So to another point, you know, one of the issues that arose out of the russia investigation last congress was a question over the latitude provided to the u. S. President to conduct foreign affairs. In 2017, i asked then cia director brennan how he viewed statements made by president obama to russian president medvedev regarding more flexibility to negotiate after his 2012 election. And president medvedev replied he would transmit the information to vladimir and that medvedev stood with president obama. That was in an open hearing. Director brennan wouldnt entertain my question and insisted on not answering, due to the fact that the conversation was between the heads of government. Thats what he said. He further claimed he was avoiding getting involved in political partisan issues, which brings me to a similar question related to this whistleblower complaint. One, you said this executive privilege is unwaverable. I think thats consistent with cia director brennan. Congressman, only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. The president exerts executive privilege, and only the white house and president can waive that. Director brennan gave me the impression then that was the rule, thats the law. So im going to have to go with that. But do you believe the president s entitled to withhold his or her communications from congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblower case . I think that the president , when he conducts diplomacy and deals with foreign heads of state, he has every right to be able to have that information be held within the white house and the executive branch. Yesterday, i think the transmission of the call is unprecedented, and its also i think that other future leaders, when they interact with our head of state, might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction that they have with the president because of that release. So we may need to change our process here because i guess if a decision regarding executive privilege maybe it should be made prior to submitting the communication to congress. Well, either that i believe that this committee wrote the law. Based on what were doing today, you know, perhaps it needs to be relooked. I dont know. I leave that to the legislative branch. So also, we may need to change process. The 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. So i think maybe, you know, this is special circumstance, unprecedented, maybe there should be some leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. And i dont know if you know, did you feel or did the ig ever say that 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. And when you work under a timeline like that, he worked with his staff, and i think endeavored to the extent because he was following the statute as he believed it was written. So i would think any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to be able to collect the facts and do other things, but mike the atkinson was under the 14day timeline, and he did the best of his ability to comply with that. Did you feel rushed in any way, sir . I did not. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, director maguire, for your extraordinarily long service to our country. Ed a any point during this process, did you personally threaten to resign if the complaint was not provided to the committee . No, congressman, i did not. And i know that that story has appeared quite a bit, and 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 have a lot of life experience. I joined the navy i understand your record. Could you just answer it . Well, i realized full well, full and well, the importance of the allegation, and i also have to tell you, congressman congresswoman, when i saw that, i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee sometime to discuss it. All right. The complaint refers to what happened after the july 25th conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the United States. The white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location in order to lockdown, and that was the term used in the complaint, all records of the phone call. Did you did that reaction to the transcript seem to you like a recognition 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 knowledge and Situational Awareness of that is from the whistleblowers letter. So knowing that the whistleblower appeared to be credible based on the evaluation by the Inspector General and knowing that effort was undertaken by the white house to cover it up, why would you then, as your first action outside of the Intelligence Community, go directly to the white house to the very entity that was being scrutinized and complained about in the complaint . Why would you go there to ask their advice as to what you should do . 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 . Congresswoman, i yes or no, sir. I did, yes. I did within my own work force. I thought there was enough stuff that was appearing out in the press that was erroneous, that was absolutely incorrect, and i didnt think that i needed to respond to every single statement that was out there that was incorrect. So what i did is all right, thank you. My loyalty is to my work force. I respect that. Thank you. 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 the Government Service for nearly four decades, i am very much aware of the value of the 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. Thank you. 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, and id like you to remind me you said it earlier how many years of service, military service do you have . I have 36 years of service in the United States navy, 34 of those as a navy s. E. A. L. Thats great. 36 years, 34 years as a navy s. E. A. L. 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 your integrity questioned. Some on this committee have done exactly that. Theyve accused you of breaking the law, and im going to read just one part of many that i could from the chairman. This raises grave concerns that your office, together with the department of justice and possibly the white house, have engaged in an unlawful effort to protect the president. And theres others that i could read. As i believe theyve sought 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 your professional behavior . No, congressman. Not at all. Im just going to leave it there. I am not. 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 that there were perhaps other people who would be best and more qualified to do that, but the president asked me to do this, and it was my honor to step up, and forever how long im doing it, to lead and support the Intelligence Community. Okay, thank you. Do you believe you have followed the laws and policies in the way youve 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 i have done is endeavored to follow the law. Thank you. Do you believe you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of Legal Counsel . The opinion of the office of Legal Counsel is binding on the executive branch. Thank you. Now, theres been a big deal made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that has been made that this is the first whistleblower complaint withheld from congress but its also true, isnt it, that its the first whistleblower complaint that potentially falls under executive privilege and its the first time that it included information outside of the authority of the dni, is that true . To the best of my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. I will say to my colleague sitting here, youre nuts if you think youre going to convince the American People that your cause is just by attacking this man and by impugning his character when its clear he felt theres 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 try to protect the president. And i just think thats nuts. And anyone watching this hearing is surely going to walk away with the clear impression that you are a man of integrity that you dill what you felt was right regardless of the questions and innuendo cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today. One more thing before i yield my time. I think we can agree that leaks are unlawful and leaks are damaging, and for heavens sakes weve seen plenty of that over the past three years and theres a long list of leaks that have had clear implications for our National Security, meaningful implications for our National Security. I want to know, who is 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 department of justice to try to determine that . I believe that anybody who witnesses or sees any wrong doing should refer any wrong doing or complaint to the department of justice for investigation. Including investigation about leaks . That is correct. Of classified information . Yes, congressman, any wrong doing. I dont know what time it is because our clock isnt working. I suppose my time is up. I would conclude by emphasizing one again, good luck convincing the American People this is a dishonorable man sitting here. Good luck convincing the American People he has done anything other than what he thinks is right. If you think it scores political points, then keep going down that road. Thank you, congressman. I would only say, director, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. No one has said so, no one has suggested that. Youve accused him of breaking the law, mr. Chairman. But it is certainly our strong view, and we hope it would be shared by the minority, when the Congress Says that something shall be done, it shall be done. And when that involves the wrong doing of the president its not an exemption to the requirement of the statue and the fact that the whistleblower has been left twisting in the wind for weeks and attacked by the president should concern all of us, democrats and republicans, that this was allowed to come to be that allegations this serious were withheld from this committee. That should concern all f of us. No one is suggesting that there is a dishonor here, but nonetheless, we are going to insist that the law be followed mr. Chairman, will yield . Mr. Quigley. Thank you, sir, for your service and being here. As you know those in public life who deal with other countries, ambassadors, those in the intelligence field, theyre vetted, go for approval before the senate, you understand the po policy reason for that, correct . Yes, sir. Do you have any problem with civilians without vetting, approval taking on those roles. Yes, i do, congressman. Why would you have those concerns . Well, in order to be 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. And in order we just cant bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand to put security clearance on them, its a matter of vetting. For me to come into government the fbi went back for 15 years in my background, examined all of my financial records to make sure that i was, in fact, worthy of having an intelligence clearance. And we do the same thing with the Intelligence Community. Everybody who is subject or everybody who is privileged to have access to intelligence information is a sacred trust. The American People expect us to keep them safe as i said earlier. 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 that 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 they carry out on behalf of the the United States and we know what their role is, correct . Yes, congressman. What is your understanding right now of what mr. Giulianis role is . Mr. Congressman, i respectfully refer to the white house to comment on the president s personal lawyer. Okay. So so far what ive gleaned is you see hes his personal lawyer. But read in the complaint, we read in this modified transcript, hes mentioned five times. Your reaction to the fact that this civilian, without any of this vetting has played this role . No, sir, all im saying is 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 the credibility of the complaint in that its in the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. Giuliani, highly respected man, the mayor of new york, 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, and obviously mr. Giuliani is playing this role. To your knowledge, does he have security clearance . I do not know. Congressman, im neither aware or unaware whether or not mr. Giuliani has a security clearance. Before this happened, were you aware of his role or understanding what his role was doing what you do . Congressman quigley, my only knowledge of what mr. Giuliani does, i have to be honest with you, i get from tv and the news media. Im not aware of what he does, in fact, for the president. Are you aware of any communication by mr. Giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with this role given the classified nature, the National Security implications that are in the complaint, that are in the transcript in the role that he is playing . 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 you on ukraine. Sir, we respect your role and 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. Reading an omb official informed departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Your reaction to that . Thinking that has to do with the president s lawyer in these matters should be referred to the white house. Im reading the complaint. I lead, and i support, the Intelligence Community and the 17 different departments and agencies underneath my leadership. I do not lead the president , and i have no authority or responsibility over the white house.