Department that essentially says the president is above the director, therefore the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director, therefore it doesnt meet the definition of urgent concern, therefore the Inspector General is done. The Inspector General cant investigate anymore. Thats the Inspector Generals reading of the Department Opinion, that he is no longer allowed to investigate this. Is that your reading as well . Chairman, not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding, administration, operation of an Intelligence Activity within the responsibility and the authority of the director of National Intelligence. Okay. Im just trying to get to whether the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law. No, sir. No person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Well, thats the way it should be but im trying to figure out whether thats the way it is as a practical fact. The Inspector General believes that based on the opinion that you requested of the Department Of Justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesnt meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. Is that your understanding of the Department Opinion as well, that the Inspector General no longer has jurisdiction to look into this . It is my understanding that both the Inspector General and i and my team are waiting for we were waiting for the resolution of Executive Privilege to be determined. It is now no longer Executive Privilege. Im not sure exactly what the statute has as far as what michael can do. But we also are looking for a way now, if i did not send it forward, as you know, under urgent concern within the seven days, then the statute would allow the whistleblower to come to you and still be protected. Director, my point is this. The Department Of Justice has said because this doesnt meet the statutory definition, because this involves the president , the Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate. Now, if this Inspector General has no jurisdiction to investigate because the president is above the agency, no Inspector General has jurisdiction to investigate. That is the effect of that opinion, which do you disagree . I believe the opinion was based on the reading of the statute and whether or not the situation here is compliant and comes underneath the statute, the office of Legal Counsel opinion was that based on the criteria that youre required to have in order to support this legal statute, it does not. It also said that because of that it is not a matter of theIntelligence Community. But once again thats however, you may go forward. Thats the key issue, director. Because it involves the president , it does not involve the Intelligence Community. That is the sum and substance. And the effect of that is the Inspector General has told us that he no longer has jurisdiction to investigate. And by the logic of that opinion, nor does any other Inspector General. Now, as you point out, this was referred to the Justice Department, it was referred to the fbi and Justice Department. That department under bill barr and with breathtaking speed decided there is nothing to see here, decided that we dont believe that this constitutes a violation of the Campaign Finance laws and therefore were not authorizing an investigation. The fbi is not authorized to investigate any of this, any of
this. So the igs cant do it, according to the Department Of Justice, the fbi cant do it because it doesnt meet their threshold that makes it worthy of investigation. So at this point only this committee and this congress is in the position to investigate. And i want to ask you, going to the whistleblower complaint, whether you believe these allegations are worthy of investigation. The whistleblower says i have received information from multiple u. S. Government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 u. S. Election. You would agree that should be investigated, would you not . Chairman, the horse has left the barn. You have all of the information. You have the whistleblower complaint. You have the letter from the icig. You have the office of Legal Counsel opinion. Yes, we do, but would you agree that if there is a serious
and credible you agree there should be an investigation . I believe it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee. Well, im asking you as a career military officer, someone who i greatly respect and i admire your service to the country. Do you believe if there is a credible allegation by a whistleblower, corroborated by apparently multiple u. S. Government officials, that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference in the 2020 election, do you believe that should be investigated . The whistleblower says he or she spoke to a dozen other people. Im not criticizing the whistleblower yes, but the Inspector General took those two weeks, as you well told us, to corroborate that information. We dont know which if any of these the Inspector General told to. And found it credible. You told us you have to reason to believe otherwise, am i right . I had no reason to doubt a career Inspector General lawyer in his determination on whether or not it was credible. That is something for michael to determine. And let me ask you this. The whistleblower also says over the past four months more than half a dozen u. S. Officials informed me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference. You would agree we should speak to those half a dozen u. S. Officials, would you not . I think that you have all the material that the Committee Needs and i think its up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. Im asking your opinion, is the head of our intelligence agencies, do you think we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistleblower is right . My responsibility was to get you the whistleblower letter, the complaint, and the other information released. I have done my responsibility. That is on the shoulders of the
legislative branch and this committee. Let me ask you, director, the whistleblower also says i am also concerned these actions pose risks to u. S. National security and undermine the u. S. Governments efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in u. S. Elections. You would agree if there is a credible allegation along those lines that we should investigate it . I agree if there was Election Interference, the complaint is not about Election Interference. It was about a classified confidential diplomatic conversation involves Election Interference by the president , sought by the president. That doesnt take it out of the realm of seeking foreign assistance. It makes it all the more pernicious. Wouldnt you agree . As i said, i dont disagree with the igics assessment that it was a credible matter. The whistleblower further says, namely, he, the president , sought to pressure ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the president s 2020 reelection bid. You would agree that that should be investigated . Not necessarily, sir. I mean, it was investigated by the federal bureau of investigation. No, it wasnt. Yes, it went to the Department Of Justice concluded that this wouldnt violate the election laws. I dont understand how they could reach that conclusion after the two years theyve been through, but nonetheless, they didnt authorize the fbi to investigate it. You would agree someone should investigate this, wouldnt you . I referred it if i didnt, i would not have referred it to the Justice Department and to the fbi. Then im glad were in agreement. The whistleblower says they told me that there was already a discussion ongoing with white house lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, officials telling they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. You would agree that should be investigated, wouldnt you . All i know is thats the
allegation. Right, and its credible and therefore should be investigated, right . Well, again, it is hearsay, secondhand information. It should come to this committee for further investigation. Thank you. You have it. You have the documents. I just wanted to confirm were in agreement that you think the committee should investigate it. The whistleblower also says donald trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian Government will be able to quickly improve ukraines image and complete the investigation of Corruption Cases that have held Back Cooperation between the ukraine and the United States. Of this whistleblower citing the Ukrainian Readout. You would agree if the Ukrainian Readout if theyre talking about Corruption Cases is talking about mr. Biden and his son, that should be investigated, right . I dont agree with any of that. I did not agree it should be investigated. What i said was that i complied with my requirement to send you
the documents. And that it is up to the chair, the ranking member, and the Committee Members to decide what to do with that information. Im in no position to tell the chair or the committee to do an investigation or not do an investigation. Okay. I find it remarkable that the director of National Intelligence doesnt think credible allegations of someone seeking foreign assistance in a u. S. Election should be investigated. Let me ask you this. The whistleblower further says in the days following the phone call, i learned from multiple u. S. Officials that senior white house officials had intervened to lock down all the records of the phone call. Do you have any reason to believe that the whistleblowers allegation there is incorrect . I have no idea whether it is correct or incorrect, sir. Someone should find out, though, right . I dont know if that is an incorrect allegation. I just do not know. Again, that is the work that is the business of the executive
branch of the white house and the office of the white house. Corruption is not the business or it shouldnt be of the white house or anyone in it. The white house decides to do what their Privileged Communications and information is i believe the business of the white house. Do you believe thats true even if that communication involves crime or fraud . Im sure youre aware theres an exception to any claim of privilege. Privilege cant be used to conceal crime or fraud. Any crime or fraud or instances of wrongdoing should be referred to the Justice Department for investigation, as i did. The whistleblower further alleges that white house officials told the whistleblower they were directed by white house lawyers to remove the electronic transcript of the call from the Computer System in which such transcripts are typically stored and instead it was loaded into a separate Electronic System that is used, otherwise used to store and handle classified
information of an especially sensitive nature. One white house official described this act as an abuse of the Electronic System. I do not know whether similar measures were taken to restrict other records of the call such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by those who listened in. We should find out, shouldnt we . Umm, chairman schiff, when i received the letter from Michael Atkinson on the 26th Of August he concurrently sent a letter to the office of white House Counsel, asking the white House Counsel to control and keep any information that pertained to that phone call on the 25th. It was a lengthy letter. Michael would be able to address it better. I know the icig has sent a letter to the white House Counsel requesting that they keep all of that information. But you would agree that if there is a credible allegation from this credible whistleblower, that white house officials were moving these
records into a system that was not designed for that purpose in an effort to cover up, essentially, potential misconduct, that ought to be looked into, you would agree with that, wouldnt you . To the best of my knowledge, when this allegation came forward, this whistleblower complaint on the 12th of august, i have no idea what the timeline was as far as whether or not the white house, the National Security council, or anybody involved in that conversation, what they did with the transcripts, where they put them. I just have absolutely no knowledge nor the timeline of that, chairman. It is not something that would be under my authority or responsibility. The Whistleblower Makes a series of allegations involving mr. Giuliani, cites a report in the New York Times about his planned trip to ukraine to press the Ukrainian Government to pursue investigations that would help the president in his 2020 reelection bid. You would agree if the president
was instructing his personal lawyer to seek, again, foreign help in a u. S. President ial election, that that would be improper . I believe mueller described such efforts to seek foreign assistance as unethical, unpatriotic and very possibly criminal. Would you agree with Director Mueller that to seek foreign assistance that way would be unethical, unpatriotic, and very possibly a violation of law . I believe that mr. Giuliani is the president s personal lawyer and whatever conversation that the president has with his personal lawyer i would imagine would be by client attorney privilege. I am in no position to criticize the president of the United States on how he wants to conduct that and i have no knowing of what mr. A giuliani does or does not do. Let me ask you about a last couple of allegations of the
whistleblower. I learned from u. S. Officials that on or around 14 may the president instructed Vice President pence to cancel his travel to attend president zelenskys inauguration on 20 may. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry le led the delegation instead. It was made clear with them that the president didnt want them to meet with president zelensky until he saw how zelensky, quote, chose to act, close quote, in office. I also do not know whether this action was connected with the broader understanding described in the unclassified letter that a meeting or phone call with the president and president zelensky would depend on Whether Zelensky showed the willingness to play ball. Do you know whether mr. Pence, Vice President pences trip was
pulled because of an effort to find out first whether ukraine was willing to play ball . Chairman schiff, no, i do not. I have no knowledge of any of that until this information came to me from the icig. I have absolutely no Situational Awareness, no knowledge of any of those facts. Would you agree that if the Vice President s trip was canceled in order to put further pressure on ukraine to manufacture dirt on mr. Biden, that that would be unethical, n unpatriotic, and potentially a crime . I do not know why the Vice President of the United States did not do that. I do know what the allegation was within the whistleblower complaint and i dont know whether that allegation is accurate or not, mr. Chairman. Finally, the whistleblower says on july 18 an Office Of Management And Budget official informed departments and
agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all u. S. Security assistance to ukraine. Neither omb nor the nsc staff knew why this instruction had been issued. Senator mcconnell said the other day he spoke with the secretary of defense and the Secretary Of State and he didnt know why an instruction had been given. Doesnt that strike you as suspicious, director, that no one on th