities, is that right . Not necessarily. I do not its not underneath my authority and responsibility. Once again, this is an allegation that has been made, and it does not necessarily mean that that is a true statement. The allegation was determined to be urgent and credible by the Inspector General, is that right . Yes, it was. Would you also want to know, though, considering you are the director of National Intelligence and transcripts are being moved into a secret intelligence system, whether other transcripts, perhaps the president s phone calls with vladimir putin, or kim jongun, would you want to know if those were also being improperly moved because the president is trying to cover up something . Congressman, how the white house, the office of the executive office of the president and the National Security council conduct their business is their business. Its your business to protect americas secrets, is that right . Its all of ours, this committee as well. If theres coverup activity because the president is working imerly with a Foreign Government, that could compromise americas secrets, is that right . Congressman, theres an allegation of a coverup. I am sure an before this committee might lead to credence or dispr secondhan information from a whistleblower. I have no know whether or not thats true and an accurate statement. The department of justice you relied upon said you are not responsible for preventing foreign election interference, is that right . That was in the opinion . What the office of Legal Council did was over 11 pages, defined and explained their justification for it not complying with urgent are you responsibility for preventing election interference by a Foreign Government . Election interference i hope you know the apbgs ye no. Is it your priority . Yes, it is. This complaint also alleges a shakedown with a Foreign Government by the United States president involving a rogue actor, as mr. Quigley pointed out, who has no clearance or authority under the United States, and an effort by the white house to move the transcript of the call to a secret system, is that right . Thats what is alleged . Congressman, i believe an Election Security is my most fundamental priority, however this conversation with the president and another foreign leader, not Election Security. I yield back. Thank you, congressman. If that conversation involved the president requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election . Chairman, once again, this was sent to the federal brureau of investigation i understand that,ut g thathe presid is som u. S. Person from seeking foreign help in a u. S. Election, are you . What i am saying, chairman, is nobody, none of us, is above the law in this country. Mr. Hardin. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have told my friends all the time, i got more surveillance as an officer here than i did in the cia. A specific question, the letter that is contained in the whistleblower package, its actually dated august 12th. I recognize this may be a better question to be asking the icig, and that letter is dated august 12th and its to the chairman of this and select committee of intelligence and chairman of this committee, and do you know if the whistleblower provided that letter to the two chairman concurrent with the icig . No, congressman. As i said earlier, i believe the whistleblower and icig acted in good faith and followed the law every step of the way. We talked about the way the law on the whistleblower statute says you shall share if its decided to be an urgent concern, however best practices has always been to share regardless of whether that urgent concern. Do you see any reason negative impact on the Intelligence Community if that legislation was changed to say all whistleblower complaints should be shared with the committees . Thats correct. In addition to that, congressman, lets say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. Members of this committee, although you are the Intelligence Committee but not members of the Intelligence Community, and as the dni i have no authority or responsibility over this committee. My question is, do you think that if every whistleblower complaint that was brought to the Intelligence Community Inspector General was always shared with this committee, would that have any impact on intelligence equities . I ask that because i dont know why when the statute was written that it didnt say all should be shared rather than urgent, and do you think if we change that law would it have impact on intelligence equities . I dont think a law could be changed to cover all things that might possibly happen. I think we might have a good law and i think its well written, however, as i said, congressman, this is unprecedented and this is a unique situation. Why this one is this is why we are sitting here this morning. Sure, and i hope we are not in this position again, and however if we do find ourselves in this position again i want to make sure theres not any uncertainty in when information should be shared to this committee. Was the odi under you or your predecessor aware o aspend ukrainian aid as was alleged in this complaint . As far as i am concerned personally, congressman, i have no knowledge of that and i am unaware if anybody in the odji is aware. I apologize for the legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else, but i feel like you have a perspective, when does the legal guidance override laws the office of Legal Counsel doesnt override laws passed by congress. What it does is passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch. And the office of Legal Counsel legal opinion is binding to everybody within the executive branch. Good copy. I have two final questions and i will ask them together to give you time to answer them both. What is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode . When i say episode, i am referring to the media circus, the politicalcircus, and the technical issues that are related to this whistleblower revelation . You eluded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment on how it could impact intelligence operations in the future. I believe its your first time testifying to congress in your position, all right skpbgs, andd welcome in the end, and its off topic, what do you see as the challenges and greatest threats to this country . I think the greatest challenge we face kinetic strike with or iran or. I think the greatest challenge we do have is to make sure we maintain the integrity of our election system. There are foreign powers trying to get us to question the validity whether or not our elections are valid. First and foremost, i think that protecting the sanctity of our elections within the United States whether its national, city, state, local, is perhaps the most important job that we have with the Intelligence Community. Outside of that we do face significant threats. I would say number one is not necessarily kinetic but cyber. This is a cyber war. We talk about whether or not the great competition is taking place with russia and china, and we are building ships and weapons to do that, but in my estimation the great competition is taking place right now and its in the cyber my time is running out. Lets talk about the Current Situation with the whistle blower situation . I have work to do to reassure that the Intelligence Community that in fact, you know, that i am totally committed to the whistleblower program, and i am absolutely, absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual as well as making sure that Michael Atkinson continues to be able to do his job unfettered. With that i have to be proactive in my communications with my team. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the time i mayr m not have. Mr. Castro. Thank you, chairman. Thank you director maguire for your testimony today, and i want to say thank you to the wistle blower for coming forward on behalf of the nation, and thank you to the Inspector General for his courage in coming forward to congress. You mentioned you believe the wheus annu whistleblowers report is credible and he acted in good faith, and you and the American People have had an opportunity to review the complaint and the transcript released from the conversation with the president of ukraine. Yes. Would you say the whistleblowers complaint is consi consistent with the transcript released . I would say its in alignment with what was released yesterday. I want to read you a section to underscore how accurate and consistent this complaint is. On page two of the whistleblowers complaint, the whistleblower says according to the white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the president pressured mr. Zielinski to, initiate and continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President joseph biden and his son, hunter biden, and the third bullet point, meet or speak with two people the president named exsolicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, barr and guiliani. In the transcript released on page 4 of the first paragraph into what looks like the third sentence, President Trump says, the former ambassador from the United States, the woman was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news so i just want to let you know that. The other thing, theres a lot of talk about bidens son, did biden stop the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging he stopped the prosecution et cetera. Do you have reason to doubt what the whistleblower has brought forward . Getting back into Michael Atkinsons determination on whether or not it was credible or urgent concern, as the dni its not my place to ensure its credible. Thats the igigs job as the inspector. He has determined it is credible. My only trouble was that in fact it involved somebody who is not in the Intelligence Community or in an organization under which i have authority and responsibility. Outside of that director maguire you agreed it involved Intelligence Matters and election interference, and it involved u. S. Persons, and if you or the cia had knowledge that a government was going to investigate or drum up an investigation against a former Vice President , that wouldnt qualify as an intelligence matter . Would that qualify as an intelligence matter, yes or no . Its a hypothetical question, sir. Thats what is in the transcript, thats what hes asking for. The complaint but thats what the president is asking the president of ukraine to do, he is asking the president of ukraine to investigate a former Vice President of the United States. Does that qualify as an intelligence matter that the cia would want to know . The conversation was by the president to the president of ukraine, as you know. I am not mr. Maguire, i understand that that cannot be that cannot be an ultimate shield against transparency. It cant be an ultimate shield against accountability. The president is not above the law. One thing you have not told us is if your office or if the Inspector General is not able to investigate, then who is able to investigate . Congress and senator castro, as i mentioned so far, although it did not come to the committee the complaint was referred to the Judicial Department for investigation. This was not swept under the rug. I have one more question, why did you do what never has been done before. In the past there has never been a matter that the Inspector General has investigated that did not involve a member of the Intelligence Community or an organization that the director of national one last point i would mange with respect to, you say the president is not part of the Intelligence Community, and i believe he is. He has the ability to declassify any single document, is that true . The president has the original Declassification Authority he is the president of the United States, above the entire executive branch. Thank you. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Radcliff. Admiral, good to see you. Good to see you again. You served in the navy for 30 years correct. Thats correct. Despite the fact that after that service you became acting dni 23 days after the trump zielinski call, and four days after the whistleblower made his or her complaint. You were subpoenaed before this committee after being publicly accused of committing a crime, correct . Yes, congressman. Chairmachifrote a letter accusing you of being, quote, an unlawful coverup, and then the speaker of the house went on national tv said not once but twice that you broke the law and committed a crime, she said the acting director of National Intelligence blocked him from disclosing the whistleblower complaint, and this is a violation of the law. You were publicly accused of committing a crime, and you are also falsely accused of committing a crime as you so accurately related, you were required to follow not just an opinion of what the law is, but the opinion from the Justice Department, an 11page opinion about whether or not you were required to report the whistleblower complaint, right . Thats correct. That opinion says, the question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the dni to forward to the Intelligence Committee. We conclude it does not. Did i read that accurately . Yes. I better have, right . Thats an opinion not from bill barr, and thats an opinion from the department of justice ethics lawyers, not political appointees, but career officials that serve republicans and democrats, the ethics lawyers at the department of justice that determined that you did follow the law. So you were publicly accused and also falsely accused and yet here today i have not heard anything close to an apology for that. Welcome to the house of representatives with democrats in charge. Let me turn to the matter that we are here for. A lot of talk about the whistleblower complaint. The question is at this point, given what we have, why all the focus on this whistleblower, the best evidence of what President Trump said to president zielinski is a transcript of what president said to president zielinski, and not casting anything on the whistleblowers intent, but a secondhand account of what was said, is not as good as the firsthand account rbs aof what said, and the whistleblower was wrong in numerous aspects, and de concehat there was s i am a serious or abuse or violation of the law, and goes on to say i was not a direct witness to the events described however i found my colleagues accounts of this to be credible. Then talking about those accounts of which this complaint is based on, the whistleblower tells us the officials that i spoke with told me, and i was told that, and, i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that, and white house officials told me that, and i also learned from multiple u. S. Officials that in other words, all of this is secondhand information, and none of it is firsthand information. The whistleblower goes on to cite additional sources behind the secondhand information, and those sources happen to include Mainstream Media, and the sources the whistleblower bases his complaint on, the new york time, abc news, bloomberg, and the hill sz, and much like the steel dossier, the complaints are based on thirdhand Mainstream Media sources rather than firsthand information. The whistleblower also appears to have alleged crimes just not against the president but says with regard to this scheme to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election that, quote, the president s personal lawyer, mr. Guiliani is a central figure in the effort and attorney general barr appears to be involved as well, but buried in a footnote a couple pages later, the whistleblower admits, i do not know the extent to which, if at all, mr. Guiliani is directly coordinating his efforts on the ukraine with attorney general barr. Attorney general does know because he issued a statement yesterday saying there was no involvement. My point in all of this, again, is the transcript is the best evidence of what we have, so that the American People are very clear what the transcript relates is legal communications, and the United States is allowed to solicit help from a Foreign Government in an ongoing investigation, which is what President Trump did in that conversation. If the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct, be my guest. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Heck. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for being here sir, and thank you for your service. I want to step back a little bit and put into perspective what is at stake here. Obviously yesterday the white house released the transcript of the conversation, and we now know that this phone call was indeed a part of the whistleblower complaint. Yesterday the chair at a press conference characterized the president s conversation in that call as a shakedown of the ukrainian leader, and he was not suggesting it was a shakedown for either information or money but instead it was a shakedown for help to win a president ial election, which is coming up next year. So now lets rewind to may 7th of this year when fbi director, christopher wray, testified before the United States senate, and i am quoting now, that any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to the fbi any conversations with foreign actors about, quote, influencing or interfering with our election. Director wray is, of course, the top cop in the United States of america. You agree with director wray, do you not, sir . Congressman heck, i do not disagree with director wray is that the same thing as you agree with him, sir . Yes. Thank you and let me go on fastforward. It was referred to the fbi. Let me fastforward. Was it referred to the fbi by the president who actually engaged in the conversation . The no, it was not. Let me fastforward to june 13th, and thats five weeks in advance of that, when the chair of the federal Elections Commission made the following statement, and follow me, please. Let me make something 100 clear to the American Public and anybody running for public office, it is illegal for any person to accept, solicit or receive anything of value from a Foreign National in connection with the u. S. Election. This is not a novel concept. Election intervention from Foreign Governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. Do you agree with the fec chair, mr. Director . I agree our elections are sacred, and any interference from an outside source is just not what we want to do and to solicit or accept it is illegal . I dont know you think it may be okay, and you do not know the law in this regard so may think it may be okay for a candidate to ae lizit i cant believe you are saying that. You are not really saying that at all, right . I am not saying that at all. We should know the fec chair was prompted to say this because it was just literally literally the day before that the president of the United States sat at the resolute desk in the most iconic room in the United States, the oval office and said that fbi director wray was wrong . You are obviously disagreeing with that. He also said he would consider accepting foreign help and, of course, yesterday, we learned that the president did, in fact, did in fact, do exactly that, solicit that help. Director, whether its this president or any president , do you believe it is okay for the president of the United States to pressure a foreign country into helping him or her win an election . Congressman, i believe that nobody is above the law. We discussed what we think applies to the law. So it is illegal to saolicit . I cannot is it okay for a president to pressure any president to pressure a Foreign Government for help to win an election . It is unwarranted. Its unwelcomed and bad for the nation to have out side interference, any foreign power thank you. And by extension, it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well . I mean, all i know that is i have the transcripts as you have. I have the whistleblower complaint as you have i was not referring to the whistleblower complaint, but in any president were to do this, and i accept your answer. I think its unacceptable, director, and i think its wrong and i think we all know it and i think we were taught this at a very young age, and theres a voice within most of us, unfortuna unfortunately not all of us, that suggests its wrong, and its illegal and wrong congressman, if i may answer once again i have run out of time, sir no, you have got you may answer, director. Once again, it was referred to the federal borough of investigations not by the president no, but by this office and by the office of and by the ic director wray said that any candidate or elected official should immediately report it. He didnt say the director should report it, although you should and did, thank you, but the person involved did not do what director wray said should occur, period. Thank you, congressman. Mr. Welch. Thank you. Director, i want to say thank you. Theres nobody in this room who can claim to have served their country longer and more valiantly than you. I heard in your opening remarks that your family before you has been committed to this country, and i say thank you. Second, i appreciated your candor in your Opening Statement when you acknowledge that the whistleblower acted in good faith. Third, i appreciated your acknowledgment that the Inspector Generalo actn a accor view of the law. I want to say this. When you said you were in a unique position, thats an underestimate. You got a complaint involving the president of the United States and also the United States attorney general, and i disagree with some of the decisions you made but i have no doubt whatsoever that the same sense of duty that you applied in your long career guided you as you made these decisions, so thank you for that. I want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. The dni has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections. Correct . Thats correct. Of course, you are aware, as we all are, of the Mueller Report and his indictments against 12 Foreign Nationals, russians, who actively interfered in our election, correct . I read the report. Its a huge responsibility that your agency has, correct . In this case, because of the two things you mentioned, that the president is the one person that is above the Intelligence Community and your sense about executive privilege, you did not forward the complaint to us, correct . I did not forward yes, congressman, because i was still working with the white house no, i understand that. You have been very clear on that. Let me just ask a hypothetical to show the dilemma you were in. Lets say a u. S. Senator who was well connected or a private citizen well connected had access to and had a conversation as a result of that with the leader of a foreign country, and asked that person for a favor, the u. S. Senator, lets say, providing dirt on a political opponent. Is that something that you would see that should be forwarded to this committee . Congressman, i dont mean to be disrespectful but its difficult to answer hypothetical questions. I am not sure i understand i wont make it hypothetical. Lets say instead of a conversation between the president and the president of ukraine, it was the u. S. Senator head of the Appropriations Committee and was asking for the foreign leader i understand, sir. Would you forward that to our committee . I mentioned it a little bit ell earlier in the United States, the United States senator is not a member of the Intelligence Community, and so any wrong doing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigation. I respectfully disagree with u, because obviously that would be a solicitation by that u. S. Senator for interference in our elections, and thats in your jurisdiction, correct . Election interference, yes, congressman. And once again, congressman, although it is, as far as what the legal responsibility to do in compliance with the intelligence reform act, the whistleblower protection act, it does not the statute does not allow for that to be done. I disagree with that. Yes, sir. But heres the dilemma that you were in and were in, but we will now be able to followup because executive privilege if it existed was waived. Your under approach, as you saw it, it means that nobody would be investigating the underlying conduct because in this case, executive privilege applies or may apply, and number two, the president who had the conversation is above the law. So thats a dilemma for our democracy, is it not . The complaint was sent to the feder federal bureau of investigation, totally disregarding any concern for executive privilege. The federal bureau of investigation never did a followup investigation, right . I believe they concluded the investigation, and i am not sure in addition to being involved in this matter, and i have other pressing matters as director, so i apologize. In the Justice Department led by mr. Barr, who is the subject of the complaint, and thats the department that provided the opinion that theres no action to be taken . I believe the attorney general was mentioned in the complaint, and not necessarily the subject of the complaint, sir. He was mentioned. Yes. I yield back. Thank you. Mr. Maloney. Director maguire, when was your first day on the job . Friday the 16th of august, and i think i set a new record in the administration of being subpoenaed first. The complaint was august 12th. What else you have done right in has toe something that you worry about. Dan coats timing is better than mine. There has been a lot of talk about the process, and i want to summarize a couple things if thats okay. Your first couple of days on the job you are hit with this complaint, and it says the president of the United States pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent, and that political opponents son, in fact. That that president asked the foreign leader to work with private citizen mr. Guiliani and the attorney general of the United States, bill barr, on that scheme. The president at that time, not in dispute, was withholding 391 million of assistance, holding that over the ukrainian president s head, and that ukrainian president raises in the conversation about u. S. Military systems, and he has Russian Troops in his country, and the wolf is at the door. The president asks about a favor, and complaints about not getting enough from you, thats what reciprocity is, right . We have to get something from you if we give something to you. He names the political opponents by name, the bidens. The ukrainian president said he will do the investigation. Thats what you are hit with. And you are looking at that complaint where in the second paragraph alleged serious wrong doing by the president of the United States and the first thing you do is go to the president s men at the white house and women and say should i give it to congress . And in the second paragraph of that complaint, sir, it also suggests the attorney general could be involved and the second thing you do is go to the attorney generals people at the Justice Department and ask them if you should give it to congress. I have no question about your character. I have read your bio. I have questions about your decision, and the judgment in those decisions. See any conflicts here . Congressman, i have a lot of leadership experience. I do. As you said, it came to me very early on in this. The fact that i was just i am the acting dni and still using garrman to get to work, that this came to my attention involving the president of the United States, and the important matter of this, and in the past, as i said before, i have always worked with Legal Counsel because of the magnitude and the importance of this decision, sir, as a navel officer for years, i thought it would be prudent and i want to say, if i may, my life would have been a heck of a lot simpler dont doubt that at all. When you were considering prudence, was it prudent to give a veto power of the decision to the two people implicated by it. I have to work with the situation as it is, congressman. Only the white house can determine or waive executive privilege. Theres nobody else to go to. As far as a second opinion, my only avenue of that was to go to the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. You understand, sir, if unchallenged by your own Inspector General, that prudence would have prevented these allegations from ever reaching congress. I think you left the door open that you spoke to the president of the United States about this whistleblower complaint. Sir, did you speak personally to the president of the United States at anytime about this complaint . Congressman, once again, i am the president s intelligence officer. I speak to the president i know you speak to the president a lot. Its a simple question, sir . Did you speak about this whistleblower complaint, yes or no . My conversation with the president is privileged. I am not asking for the contents. Did you or did you not speak to the president about this whistleblower complaint . I speak to the president about a lot of things, and anything that i say to the president of the United States in any form is privileged not asking for the content. Are you denying you spoke to the president . I am telling you once again, i speak to the president and anything i say to the president is confidential. Thank you, sir. Thats the way it is. I understand. Thank you. Director, you underst asking conversations with the president , about National Security or Foreign Policy about the National Counterterrorism center, we just want to know did you discuss this subject with the president. You can imagine what a profound conflict of interest that would be. Did you discuss this with the president , you can say i did not discuss it with him if thats the answer, or you could say i did discuss it with him but i will not get into the content of the conversation, and that question you can answer . Once again, my conversation, no matter what the subject is with the president of the United States is privileged conversation between the director of National Intelligence and the president. Mrs. Demings. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman and director maguire. Thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for your service. Good morning, congresswoman. I know you said you took your first oath in 1974, and thats a long time, but a long time to be proud of the service. I took my first oath in 1984 when i was sworn in as a Law Enforcement officer and i thank you so much for saying that Public Service is a sacred trust because regardless of the circumstances or who is involved, Public Service is a sacred trust. I have had an opportunity as a Law Enforcement officer, i am a member of congress, but to investigate internal case involving other personnel and i have had an opportunity to investigate numerous other cases, criminal cases, and never once, just for the record, director maguire, did i ever go to the suspect or the defendant or the principal in those cases to ask them what i should do in the case. There has been a lot of talk this morning, the whole discussion, the whole reason why we are here centers around the u. S. Relationship with ukraine. I think you would agree ukraine is very dependent on the United States of assisting them with defending them. Can you talk about that relationship and how important it is for the United States to assist ukraine if they are ever going to be able to defend themselves . I think the United States has been extremely supportive of ukraine. I would say that they are relying on us, as they rely on other people in europe. I would also say that the United States is probably paying more of their fair share for the support of ukraine than the others. The threats are real for the ukrainian people, and the stake of freedom and democracy is also, even though its in the ukraine, its also very much a concern. Based on that, you could say ukraine could probably never get there without the support and assistance from the support of the United States . If others were able to support they would be able to get there. But they are not, and we are there, and i think you said it would be difficult for ukraine to meet that goal of defending themselves without our support, correct . It would be a challenge, yes. This complaint out lies a scheme by the president of the United States, and i am not really sure what to call Rudy Guiliani these days, and maybe hes the new fixer, im not sure, but either way it involves a scheme to coerce ukraine, this country that you say is so very dependant on the United States to defend selves, to coerce ukraine into assist in the president s reelection efforts in 2020. In the report from your Inspector General, the memo sent to you, it says on july 18th, the office of management and budget official informed the departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine, neither omb nor the nsc staff new why the instruction had been issued. During the enter agencies meeting on the 23rd and 26th of july, officials again stated the instruction to suspend the assistance had come directly from the president , but they were still unaware of a policy rational. The 23rd, the 26th, on the 18th, this issue first came up where the president was rescinding or suspending that assistance you said ukraine so desperately depends on. Director maguire we deal in what is reasonable here. I believe your Inspector General included that in the report because this whole issue is about ukraines position, the relationship with the United States, and their dependency on the United States, and the president s efforts to coerce ukraine into engaging in an illegal and improper investigation. Do you believe thats why your Inspector General added that about suspending their support to ukraine . I think that Michael Atkinson found it to be credible and he viewed it was a matter of urgent concern to forward it to the committee. Do you think its reasonable for the American People and this committee on both sides to agree theres a correlation or nexus between the president suspending the aid and the conversation that took place on the followup conversation . Yes, congresswoman, that is the allegation that is made, and i did not have access to the transcripts. My only information was the icigs cover letter and the allegation whistleblower allegation. The information coming to light yesterday by the president changes things in a different light. Mr. Chairman, my i ask one more quick yes, without objection. My understanding is the Inspector General is a career intelligence department, and hes worked in the department of justice and received numerous awards for outstanding performance, and did you have any reason to deny or not believe his conclusions in every area of this report that he was directly involved . Congresswoman, Michael Atkinson is a valued and trusted ca colleague and i respect him tremendously, and it came down to whether or not the whistleblower protection act as written allows it to forward me to this committee, and thats where i got stuck and im sorry. Thank you. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Maguire, thank you so much for your service to our country and your patriotism. I want to ask you a couple questions about the time surrounding july 25th to the time that you came in to office as dni. As you know, the phone call between President Trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year, correct . I believe july 25th, sir. At least one of them happened on july 25th. At that time the dni was can coates, and his deputy was sue gordon. The whistleblower claim was filed on august 12th of this year and you took office on august 16th, four days later. Yes. Prior to taeupking your new or since, did you discuss the complaint with dni coates . I would not have taken the job if i did, sir. Sue gordon . No, to the best of my ability, i dont think director coates or sue gordon have any sense at all about the whistleblower complaint or that Michael Atkinson had it. Before your current role did you discuss ukraine with President Trump . No, congressman, i have not discussed ukraine with anybody. Let me put it to you that way. You have not discussed ukraine with anybody in your current role as the acting dni . We have about 190 countries right now, so whatever the dailys brief is and whatever matters pertain to that, but as far as equities in that region right now, its not something that has come to my attention in the six weeks i have been the acting dni. You dont know the identity of the whistleblower, right . I do not. And you dont know his political affiliation, obviously . I do not know or her political affiliation. You believe the whistleblower was operating in good faith . I do. And without bias . I dont know about that. I do not know about that. I do believe but you have no reason to believe he or she was acting with bias, correct . I know the whistleblower was acting in good faith . But you have no reason to believe he was biassed . I dont know. You would do anything you can to protect the whistleblower with any i will not permit the whistleblower to be subject to any retaliation unlike the whistleblower, you do know the Inspector General, obviously . Yes, i hold him in high esteem. And he also operated in the highest faith, right . I believe Michael Atkinson, yes. And interestingly, mr. Atkinson was actually appointed by president donald trump, right . Yes. And what lends real credibility to the whistleblowers complaint is the fact that mr. Atkinson, an appointee of the president , would actually bring forward a complaint against his boss and thats something that is especially courageous. What i want to hear from you is you will do everything you can to protect mr. Atkinson from potential retaliation . Congressman, absolutely. Very good. Now the white house released a memorandum of telephone conversations from the july 25th, 2019 call. Right . I believe that is what was transmitted yesterday, sir . They call that a tell con, in the jargon of the memorandum, is that right . This is the first time i have seen thenst of conversation with a foreign leader. You have been a party to a conversation between the president and a foreign leader on a phone call . When i am in the office to provide the intelligence briefed to the president , some foreign head of state might call in, and the president may ask us to leave or stay there for a brief call from time to time, yes, sir. And there are note takers that actually scribble down what is being said on those calls . If they are note takers, they would not be in the oval office with us. They might be listening from somewhere else, sir. Like from the situation room . I dont know, but somewhere within the white house, yes. Within this particular situation, maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call thats the allegation, yes, sir. And they were all taking notes presumably . If they are good public servants, yes, congressman. Were you ever a party to a call where the notes that you took were then given to somebody at the white house for keeping . I have never been party to any call other than my own. I would take notes as my own, and i have never been privy to a conversation with the president where i would be involved in taking notes. It would be happenstance. I happened to be there and he felt comfortable to leave me for a brief conversation, but its not anything that i would be in the office particularly for that matter. Thank you for your service. Thank you, congressman, very much. Thank you. I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for any final questions he would have. Thank you, mr. Chair. Mr. Maguire, i want to thank you for your attendance here today. Congratulations for surviving legal word challenge charade today. I suspect hopefully we will see you behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done, and i would just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they would like to impeach the president they need to go to the floor of the house and actually call for a vote. The Intelligence Committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment. So theres a process in the constitution that i would advice y advise you all follow, and in the meantime, director maguire, i want to apologize to you for being accused of crimes you have not committed and its totally inappropriate behavior to accuse somebody that has served four decades like you and i hope you do not have to go through this any longer. With that i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. Director, i have a few more questions to followup because i thought i heard you say a moment ago that you had no communication with the president on the subject of ukraine. Did i understand you to say that . I have not particularly had any conversation with anybody on the subject with ukraine that did not deal with the matter that we have right now in regard to the whistleblower complaint. So not particularly with the office of Legal Counsel, as far as mentioning ukraine or as far as the Justice Department. All i did was send the documents forwarded, the allegations are in there, and i just let the documents speak for themselves. You are saying you did not have any conversation on the subject of ukraine that did not involve this complaint . Thats correct, sir. I have been the acting dni for six weeks i am just trying to understand because that is suggesting that you did have a conversation involving the complaint with the president. No, no. That is not what i said, sir. Director, you mentioned early on when we were on the subject of what the Inspector General was able to investigate or not investigate, whether the president is within the Intelligence Community or subject to the Intelligence Community, and by the way t the statute doesnt require the subject of the complaint be within the Intelligence Community. It requires the whistleblower to be an employee or detailee, it doesnt require the subject be a member of the intelligence employee. You adopted the thought that the president is it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern. Not necessarily the president but the allegation has to relate to the funding and ad help station of the intelligence activity with the authority of the director of National Intelligence. Im just rying to get to weather the president is beyond the reach of the law. No sir, no prpb of this country is beyond the reach of the law. Has the way it should be. Thats what im trying to figure out if its a practical fact. The Inspector General bases on the pen i dont know of the