Department that essentially says the president is above the director. Therefore, the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director. Therefore, it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern. Therefore, the Inspector General is done. The Inspector General cant investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals reading of the public opinion, that he is no longer allowed to investigate this. Is that your reading as well . Not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding and operation ability with the director of National Intelligence. Im trying to get to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law. No, sir. No person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Thats the way it should be, but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based upon the opinion that
you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it d
general spoke to, and found it credible. and you ve told us that you have no reason to believe otherwise. am i right? i had no reason to doubt a career inspector general lawyer in his determination on whether or not it was credible. that is something for michael to determine. let me ask you this. the whistleblower also says, over the past four months, more than half a dozen u.s. officials informed me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference. you would agree we should speak to those half a dozen u.s. officials, would you not? i think you have all the material that the committee needs, and i think it s up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. i m asking your opinion as the head of our intelligence agencies. do you think we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistleblower was right? my responsibility was to get you the whistleblower letter and the complaint and other information released. i have done my responsi
so the igs can t do it, according to the department of justice. the fbi can t do it because it doesn t meet their threshold that makes it worthy of investigation. so at this point, this committee and this congress is in a position to investigate. and i want to ask you, going to the whistleblower complaint, whether you believe these allegations are worthy investigation. the whistleblower says, i have received information from multiple u.s. government officials that the president of the united states is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u.s. election. you would agree that should be investigated, would you not? chairman, the horse has left the barn. you have all of the information. you have the whistleblower complaint, you have the letter from the icig, you have the office of legal counsel opinion, and you have the transcript of the phone call. i m confident dthere is going t
support you in your fight with russia. we support you in your struggle for democracy, we support you in your efforts to root out corruption, and what you are witnessing and what you are seeing in the actions of this president is not democracy. it is the very negation of democracy. this is democracy. what you saw in this committee is democracy, as ugly as it can be, as personal as it can be, as infuriating as it can be. this is democracy. this is democracy. i thank you, director. we are adjourned. thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome to our special coverage. i m john king in washington. you have been listening to a remarkable hearing with dni joseph mcguire testifying about three hours on capitol hill.
be an investigation. you agree there should be an investigation? i believe it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee. i m asking you as a career military officer, someone who i greatly respect and i admire your service to the country. do you believe that there is a credible admission by the whistleblower that the president of the united states is using his power to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election, do you believe that should be investigated? i don t believe confidence corroborated by other folks. the whistleblower said he spoke or she spoke to about a dozen other people. this is secondhand information. i m not criticizing the whistleblower. but the inspector general took those two weeks, as you well told us, to corroborate that information. we don t know which, if any, of these officials the inspector