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 tha
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 public opinion, that he is no longer allowed to investigate this. Is that your reading as well . Not necessarily the president , but the allegation has to relate to the funding and operation ability with the director of National Intelligence. Im 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. 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 upon the opinion that
you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it d
general spoke to, and found it credible. and you ve told us that you have no 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. 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 you have all the material that the committee needs, and i think it s up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. i m asking your opinion as the head of our intelligence agencies. do you think we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistleblower was right? my responsibility was to get you the whistleblower letter and the complaint and other information released. i have done my responsi
officials they spoke to. they found it credible. you told us you have no 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. let me ask you this the whistle-blower also says that over the past four months more than half a dozen u.s. officials informed 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 you have all the material the committee needs, and i think it s up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. i m asking your opinion. as that of our intelligence agency, do you think that we should talk to those other people and find out whether the whistle-blower s right? my responsibility is to get you the whistle-blower letter, the complaint, and the information released. i have done my responsibility. that
we don t 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 whistle-blower 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 it s up to the committee how they think they need to proceed. i m 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 whistle-blower is right? my responsibility was to get you the whistle-blower letter, the complaint, and the oth