Effort over two weeks. If you we were first told about it a week and a half ago and we were told very specifically that the whistleblower did not want to get any of this information out, they didnt want to leak out. So there were only a few potential groups of people that woulhave 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 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. So did anybody 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 into the kno. But as you said, it has been reported by different media. Where they get their information from, i dont know. So that it was not from the Intelligence Community, from me or from my office. Thank you, director. So this is not the first time this has happened to this president. It happened with a call between the mexican president , the australian Prime Minister. So it has happened twice before, pieces of transcripts leaked out. And of course this time it was like leaked out depend and the president thankfully he was able to put this out because of the actions of this situation as you said is unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have their conversations leak out . I mean this is the third time. I would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that, but to me, the president of the United States, conversations with any other head of state, i would consider privileged conversation. Clearly those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies so not necessarily, sir. I mean, if the president i should say they are captured and then disseminated to the intelligence agencies. I have to be careful in this open hearing about how i respond to that. The Intelligence Community and the National Security agency obviously, you know, they collect things to protect i just want to make sure because are we just going to foreign leaders, either have the president of the United States not talk to foreign leaders or just publish all the transcripts. Because that is what is happening here. Ranking member somebody is leaking this and it is likely coming from the agencies that you oversee. Ranking member, no, sir im not saying that you dont know, but we had the transcript of the mexican president , australian Prime Minister and now the cause with the uhe krkrainnian president l. The allegation was that there were about 12 people listened in. Members of the National Security council and others. And others were briefed from state department as well of the transcripts because they have an area of responsibility and a region responsibility and then they would be informed on the interaction. So there were a number of people from the white house believed on the call, this would not be something that im quite sure of 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. Im just saying the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right . And it is important for the state department and appropriate agencies to get im not saying it is all the intelligence agency. But when a president talks to a foreign leader, it is confidential, there could be some facts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agencies, not just the ic. I want to be clear about that. But this is now the third time. Im not a way of this ever happening before. Of departments of call ykept de getting out. It is unprecedented and i would say that i think that the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of the ukraine is probably unprecedented as well. Well, we appreciate you being here and have fun be careful what you say because they will use these words against you. I tell you what, Ranking Member, either way im honored to be here and honored to be leading the and i appreciate your service to this country for a long time and im sure well be talking again soon. Hopefully not in the public, hopefully behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you for being here. And thank you for your profound service and 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 offen a investigation into his political poem opponent, mr. Giulianis apparent establishment of a personal state department, we are not aware of a possible retaliation against a u. S. Ambassador, none of this happens but for the decision of your Inspector GeneralMichael 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 transmitted to us. It was his decision, personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of 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 do this, none of this is happening, correct . I applaud michael, 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, congressman, did it or did it not meet the Legal Definition no, i asked a very different question. Which was without his decision it is simple. Without his decision, none of this is happening, is that correct . We have to back up to the whistleblower as well. And i should have noted that the whistleblower also deserves the same accolades that mr. Atkinson does. Were you ever advised by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason . No, congressman. And as i understand it, the opinion was that you were not obligated to convey despite the very clear wording of the law to convey the complaint to congress. So the decision was taken to defy a subpoena of this congress, the subpoena of september 17th, to done over e the to turn over the complaint. Who made that decision . Congress. Congressman, urgent im asking a 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 know longer urgent concern with the seven daytime lime to work to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was to 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 quite got a few other issues that they were dealt with. I would have liked to have had as i said perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process and finally this came to a head yesterday. So 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 you would have liked, but you have the information. And just so im focused on the subpoena. The subpoena is on your desk to subpoena to the congress of the United States, it is pretty clear in what it asked for. Youre saying a decision was never taken not to comply with that subpoena and yet somehow it wasnt complied with. Again, im looking for the Decision Making progress to ignore a legal congressional subpoena. 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. It was gracious enough and this Committee Also was very supportive. It wasnt something that it was ready to go, but i was committed fully committed to this committee and to the chairman to get that information. And i finally because able to provide that yesterday. Okay. Thank you, director. Director, did you or your office ever speak to the president of the United States about this complaint . Congressman, im the president s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times throughout the week. Let me repeat 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 and 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 director of National Intelligence with the president. Has the white house instru instructed you to assert that privilege . No, as a member of the National Security council and in the executive branch and homeland committee, i have to maintain discretion anprotect the conversation with the president of the United States. Thank you, appreciate that answer. A apparent i will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conaway. Thanks for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither one of us are lawyers. And that may be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff, sir . I do, congressman. And your lawyers have looked at this definition thoroughly and have given you advice . Yes, congressman. If the blackler law was so clear, how is it that weve got different attorneys giving you and i different opinions . That is a rhetorical question with respect to this issue. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was 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 that he was able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president and the reason is he decided the difficulty of working through all of that would probably have meant that he couldnt comply with the 14 daytime frame. So even he did not try to overrun the white house over the conversation that the president had with president zelensky. He also said in his letter, i also determined, quoting michael, i also demmed th detere reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the you are urgent concern appeared credible. Now, that is a different statement than flat out it is credible. Again rye tohetorical. Anything in statute that says that the determination of urgent concern lies solely with the icig . No, sir, i was never advised by Legal Counsel to that effect. To your knowledge has the Justice Department ever weighed into say that the fact that dni cant make a separate decision with respect to that 7 day process, that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided . The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. It pretty much is either yes or no. Apparently that is not the case because ig said it was and youre saying it is not under that Legal Definition because it involved the president. Last time i checked, hes not in your chain of command, you are in his. So it doesnt meet the statute orally urgent concern with respect to the whistleblower protections of the ig and your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. No, sir. My team was it was the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that made the determination that it was urgent concern. All we wanted to do was just check and see and to me it seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now to be able to just make sure that in fact it did. And i want to say once again i endeavored to get that information to this committee. And just to clarify the role that the Inspector General had with respect to the department of justice, i heard you say that he was involved in the conversations allowed to make his case, but also said that you give the Justice Department the letter. What was his exact involvement in making his case to the Justice Department to his decision . Was he there present physically or his lawyers . To the best of my knowledge, the icigs transz mittmittal les 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. So you dont think good im incorrect, i will come back to the committee and correct that. Appreciate that. Youre in a tough spot. Appreciate you long storiy yourd history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens a lot in this arena, most of the time just are filed, most not. The fact that we have difference opini when we start losing those differences of opinion, we start to attack each other, call each other names and those kinds of things. So my experience is when you have a legal matter, ive got lawyers that i pay, you got lawyers you pay. I typically stick with the lawyers that im paying. So you had good legal advice and are in a tough spot wanting to make sure that this whistleblower was protected but at the same time if in fact there was something awry here, that it would get the full hearing that it is clearly getting. So thank you for your service and i yield back. Thank you very much. Ms. Toole. Thank you. Thanks so much for being here. I want to turn to what i fear may be one of the most damaging long term effects of this whistleblower episode. And that is the Chilling Effect that 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 it is not worth putting themselves on the line. The fact that whistleblower followed all of the proper procedures to report misconduct and then the department of justice and 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 that is a fair assessment. I dont disagree with what youve said. I have endeavored to transmit to the Intelligence Community my support of whistleblowers and im quite sure that for at least two hours this morning there are not many people in the Intelligence Community that are doing anything productive besides watching this. And so my concern i think is a valid one, that in fact what has happened with this whistleblower episode will have a Chilling Effect. I also want to ask you have you given direction to this whistleblower that he can in fact, he or she, can in fact come before congress . Director, when the president called the whistleblower a political hack and suggested that he or she was potentially disloyal 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 the process is pretty clear. Even has a role to play. And part of it includes you directing the whistleblower of his or her protected rights. Can you confirm that you directed that whistleblower that he or she can come before congress . 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 employ them with clearance sir, i think that it is simple. Can you assure this committee and the American Public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections whistleblower act . Yes or no question. Right now im working through that with the chair and to the best of my ability i believe that the chair was asking to have the whistleblower come forward and im working with counsel, with the committee, to support that process. You can 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 after all, wha