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 it to leak out. So there were only a few potential groups of people that would have 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, any of the Intelligence Community, we know how to keep a secret. As far as how that got into the press, i really do not know, sir. I just know its all over the place and its been reported by different media over the past several weeks. Where they get their information from, i dont know. So that is 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 , that happened with a call between the mexican president , the australian Prime Minister, so its happened twice before. The pieces of transcripts leaked out. And, of course, this time it was leaked out again and the president thankfully, he was able to put this out because of the because of the actions of this of the situation as you said that is unprecedented. Is it normal for the president of the United States to have their conversations leak out . This is the third time. I would have to leave that to the white house to respond to that, ranking member. But to me, the president of the United States conversation with any other head of state, i would consider a privileged conversation. But clearly, those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies. So not necessarily, sir. I mean, if the president well, i should say this. Theyre captured and disseminated. When the captured and disseminated to the intelligence agencies. I have to be careful in this open hearing about, you know, how i respond to that. The Intelligence Community and the National Security agency obviously, you know, they collect things that to protect i just want to make sure because i just foreign leaders, either the president of the United States not talk to foreign leaders or we should just or public just publish all the transcripts because thats whats happening here. Ranking member and somebody is leaking this and its likely coming from the agencies that you oversee. Ranking member you dont know, but we had the transcript of the mexican president , the australian Prime Minister and now contents of a call with the ukrainian president leak out. Ranking member, the allegation of the whistleblower complaint was there were about 12 people who listened into the conversation. Members of the National Security council and others. Others were briefed from state department, as well, of the transcripts because they have an area responsible and a region responsible then they would be informed on the interaction. So there were a number on of people from the white house briefed 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. Right. Im not im just saying the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right . And it is important for the state department and the appropriate agencies to get im not saying its all the intelligence agency, but when a president talk toes a foreign leader, its confidential. Those contends are confidential. There could be some facts of that conversation that you do want to get to the appropriate agency, not just the not just the ic. I want to be clear about that. But this is now the third time. Im not aware of this ever happening before. Of contents of calls like this getting out. I really dont know, ranking member. Im not aware. I dont have the numbers to it seems to me that it is unprecedented and i would also say i think the decision by the president yesterday to release his transcripts of the conversation with the president of ukraine is probably unprecedented, as well. Well, we appreciate you being here and have fun be careful what you say because theyre going to use these words against you. Well, ill tell you what, ranking member, either way im honored to be here and im honored to bed leading the intelligence im sure well be talking again soon, hopefully not in the public, hopefully behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Director mcguire, thank you for being here and thank you for your service and the 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 of investigation into his political opponent. Were not aware of the moistureky decision to withhold aid, were not aware of mr. Giulianis 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 General, michael adkinson, 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 fantabulousic conspiracy theories, but it was the decision of Michael Atkinson to come to this Committee Following not advice from you or any law, but following his own conscious, without his decision to do this, none of this is happening, right . I applaud michaels, the way he has done this. He has acted in good faith. He has followed the law in every step of the way. The question is, congressman, does it did it or did it not meet the Legal Definition no, sir, i asked a very different question which is without his decision its a simple question. Without his decision, none of this is happening. Is that correct . Well, we have to back up to the whistleblower, as well. And i should have noted that the whistleblower deserves the same accolade thats mr. Atkinson does. Director, 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 turn over the complaint. Who made the decision to defy that subpoena of september 17th . Congressman, urgent concern sir, im asking you a very 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 was. Congressman, nobody did. I endeavored, once we no longer had urgent concern with the sevenday timeline to get the information to the committee. What i needed to do was 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, the white house has got quite a few other issues that they were dealt with. I would have liked to have had as i said to the chairman that perhaps this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process and finally it came to a head yesterday. So with 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 we would have liked or you would have liked, but you had the information. So, sir, so im focused on the subpoena. Yes, sir. The subpoena is on your desk. The subpoena of the congress of the United States is pretty clear in what it asks for. Youre saying a decision was never taken not to comply with that subpoena and somehow it wasnt complied with. Im looking for the decisionmaking process to ignore the legal congressional congressman, 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. He was gracious enough and this committee 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 was 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, i am 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 i am 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. But just so we can be clear for the record, you are not denying that you spoke to the president about this complaint . What i am saying, congressman, is that i will not divulge privileged conversations that i have as the director of National Intelligence with the president. Has the white house instructed you to assert that privilege . No, sir. Im a member of the executive committee, as a member of the National Security council and the homeland committee. I have to maintain the discretion and protect the conversation with the president of the United States. Thank you, sir. Apparently the clock is broken, but i will yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Conway. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. You and i are at a competitive disadvantage because neither one of us are lawyers. That may be a badge of honor for some of us. You have lawyers on your staff . I do, congressman. And your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern definition thoroughly and have given you advice . Yes, congressman. If the black letter law was so clear in black letter, how is it that we have different attorneys giving you and i different opinions . Thats a rhetorical question. With respect to this issue. Just to clarify, Mike Atkinson was in our group in front of us last week, did a very good job of telling us what he did and didnt do. We now know for sure what he is able to do. As part of his investigation, he did not request records of the call from the president and the reason he didnt is he cited the difficulty of working through all of that when it probably meant that he couldnt comply with the 14day time frame. So even he did not try to overrun the white houses executive privilege over the conversation that the president had. He also said in his letter, i also determined this is according to michael i also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. Now, that is a different statement than a flat out its credible. So its, again, a rhetorical statement. Is there anything from your lawyers advising you that says the determination of the urgent concern lies solely with the icig . No, sir. I was never advised by my Legal Counsel to that effect. To your knowledge, has the Justice Department ever weighed in to say that the fact that dni cant make a decision with respect to that sevenday process that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided . The matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term. Its pretty much either yes or no. Apparently thats not the case. Ig said it was and youre saying its not under that Legal Definition because it involved the president. The last time i checked, youre pretty familiar with chains of command, i know. Hes not in your chain of command, youre in his chain of command. So for very credible reasons, it doesnt meet the statutorily urge concern back to the whistleblower protections of the ig and your team made that call. The Inspector General made a different call. No, sir. My team is john it was to be a department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel that made the determination that it was not urgent concern. All we wanted to do was just check and see. And to me, it just seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now to be able to just make sure that, in fact, it did. And when it didnt, i want to say once again, i endeavored to get that information to this committee. Just to clarify the role that many Inspector General had with respect to the department of justice, i heard you say that he was involved in the conversations to make his case but also said you gave the Justice Department the letter. What was his executive involvement in making his case to the Justice Department to his decision . Was he present there physically or his lawyers there . To the best of my knowledge, the icigs transmittal letter as well as the complaint from the whistleblower were forwarded to the office of Legal Counsel for their determination. I believe that is what he based his opinion on. If im incorrect, i will come back to the committee and correct that. Youre in a tough spot. Appreciate your long storied history. I apologize if your integrity was insulted. That happens in this arena a lot. Some of the times justified and others not. Your integrity was not. We start to attack each other sometimes when we have differences of opinions. My experience is when you have a legal matter, i have got lawyers i pay, you have lawyers you pay. I typically stick with the lawyers i pay. You had good legal advice on this issue and in a tough spot wanting to make sure there was protection but at the same time if there is something array here that it would get the full airing that its currently getting. So thank you for your service. I yield back my time. Thank you very much, congressman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And director, thank you for being here. I want to turn to what i fear may be one of the most damaging longterm 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. Im worried Government Employees and contractors may see how important this decision has played out and decide its not worth putting themselves on the line. The fact that a whistleblower followed all of the proper procedures to report misconduct and then the department of justice and the 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 thats a fair assessment. I dont disagree with what youve said. I have endeavored to transmit to the Intelligence Community my party of the whistleblowers and im quite certain there are many people who are not being productive by watching this. So my concern i think is a valid one that, in fact, what has happened with this whistleblower episode wvill hae a Chilling Effect. I also want to ask you have you given direction to this whistleblower that he 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 think that adds to the Chilling Effect. The statute seems pretty clear that you shall everybody has a role to play. The process seems pretty clear. And part of it includes you directing the whistleblower of his or her protected rights. Can you confirmed that you told that whistleblower that he or she can come to congress. Theres a couple things there. One, i do not know the identity of the whistleblower. Two, now that the complainant has come forward, we are working with his counsel to provide them with security clearance. So i think the question is pretty simple. Can you assure this committee and the American Public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections of the whistleblower act . Can you confirm that . Thats a yesorno question been right now, im working through that with the children and to the best of my ability, i believe the chair was asking to have the whistleblower come forward and im working with counsel and can the committee to assure that. Can you assure the American Public the end result that the whistleblower will be able to come before this