I had a long markup coming back and forth. Chair of the Government Operations subcommittee that hasma jurisdiction over inspectors general could you describe your understanding of the roles and functions of the Inspector General . The Inspector General reports to the head of the agency. They have the responsibility to identify areas of waste fraud and abuse and then to conduct independent audits and investigations with a strong commitment to be independent with the influence comes from the agency or congress or any other place there is a commitment to be independent. Do you believe the ig is subject to the supervisors review and approval of the subject matter that the ig may beut pursuing. And thats my point you have been independent from many kinds of employees. So you, had conversations about the subject matter he was proposing are activelyte investigating . I referring to a specific subject matter . Starting with the general in getting to the particular , we are now in the territory of what is proper and what is not when a supervisor chooses to intervene on the subject matter of the pending investigation byby the ig we have testimony that you did have conversations with him about the subject matter and im asking you to confirm if that is true and you had conversations about ongoing investigative matters. Many times the ig would ask on areas he that would be helpful. So he approached you. So did you go to him . And those that were initiated. That is a mischaracterization and those asking if there any areas i normally do that. Are one of those areas the issue of arms sales . Yes in a conversation he describes me we are complete with the arms sale report early 20 timeframe we are b and i said great how fast we can do that. Because he will be traveling so the endeavor was to help whatever they needed thats the first time i was made aware january or the end. So just to be clear, under oath it is your testimony you never bullied him with any ongoing investigations. No bullying going on. Ushe and then with investigation into arms sales in the middle east he was conducting or had completed and it is your testimony not only did you not do that but to facilitate to put the final touches on that report is that correct . Even in the iag testimony he says now im not trying to stop you. Two oh six and pagefassse 208. Your time is expired. And with that affidavit i wont go through the contents of that in detail but it was first announced right after he was fired but resigned only a few months later after being forced to recuse himself and into the pompeos misuse of resources. Who suggested he would be the one to replace. Those that would be best qualifieda s. I will reclaim my time. Who suggested the replacement . Myself in the deputy secretary to evaluate candidates. Did you speak to him about it . I would just ask what are the rules and requirements we need to follow. You contacted him in april to say he would be removed imminently quick. It would be mid april. You admit that conversation took place. Asking about his interest. He said he could expect a call from secretary pompeo with the office of ig. I dont recall making that comment. You dont deny making that quick. I dont have the benefit of the transcripts. Do you know anything whatatts ar he wanted to tell him before starting as ig . There was no statement. I will tell you what i remember and what i said to him is there is a Huge Trust Deficit between the department and the ig and the leadership including the deputy in the secretary to find a person to restore the bridges of that trust deficitd p. Thats not something the secretary would impart . Now. And secretary pompeo he wanted to convey subjects to stay away from with the ig investigation. He was not involved in any of these discussions. I have no regulation. At the very endreplt was also a suggestion that he should keep his job where he was one of your subordinates while taking on the role of ig. That is not correct. The conversation we had with ambassador accurate we absolutely need to divorce yourself from any other decision authorities or operations. As a matter of fact we need delegate your stories do your deputy. You should not have any operational or any daytoday contact with your team. You need to focus on being the fulltime acting separate and divorce yourself from that role. Your time has expired. I yield back it is good to see you again. Last year i asked you about the timing of the Emergency Declaration knowing when and secretary pompeo briefed congress on may 21st, he made no mention whatsoever of any emergency. You said three days an emergency created to require a declaration. Yes. Your testimony here in are in those intervening days an emergency arose . Yes. But an emergency did not pop up the department was cooking up this emergency almost two months earlier. I gave you the chance then to correct yourself but you double down laying out the history with this Emergency Declaration but that doesnt change the fact your testimony that arose was not true for you lying to the committeeee or did you have that information . I cover this fully in my august 17 letter ando a copy provided to the chairman but yet again nine set the record straight i stand by my statements the factual basis to reflect the certification. To be clear between may 21 and may 24 the secretary made the decision do to the emergency circumstances which we enumerated in my testimony you did not show the entire video i reject you to publicly mischaracterize my remarks. They stand for themselves. Play all of them. The state department we understand it was you s rsonally to demand unprecedented react actions one reductions dealing with a timeline and the information that contradicts your testimony showing the Department First proposed using the Emergency Authority on april 3rd the first draft circulated april 23rd and on may 4th secretary pompeo handpicks the day three weeks in the future to claim and emergency had suddenly appearedme they are nowhere near those may dates you attested to and you cover it up with a big black box who asked for that redaction . You . Yes or no. Now but i will tell you. Congress received the and redacted report. Congress received a full report. I will reclaim my time. Did you ask for those reductions . On reductions. Answer the question it is not a complicated matter did you ask for those redaction. As i understand it it was fully nine redacted. You asked for those that was public . Youre not going to answer the question did anyone in your office tell mr. Cooper he might have an ethics problem if he pushed to read act in this report with that timeline to the congress . Not to my awareness. When did you first see a draft of the declaration . What is the first day you learned and emergency would be certified . The first day . When was the first day you learned of this . I was confirmed april 30th serving as an additional capacity not at the state department. As far as the decision process the window where you made the decision so you didnt know beforeci may 21 . We had to provide him the opportunity to make that decision. So you knew before. So with those threats that is troubling. Dealing with u. S. Congress it stands on its own as a responsibility of the state department and you cannot hide what we agree are the important Foreign Policy concerns we all share. With congressional notification. I weekly my time the Office General sent four letters part of the back and forth between the ig office and the state department. On july 102020 and week after the last scheduled appearance you sent a memo asking them to make reductions. Correct . We sent a memo to release the report spirit the interviewed you as a witness. Correct the oig interviewed you as a witness. Me correct. You are asking for redactions for something you had personally been involved in. No any leader would be part. That talk about the arms sales you now say you are not s involved . We were a part of the report that is done its normal for themm to interview. You are asking for redactions who told you to write that memo. There were redactions was not sent to congress the other ones are over deliberate decisionmaking matters. So i am concerned about casualties and the commitment to reduce civilian deaths you recommended the oig consider removing this element in order to allow that to reach the public if the oig had taken your advice they wouldnt see the part about civilian casualties. We actually supported the finding. So in response to your request the oig will back that you failed to invoke a claime of privilege and further stated that propose redactions aren overly broad but they waited cover nonprivileged factual information and they gave you three days to get back to them past the deadline the deputy Legal Advisor rollback and in the memo to the oig that the Inspector General is subject to the supervision of the secretary and left out the courts were very clear it does not include any authority to compromise investigatory right so point to nixon that the oig the first two secretary pompeo so in response the oig gets back to you on august 3rd with the final version and despite your best efforts that unclassified report did not do enough to mitigate civiliane casualties. They tried and failed to shut down the investigation than one of is own subordinates are put in and then starts tono influence your effort only to find out that would not be successful since then trying to get them to drop their investigation and then the most alarming report with those black boxes so if the department had done Due Diligence to make sure they slaughtering civilians you can save yourself a lot of time to cover up thepo fact you preventing these but instead families have suffered im glad and appreciate your come before Congress Today rather than keeping it out of the public view you have done a disservice to the department i yield back. Going back to the state department to be politically motivated against career employees stretching back during secretary to listen tenure. It does seem so this is the environment he was working demanded with the Inspector General report with conclusions into the alleged leak that you ordered him to get to the bottom of including at the names of the state oig investigating for retaliation. And he was concerned for his staff and said i can imagine the department using information and want to make sure confidentiality was protected. Do you think politicized retaliation has occurred against career employees and work for prior administrations . As i stated in my confirmation hearing back inst july, i said once we were in place to do everything in our power to make sure only meritbased factors used to evaluate. So you do not think this has happened because the ig has a report saying that it has historically. If you do, and i agree for those people to be targeted. To clarify the ig report found Foreign Service officers were nofault. Im missing the point you are trying to make so there has never been the case . Im referring to the specific case it was leaked. So i will reclaim my time and votes will be called secretary pompeo said there is no place for people to target employees based on their National Origin or not loyal to the president and you seem to have indicated that have you participated in this targeting . No i have not. You are more than willing they had not leaked to the report but the concern was very wellfoundeduf that the report could and would be used for those employees and it was done and i assume that you know on june 9th the media outlet published the entire report that concluded the staff did not cause the leak. I dont know who published it but the ig turned it over to congress. Did you release or authorize that information . We didnt directly. You knowon who did . Are you confident this report that it did not come from the state department . I dont know where that came from. If you are not aware where its coming from are you trying to get to the bottom of it. Actually we have gone back to the council to look at this again because what came out from the dod investigation was superficial in our understanding is the way it was characterized so if not done properly where asking them to look at that again. It does seem is further evidence of the administration that has a culture of retaliation and you should be aggressively looking where it would have come from and giving us thee impression its about retaliation to indicate a non allegiance to this president. Im out of time but i am surprised and disappointed because it does feel this administration has a consistent course firing people who dont appear to agree with them thats a disappointment. I yield back. Mr. Cooper how does the of bombing targets in yemen helpha saudi arabia meet emergency threats from iran to the oil fields and shipping in the gulf targets in iraq and lebanon . The key word there is precisionim guided not just what you enumerated but to address targets to mitigate any targeting on anything. Than of those things were hit from yemen with the saudi oill fields. I would like to add to further provide information on specificity. What share has been at this point quick. And i would note that at the time the oigif concluded we asked them to update. Wasnt delivered within two or three weeks . I cannot tell you exactly but they were ready for delivery. And those that would require additional development. Why did you spend two eemonths deliberating to execute a decision and then to go through the normal congressional notification . As part of the open and transparent process and it does show we are stronger and the secretary of the United States providing confidence andar assurance to send a message to tehran. That is ever present and not the emergency. Spring of 2017 we made a real effortrt to lay out actual conditions for the receipt of these weapons it wasnt just about training but included the provision with 33000 specific targets are you aware the Saudi Air Force to strike strikeates on the no list. I could speak fully about theha partners of had to meet. They are striking as targets if i continue to total my car after drinking would you give me thege keys. A partner under extreme threat and those include our interest and we we may instead fast. Those are talking points. And we have gone from providing conditions to the saudis to have you sit here and tell us is to give them a toolkit a suite of Technical Solutions and they continue to hit those targets we have asked them not too hit. One of the recommendations in the ig report reported the that the Department Update the analysis of policy risks related to selling the bonds to saudi arabia. Why is that classified . And to move to the classified why . I dont have specific recollection that went into that cynic and finally let me ask yo you, i dont know if he saw memo from 2016. I saw it but you are the acting Legal Advisor. With the state Department Officials potentially facing legal liability if they provide weapons without adequate. Safeguards in of those were crimes to bee committed. And we are very aware of issues that you raise. And then to ensure that the risk is reduced spirit thats a Mission Statement not an answer. Is it your view that officials face personal legal liability if safeguards are not met . T is that the view of the office . Our legal work and analysis ensures the Us Government takes every possible effort. But if they do not do they face personal legal liability . I have answered your question. You have not. We take the work seriously. If we find that you or any other official has changed that analysis that when the an incredibly serious matter and personally i would consider you to face personal liability for that decision,. Can i offer a clarification onnt the statement . I made the statement i had not received the dod report not from the director but the department did receive a copy at the same Time Congress did at the committee. That concludes the questioning of our witnesses. And a change of plans an agreement the state department we will cancel the classified session the department has indicated their willingness to schedule classified calls for any members who wish you follow up on the matter. This wraps up for today. Thank you for your time we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] one of the interesting things of the antitrust debate is that all of a sudden a lot of people are putting a lot into the vessel looking at the world if we had more competition or better competition or more firms in the market and ac everything from democracy to be restored to Racial Justice the environment is better those are important issues and important policy questions its not if it was designed to she was recently treated for pancreatic cancer. President clinton nominated her 1993 and the second woman to serve on the high court. Justice ginsburg was 87 years old