House in their back and forth exchanges with the acting director of National Intelligence. Nancy, what, if anything, do we know about the author of this report . Theres no name on this document. Reporter correct. We know very little aside from the fact that this is someone who is in the Intelligence Community, and apparently had been detailed to the National Security council at the white house, and in that capacity had a lot of interaction with white house officials. We also know that this whistleblowers ha s havvery mu to come to capitol hill and be interviewed by lawmakers. Youll hear from a number of democrats from the National Director of intelligence are you going to let this whistleblower come and talk to us and speak expansively to us. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Community did determine that this whistleblower had a potential political bias. Perhaps didnt want President Trump to be reelected. You will hear republicans talk about that today. However, the icig also noted that a lot of what was contained in this whistleblowers report, the i. G. Was able to corroborate. So his facts appeared to the Inspector General to be correct and what really alarmed the Inspector General was the possibility that the president had broken Campaign Finance laws by soliciting what amounted to a Campaign Donation from the president of ukraine. Basically asking for his help in the 2020 president ial election, but when that information was forwarded to the department of justice, they very quickly shut that it down and decided not to pursue any charges. Nancy, were talking about a single whistleblower here, but as i read through the report, as we are all on the fly here i see on page 3 remarkable language that says the white house officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what transpired in the phone call. You have there white house officials told the whistleblower something. Paragraph goes on, they told me there was already a discussion ongoing with white house lawyers about how to treat the call, because of the likelihood and the officials retelling they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. When you hear Something Like that i wonder, is there talk already among members of congress that maybe in addition to acting director of the dni we might hear from the whistleblower we may hear from additional sources who are tied up in all this . Reporter yes, and, in fact, tony, even last night after lawmakers got their first look at this whistleblowers complaint before we in a chance to see it, some democrats were coming out of the closeddoor area where they viewed this report saying, wow. It really gives us new leads. It gives us a new list of people we can talk to about this incident. And so democrats are definitely going to be poring through that complaint to try to figure out which white house officials, the whistleblower is referring to, and if they get a chance to interview him will ask for more names as well to pursue interviews with those individuals. I think it is really important to note, something really amazing about the whole scenario were about to witness here in the House Intelligence Committee hearing, the acting director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, this all landed on his lap just a couple of days after he took the job in midaugust. You recall that dan coats, the former director of National Intelligence left the administration, and Joseph Maguire, who has not even been formally nominated by the president to take this position permanently, he was thrust into the job and then this all landed on his lap. A huge, hot potato, his first week in the job, and so it will be very interesting to hear from him for the first time about all of this. How far does he go to defend the white house and the administration when he himself has only been in this role in a temporary acting capacity for about a month and a half. Yeah. Hot potato is the word, nancy. Can you tell us anything more about Joseph Maguire. Yesterday i heard conflicting things. He wants to testify, he doesnt want to testify. What can you tell us about that . Reporter well, here is the incredible predicament that Joseph Maguire is in. Obviously, if he wants to stay in this role, then the president needs to be pleased with his performance today, otherwise he probably wont be formally nominated by the president to be director of National Intelligence. The nations top intelligence official. However, if he appears to be, you know, biased in some way towards the white house, then that is going to turn off not just democrats but republicans in the senate who would vote on his nomination at the end of the day, because while the president is typically given broad latitude by his own party to nominate whoever he wants when it comes to this particular position, the director of National Intelligence, republicans and democrats tend to want someone who can speak truth to power. Who can, who is not afraid to go in and tell the president things he doesnt want to hear, that have to do with a very sensitive matter of National Security. They felt that dan coats played that role. They didnt feel, by the way, that john ratcliffe, who is a republican from texas who is on this very committee will be grilling the director of National Intelligence today, they didnt think that he was going to be up to that role and so the president floated his name and about a week later withdrew it. So you know, maguire has a tightrope to walk here. He doesnt want the president to turn his back on him, but he doesnt want the sflenate to determine hes not up to the job either. Difficult to see how he serves both of those masters today. Thank you. Paula reid covers the trump white house. He heard this report lays out the details of the call itself and the way they were handled in the aftermath. This was not the first time under this administration a president ial transcript was placed into this code wordlevel system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive information. What do you make of that . That, that right there, that completely undermines the president s argument. So far just says, look, no quid pro qu a perfect call. We can see from the extensive details in this complaint, this wasnt just about one phone call. This wasnt about just one turn of phrase. This was a pattern of behavior. Of course, the question is, well, if it was a perfect phone call why did you go through such lengths to conceal it . Especially concerns me, the details in the complaint that suggest that white house officials were directed by white house lawyers to do this, because often in the course of the Trump Administration its been the president s attorneys and his career officials who really saved him from some of his worst impulses trying to steer him away from things like this. Lawyers within the white house helping conceal this behavior with so many questions whether this could have an been a Campaign Finance violation and other violations, thats concerning. Is there any concern about the credibility of the whistleblower since its stated he apparently has a political bias and that he did hear this information secondhand . Exactly. We know that this whistleblower did not hear this firsthand but he or she says they heard from multiple u. S. Officials about this. Even white house officialof exactly. Even though this whistleblower voted for the president s rival in the last election, they still found this individual credible. Thats significant. Whoever it is, be prepared for blowback against their credibility. The president lining them up. Started to see them on the far corners of the internet. Paula, this goes significantly further than we saw just in the call summary yesterday. Absolutely. Speaks to a pattern. Its not just about this one phone call but everything that happened after. About giulianis outreach to the ukraine. People asking, why is the president s personal attorney going outside the chain of command for National Security . That went on for months. Did it not . Giulianis outreach to ukraine . Exactly. For months. The Intelligence Community is concerned what the president was doing here opened him up to serious counterintelligence risks. The possibility of blackmail. Thats really significant. That gives maguire wiggle room, because hes been caught between congress that wants this complaint and the white house that was saying, hey, wait a second. The Inspector General of the Intelligence Committee doesnt oversee the president. You cant have this. Maguire can argue the reason they believe they have jurisdiction and want it public, because he opened himself up to this risk, were about to hear from a man who served this country 36 years in various capacities, taken the only to protect, defend and preserve the constitution 11 times. Began as a navy s. E. A. L. After leaving the navy worked in a nonprofit benefiting military veterans, and he was approved as acting director of National Intelligence in a bipartisan vote. So this is somebody with a long career, a long track record, bipartisan support and i think some authority in these matters. Paula, what do you expect to hear this morning . Interesting to hear how he explains his contacts with both the white house and the justice department. Thats really what im looking at. I want to see if they were genuine in their desire to investigate potential Campaign Finance violations. We know when they looked at potential crimes they didnt consider the fact military aid was being withheld. I think theres valid legal questions whether their analysis was sufficient, whether the attorney general in anyway tried to protect the president and interactions with white house lawyers. Did he think there was an effort within the white house to try to conceal the facts of this case. Weve seen so many people testify before congress in this administration. So many moments we thought might be decisive in the country and end up not to be. Do we think Joseph Maguire will sway things . I wasnt hesitate to guess. Thats covers the past two years of the Trump Administration. We think theres a blockbuster, stripes surprising, shocking, sometimes a total bust. Heard anything about a timeline on this . I heard nancy pelosi say the other day this would be done in an expeditious manner. What does that mean . Do you mean the impeachment inquiry . Yes. The timeline, hasnt moved far from where they were a week ago. Now an inquiry, no longer just a conversation but the heft of the House Speaker behind it. Thats significant. The timeline eave seen, later this year. Seems were talking about months, not necessarily weeks. Congressman adam schiff hit the gavel bringing it to order. Right now we will go to the House Intelligence Committee hearing where Opening Statements are just getting under way. 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 ithfly execute his or her ings. Office and protect and defend the constitution. At 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. What of 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 upon 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 the most graphic evidence yet that the president of the United States 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. To understand how he did so we must first understand how overwhelmingly dependent ukraine is on the United States. Militarily, financially, diplomatically and in every other wa 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. That is until two months ago when it was held up inexplicably by President Trump. It is in this context after a brief congratulate call from President Trump to president zelensky on april 21st and after the president s personal emissary Rudy Giuliani made it abundantly clear to ukraine officials over several months the president wanted dirt on his political opponent, it is in this context that the new president of ukraine would speak to donald trump over the phone on july 25th. President zelensky eager to establish himself as home as a friends of the president of the most powerful nation on earth had two objectives at least. Get a meeting with the president and get more military help. And so what happened on that call . Zelensky begins by ingratiating himself, and he tries to enlist the support of the president. He expresses his interest in meeting with the president and says his country wants to acquire more weapons for defend itself. And what is the president s response . Well, it reads like a classic, organized crime shakedown. Shorn of 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 want you to make up dirt on my political poeopponent. Understand isnt lots of it. On this and that. Ill put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my 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. Ill call you when youve done what i asked. This is in some in character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of ukraine. It would be funny if it wasnt such a graphic portrayal of the president s oath of office, but as it does represent a real betrayal theres nothing the president says here that is in americas interests, after all. It is instead the most consequential form of tragedy. For it forces us to confront the remedy the founder provided for such a flag grarant abuse of of. Impeachment. This wouldnt have come to the nations passengers without the courage of a single person. The whistleblower. As you know director maguire more so perhaps than any other area of government, 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. If that system is allow ited to break down as it did here, if whistleblowers come to understand they will not be protected one of two things happen. Serious wrongdoing goes unreported or whistleblowers take matter into their own hands and divulge classified information to the press in violation of the law and placing our National Security at rick. 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. By law the whistleblower complaint, which brought this gross misconduct to light should have been presented to this