Expected to get underway in about seven minutes. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Test. Captioning performed by vitac the committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair reserves the right to reassess the hearing at any time. The president ial oath of office requires the president of the United States to do two things. Faithfully execute his or her office and protect and defend the constitution. Oath of course cannot be honored if the president does not first defend the country. If our National Security is jeopardized, if our country is left undefended, the necessity to faithfully execute the office becomes moot. Where there is no country, there is no office to execute. And so the duty to defend the nation is foundational to the president s responsibilities. But what if this second responsibility to defend the constitution . What does that really mean . The founders were not speaking of course of a piece of parchment. Rather they were expressing the obligation of the president to defend the institutions of our democracy, to defend our system of checks and balances that the constitution enshrines, to defend the rule of law, a principle on which the idea of america was born that we are a nation of laws, not men. If we do not defend the nation, there is no constitution. But if we do not defend the constitution, there is no nation worth defending. Yesterday, we were presented with a most of the most graphic evidence yet that the president of the United States has betrayed his oath of office. Betrayed his oath to defend our National Security. And betrayed his oath to defend our constitution. For yesterday we were presented with a record of a call between the president of the United States and the president of ukraine in which the president , our president , sacrificed our National Security and our constitution for his personal political benefit. So, werstand how he did must first understand just how overwhelmingly depended ukraine is on the United States. Literally, financially militarily, financially, diplomatically and in every other way. And not just on the United States, but on the person of the president. Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor, by our common adversary, by Vladimir Putins russia. It remains occupied by Russian Irregular forces in a long simmering war. Ukraine desperately needs our help and for years we have given it. And on a bipartisan basis. Ago is until two months when it was held up inexplicably by President Trump. Context after a brief congratulatory call from President Trump to president zelinski on april 21, and after the president s personal emissary at Rudy Giuliani made it abundantly clear to ukrainian officials over several months that the president wanted dirt on his political opponents, it is in this context that the new president of ukraine would speak to donald trump over the phone on july 25. President s a linsky either to establish himself at home as a friend of the president of the most powerful nation on earth had at least two objectives. Get a meeting with the president and get more military help. And so what happened on that call . Zelinski begins by ingratiating himself and he tries to enlist the support of the president. He expresses interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself. And what is the president s response . It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. Weve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what . I dont see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor i want from you though. And im going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I went you to make up dirt on my political opponent understand, lots of it. On this and on that. Im going to put you in touch with people, not just any people. Im going to put you in touch with attorney general bill barr. Hes got the whole weight of the american Law Enforcement behind him. And im going to put you in touch with rudy. Youre going to love him. Trust me. You know what im asking and so im only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, dont call me again. I will call you when youve done what i asked. This is in character of what the president was trying to communicate. It would be funny if it wasnt such a graphic the trail of the president s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there is nothing the president says here that is in americas interest after all. It is instead the most consequential form of tragedy. Confront the us to remedy the founders provided for such a flagrant abuse of office, impeachment. Now this matter would not have come to the attention of our committee or the nations attention without the courage of a single person. The whistleblower. You know, director maguire more so than perhaps any other area of government since we deal with classified information, the Intelligence Committee is dependent on whistleblowers to reveal wrongdoing when it occurs. When the agencies do not selfreport. Because outside parties are not allowed to scrutinize your work and to guide us. Tothat system is allowed break down as it did here, if whistleblowers come to understand that they will not be two thingse of happen. Serious wrongdoing goes unreported or whistleblowers take matters into their own hands and divulge classified information to the press in violation of law. And placing our National Security at risk. This is why the whistleblower system is so vital to us. And why your handling of this urgent complaint is also so troubling. Today we can say for the First Time Since we have released this morning the whistleblower complaint that you have marked unclassified. That the substance of this call is a core issue although by no means the only issue raised by the whistleblowers complaint. Which was shared with the committee for the first time only late yesterday. Law, the whistleblower complaint which brought this gross misconduct light should have been presented to this Committee Weeks ago and by you, mr. Director, under the clear letter of the law. And yet it wasnt. Maguire, i was very pleased when you were named acting director. Not going to was remain i was grateful that a man of your superb mill terry background was chosen. A navy seal for 36 years and director of the National Counterterrorism center since december 2018. Your credentials are impressive. In the limited interactions we have had since you became director, you haveyour credenti. Struck me as a good and decent man. Which makes your actions over the last month all the more will during. Not to provide the complaint to this committee as required by law. Why you chose to seek a Second Opinion on whether shall really means shall under the statute. Why you chose to go to a Department Led by a man, bill barr, who himself is implicated in the complaint and believes that he exists to serve the interest of the president , not the office itself, mind you, or the public interest, but the interest of the person of donald trump. Why you chose to allow the subject of the complaint to play a role in deciding whether the congress would ever see the complaint. Silent whend intelligence professional under your care and protection was ridiculed by the president. Was accused of potentially betraying his or her country. When that whistleblower by their very act of coming forward has shown more dedication to country , more of an understanding of the president s oath of office this than the president himself. Look forward to your explanation. Ranking member nunez. I thank the gentleman. I want to correctly the democrats on the rollout of their latest Information Warfare operation against the president. And their extraordinary ability to once again enlist the Mainstream Media in their campaign. This operation began with media reports from the prime instigators of the russia collusion hoax. That a whistleblower is claiming President Trump made nefarious promise to a foreign leader. The released transcript of that call has already bound to central assertion. But that didnt matter. The democrats simply moved the goalpost and began claiming there doesnt need to be a quick pro quote for this conversation to serve as the basis for impeaching the president. Speaker pelosi went further when asked earlier if she would put brakes on impeachment if the transcript turned out to be benign. So there you go. If the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats and their media we have many candidates for impeachable offenses. That was her quote. So there you go. If the whistleblower operation doesnt work out, the democrats and their media assets can always drama Something Else. Information has come to light since the original false report of a promise being made . We have learned the following. The complaint relied on hearsay evidence provided by the whistleblower. The Inspector General did not know the contents of the phone call at issue. The Inspector General found the whistleblower displayed arguable political bias against trump. The department of justice investigated the complaint and determines no action was warranted. The ukrainian president denies being pressured by President Trump. Lisa pozenin, scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told the supposed scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told and leakers are ginning up a fake story with no regard to the monumental damage they are causing to our Public Institutions and to trust in government. And without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past including countless allegations the Trump Campaign colluded with russia to hack the 2016 election. We are supposed to forget about all those stories. But believe this one. In short, what we have with this storyline is another steele dossier. I will note here that in the democrats mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the russia hoax it was our intelligence agencies which were turned into a political weapon to a tax the president. Attacked the president. Today, the whistleblower process is the casualty. Until about a week ago the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee. But if the democrats were really concerned with defending that process, they would have pursued this matter with a quiet, sober inquiry as we do for all whistleblowers. But that would have been useless for them. They dont want answers. They want a public spectacle and so weve been treated to an unending parade of press releases, press conferences and fake news stories. Whistleblower inquiries should not be held in public at all. As our Senate Counterparts obviously understand, theyre hearing with mr. Maguire is behind closed doors. But again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. The current hysteria has Something Else in common with russia hoax. Back then, they accused the Trump Campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians. And preparing the steele dossier. Today they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. And yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. Joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating bidens own son. Three Democratic Senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian general prosecutor to reopen the investigation. Into former Trump Campaign officials. Another democratic senator went ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations involving joe bidens son. According to ukrainian officials, the Democratic National committee contractor alexandra to luba tried to get ukrainian officials to provide air to honor Trump Associates and tried to get the former ukrainian president to comment publicly on alleged ties to russia. Official was a source for the wife of Department Justice official bruce or as she worked on the antitrump operation conducted by fusion gps and funded by the democrats. And of course, democrats on this very committee negotiated with people who they thought were ukrainians in order to obtain nude pictures of trump. People can reasonably ask why the democrats are so determined to impeach this president. When in just a year they will have a chance. Fact, one democratic congressman, one of the first to call for trumps impeachment davis the answer when he said, im concerned that if we dont impeach the president he will get reelected. Winning elections is hard. And when you compete, you have no guarantee you will win. But the American People to have a say in this. And they made their voices heard in the last president ial election. The latest gambit by democrats to overturn the peoples mandate is unhinged and dangerous. Should end the entire dishonest grotesque spectacle and get to work to solving problems which is what every member of this committee was sent here to do. , theng by todays charade chances of that happening anytime soon our zero to none. I yield back. I think the gentleman. Director, would you rise for the oath and raise your right hand . Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony will give today shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . Thank you. You may be seated. The record will reflect that the winners has been duly sworn. Witness has been duly sworn. Director maguire, would you agree that the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . Mr. Chairman, the whistleblower i apologize, director. Let me recognize you for your Opening Statement and you may take as much time as you need. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Chairman schiff, ranking members , thank you. Ttee i would like to thank you for providing postponing this hearing for one week. Mr. Chairman, i have told you this on several occasions and i would like to say this publicly. I respect you, i respect this committee and i welcome and take seriously the committees oversight role. During my confirmation process to be the director of the National Counterterrorism center, i told the Senate Select committee on intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the Intelligence Community. Ofing served as the director the National Counterterrorism center for eight months and as the acting director of National Intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. As i pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while im serving either in this capacity as acting director of National Counterterrorism and when i returned to the National Counterterrorism center. To ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the Intelligence Community. The American People expect us to keep them safe. The Intelligence Community cannot do that without this committees support. Before i turned to the matter at hand, there are a few things i would like to say. I am not partisan and i am not political. I believe in a life of service and i am honored to be a public servant. I served under eight president s while i was in uniform. I have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times. The first time when i was sworn into the United States navy in 1974 and nine times during my subsequent promotions in the United States navy. Former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director of the National Counterterrorism center. I agree with you. The oath is sacred. Its the foundation of our constitution. The oath to me means not only that i swear true faith and allegiance to that sacred document, but more importantly i view it as a covenant i have with my work force that i lead and every american that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. I come from a long line of Public Servants who have stepped forward even in the most difficult times and austere times to support and defend our country. When i took my uniform off in july of 2010, it was the first time in 70 years that an immediate member of my family was not wearing the cloth of the nation. As a Naval Special warfare officer, i had the honor of commanding at every level in the community. It was at times very demanding. But the rewards of serving in americas special Operations Community more than make up for the demands. Wasr my retirement, i fortunate to work for a great private sector firm. I left the Business World after three years to lead a nonprofit charity. Some question why i would leave a Promising Business career to run a charity. The answer was quite simple. It was another opportunity to serve. Dedicated toation honoring the sacrifice of our fallen and severely Wounded Special operators to get the foundation i lead and able to hundreds of children of our fallen to attend college. It was extremely meaningful and rewarding. 2018, i wasr of asked by former director dan coats to return to Government Service to lead the National Counterterrorism center. This request was totally unexpected and was not a position i sought. But then again, it was another opportunity to serve my country. Manyrticular, i knew that of the young sailors in jr. Offices that i had trained 20 years earlier were now senior combat veterans deploying and still sacrificing. Hi decided that they could continue to serve, returning to Government Service was the very least i could do. And now here i am. Sitting before you as the acting director of National Intelligence. Ofh last months departure dan coats and sue gordon, two exceptional leaders and friends, i was asked to step into their very big shoes and lead the Intelligence Community until the president nominates and the Senate Confirms the next director of National Intelligence. I accepted this responsibility because i love this country. I have a deep and profound respect for the men and women of our Intelligence Community and the mission we execute every day on behalf of the American People. Haveghout my career, i served and led through turbulent times. I have governed every action by the following criteria. It must be legal, it must be moral, and it must be ethical. Individualske an integrity away. It can only be given away. If every action meets those criteria, you will always be a person of integrity. In my nearly four decades of Public Service, my integrity has never been questioned until now. Im here today to unequivocally will that as acting dni, i continue the same faithful and nonpartisan support in a matter that adheres to the constitution and the laws of this great country as long as i serve in this position for whatever period of time that may be. I want to make it clear that i have upheld my responsibility follow the law every step of the way in the matter that is before us today. I want to also state my support for the whistleblower and the rights and the laws. Whistleblowing has a long history in our country dating back to the continental congress. This is not surprising because as a nation we desire for good government. Therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing weather on the battlefield or in the workplace. Start of ethics training in the executive branch each year, we are reminded that Public Service is a public trust. Haves Public Servants we the solemn responsibility to do whats right which includes reporting concerns of waste, fraud and abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this act. I am committed to ensuring that all whistleblower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case, the complainant raised a matter with the Intelligence Community Inspector General. The Inspector General is properly protecting the complainants identity and will not permit the complainant to be subject to any retaliation or averse consequences for bringing the complaint to the Inspector General. Upholding the integrity of the Intelligence Community and the workforce is my number one priority. Throughout my career, i relied on the men and women of the Intelligence Community to do their jobs so i could do mine. Attest thatrsonally their efforts saved lives. I would now like to turn to the complaint and provide a general background on how we got to where we are today. On august 20 sixth, the Inspector General forwarded the complaint to me from an employee in the Intelligence Community. The Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern. A legally defined term under whistleblower protection act that has been discussed at. Ength before i turn to the discussion about whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, i first want to talk about an even more fundamental issue. Upon reviewing the complaint, we were immediate lease struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another foreign leader. Such calls are typically subject to executive privilege. As a result, we consulted with the White House Counsels Office and we were advised that much of the information in the complaint was in fact subject to executive privilege. A privilege that i do not have the authority to waive people. Because of that, we were immediately able to share the details of the complaint with this committee. Yesterday the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we are now able to disclose the details of both complaint and the Inspector Generals letter transmitting to us. Prided the, i have house and senate provided the house and Senate Committees with full unredacted complaint as well as the Inspector Generals letter. Let me also discussed the issue of urgent concern. When transmitting a complaint to me, the Inspector General took the legal position that because the complaint alleges matters of urgent concern and because he found the allegations to be credible, i was required under the Intelligence Community whistleblower protection act to forward the complaint our Oversight Committees within seven days of receiving it. As we have previously explained in our letters, urgent concern is a statutorily defined term. To be an urgent concern, the allegations must in addition to being classified assert a flagrant serious problem, abuse or violation of law and relate to the funding, administration or operation of an intelligent activity within the responsibility of the director of National Intelligence. However, this complaint concerns conduct by someone outside the Intelligence Community unrelated to funding, administration or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision. Because the allegation on the face did not appear to fall in the statutory framework, my office consulted with that the United States department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel and it concluded we included the Inspector General in those consultations. After reviewing the complaint and the Inspector Generals letter, the office of Legal Counsel determined that the allegations do not meet the statutory requirement definition of urgent concern and found that i was not legally required to transmit the material to our Oversight Committee under the whistleblower protection act. An unclassified version of that office of Legal Counsel memo was publicly released. As you know, for those of us in the executive branch, office of Legal Counsel opinions are binding on all of us. In particular, the office of Legal Counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the Intelligence Community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. Opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees, it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee. However, given the executive privilege issues are discussed, neither the Inspector General nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. When the Inspector General informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint, mr. Chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept us informed as possible of this process moving forward. I want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in first, i want to stress that i believe that the whistleblower and the Inspector General have acted in good faith throughout. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law. Respecting the privileged nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved. Wherever possible, we have worked in partnership with the Inspector General on this matter. While we have difference of opinions on the issue of whether or not the issue is of urgent concern, i strongly believe in the role of the Inspector General. I greatly value the independence he brings and his dedication and role in keeping me and the committees informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee. Second, although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committees until recently, this does not mean that the complaint was ignored. The Inspector General in consultation with my Office Referred this matter to the department of justice for investigation. That in i appreciate the past, whistleblower complaints may have been provided to congress regardless of whether they were deemed writable or satisfied the urgent concern requirement. However, i am not familiar with any prior instances where whistleblower complaint touched on such complicated and sensitive issues including executive privilege. I believe that this matter is unprecedented. I also believe that i handled this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and i am committed to doing so, sir. I appreciate the committee providing this opportunity to discuss this matter and the ongoing commitment to work with the congress on your important oversight role. Thank you very much sir. Thank you, director. That the whistleblower complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States . The whistleblower complaint involves the allegation of that. It is not for me or the committee to decide his interactions with their countries. Im not asking you to opine on how the president conducts foreign policy. Im asking whether as the statute wires this complaint involved serious wrongdoing in this case by the president of the United States. An allegation of serious wrongdoing by the president of the United States. Is that not the subject of this complaint . That is the subject of the complaint. Of the let me ask you about that. The Inspector General found that serious allegation of misconduct by the president credible. Did you also find that credible . I did not criticize the Inspector Generals decision on whether or not it was credible. My question was whether or not it meets the urgent concern in the seven day timeframe that would follow. My question, director i have no question in his judgment that he considers it a serious matter. Would yould concur, not, director, that this complaint alleging serious wrongdoing by the president was credible . Its not for me to judge, sir. It is for you to judge. I agree its not for you to judge. You shall provide it to congress, but indeed he did judge whether this complaint should be provided to congress. Can we at least agree that the Inspector General made a sound conclusion that this whistleblower complaint was credible . That is correct. That is in the cover letter provided to the committee. The recommendation by the Inspector General that in fact the allegation was credible. Can we also agree that it was urgent that if the president of the United States was withholding military aid to an ally even as you received the complaint and was doing so for a nefarious reason, that is to exercise leverage over the president of ukraine to dig up manufactured dirt on his opponent, can we agree that it was urgent while that aid was being withheld . Im talking about the common understanding of what urgent means because the Inspector General said this was urgent as everyone understands that term. Can we agree that it was urgent . It was urgent and important. My job as the director of National Intelligence was to comply with the whistleblower protection act and adhere to the definition of urgent concern which is a legal term. And to adhere to the meaning term shall. Yes sir. In this case, you sought a Second Opinion on whether shallow really means shall going to the white house. No sir. There were two things. As i said in my statement. One, it appeared that it also had matters of executive privilege. I am not authorized as the director of National Intelligence to waive executive privilege. At any time over the last month that you held complaint, did the white house assert executive privilege . Mr. Chairman, i have i think thats a yes or no question. They were working through the executive privilege procedures in deciding whether or not to exert executive privilege. So they never exerted executive privilege. Mr. Chairman, if they did we would not have released the letters yesterday and all the information that had been forthcoming. The first place you went was to the white house. On my tan understand that from your Opening Statement . The first place we went for a Second Opinion was to the white house . I did not go for a Second Opinion. The question was is the information contained here subject to executive privilege not whether or not it meant urgent concern. So the first place you went to for advice as to whether you should provide the complaint as the statute requires to congress was the white house. As the not authorized director of National Intelligence to provide executive privilege information. I think it is prudent as a member of the executive branch to check to ensure that in fact it does not. You first go to the white house to determine whether you should provide a complaint to congress . No sir. That was not the question. The question was whether or not it has executive privilege, not whether or not i should send it on to congress. First party he went to outside your office to seek advice, counsel, direction the white house . I have consulted with the white House Counsel and we also consulted with the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. Did you go to is the white house first. I went to the office of Legal Counsel for advice. Yes sir. Did you go to the department of justice first or the white house first . My office went to the office of Legal Counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. If you had said weve determined that it appears to be executive from the and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that fully to the committee. Oforked with the Office Legal Counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. Its a very deliberate process. Im still trying to understand the chronology. He went to the office of Legal Counsel and then you went to white House Counsel . Repeat that please . You first went to the office of Legal Counsel and then went to the white House Counsel . No sir. House firsthe white thats all i want to know is the chronology. Went to the white house first. You went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about whether you should provide the complaint to congress. There were issues within this a couple of things. It did appear that it has executive privilege. If it does have executive privilege, it is the white house that determines that. I cannot determine that as the director of National Intelligence. But in this case, the president is the subject of the complaint. Hes the subject of the wrongdoing. Were you aware when you went to the white house for advice about whether evidence of wrongdoing by the white house should be provided to the congress, or you aware that the white House Counsel has taken the unprecedented position that the privilege applies to communications involving the president when he was president involving the president when he wasnt president , involving people who never served in the ministrations, involving people who never served in the Administration Even when they arent even talking to the ministration. Were you aware that that is the unprecedented position of the white house you went to over whether you should turn over a complaint involving the white house . Mr. Chairman, as i said in my Opening Statement, i believe everything in this matter is totally unprecedented. And to me it just seemed prudent to be able to check and ensure as a member of the executive ranch before i sent it forward. I still have a couple of questions before i turn it over to the ranking member. The second place you went to was the justice department. And you went to that department headed by a man, bill barr, who was also implicated in the complaint. And you knew that when you went to the department of justice for an opinion. Correct . Bill barr was mentioned in the complaint. Mr. Chairman, i went to the office of Legal Counsel in consultation with the icig. He was part of that to receive whether or not this met the criteria. Vehementlyicig disagreed with the opinion of the bill barr justice department, did he not . Considered it a matter of urgent concern. Opinionsas you know, from the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive ranch. Let me ask you this. Do you think its appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice who is a subject of the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that complaint to congress . Did that conflict of interest concern you . Mr. Chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. Thoughtto me and i just it would be prudent. Im just asking if the conflict of interest concerns you. Sir, i have to work with what ive got and that is the office of Legal Counsel within the executive branch. What you also had was a youute that says shall and had the discretion to provide it but you did not. It did not meet the matter of urgent concern. That took away the seven day timeline. I have endeavored to work with the office of Legal Counsel in order to get the material to you which we have provided to you yesterday. Now i have to tell you chairman, it is not perhaps at the timeline that i would have desired. Or you. But the office of Legal Counsel has to make sure they make prudent decisions and yesterday when the president released transcripts of his call with the , executivef ukraine privilege no longer applied and that is when i was free to be able to send the complaint to the committee. Director, you dont believe the whistleblower is a clinical hack, do you . I dont know who the whistleblower is mr. Chairman. To be honest with you i have done the utmost to you to protect his anonymity. That doesnt sound like much of a defense of the whistleblower. You dont believe the whistleblower is a political hack, do you . I believe there was a blower operating in good faith. They couldnt be in good faith if they were acting as a political act hack, could they . Tomr. Chairman, my job is support and lead the entire Intelligence Community. That individual works for me therefore it is my job to make sure i support and defend that person. You dont have any reason to accuse them of disloyalty to our country . Absolutely not. I believe the whistleblower followed steps every step of the way. Was one in this situation involving the president of the nine states who is not in the Intelligence Community or matters underneath my supervision did not meet the criteria for urgent concern. Im just asking about the whistleblower right now. I think the whistleblower did the right thing. I think he followed the law every step of the way. Then why in the present called the whistleblower if local hack and suggested that he or she might be disloyal to the country, why did you remain silent . I did not remain silent, mr. Chairman. I issued a statement to my workforce telling the committee my commitment to the whistleblower protection and ensuring i would provide protection to anybody inside the Intelligence Community that comes forward the way this was blowing out i didnt think it was appropriate for me to make a press statement so that we counter each other every step of the way. I think it was not only appropriate, but theres nothing that would have given more confidence to the workforce then hearing you publicly say no one should be calling this professional who did the right a traitor oror anything else. I think that would have meant a great deal to the workforce. Esther nunez, you are recognized you areunes, recognized. Welcome, mr. Director. Its a pleasure to have you here. And youre going to be part of a charade of legal word games. They are going to try to get you to Say Something that can be repeated by the media that is here that wants to report this story. I just want to get one thing straight because one of the quotes they are going to use from you is you saying that this was a credible complaint. Spun asl be used and youre saying that it was true. I want to give you an opportunity you have not investigated the veracity or the truthfulness of this complaint. Thats correct. The determination on credible was made by the icy Inspector General. He made the determination that it is credible and he also made the determination of urgent concern. Did notion i question his judgment there. The question i had was dozen fact this allegation of ,rongdoing meet the criteria the statutory criteria of urgent concern and the other issue complicated things, did it in fact, the allegations within this whistleblower complaint involve executive privilege. Thank you for clarifying that. You mentioned a little bit in your testimony but have you ever or are you aware of any former dnis who have testified about whistleblower complaints and the public . Not to my knowledge, ranking member. I do not know. We are going to have to break away from this house Intelligence Committee at hearing at this point. Live coverage continues on cspan3 and online at cspan. Org. In foruse about a gavel
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.