>> so why are cases normally not handled out in the public? >> all the other cases that came before either this committee

the. >> we were first told about it a week and a half ago and told very specifically that the whistle-blower did not want to get any of this information out. they didn't want it to leak out, so there were only a few potential groups of people that would have known about this complaint. is. >> too people within the inspector general's office and the whistle-blower and whoever that was whistle-blower gave this information to. so what i'm trying to ascertain, how it would run in the mainstream media. they have the basics of it 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 don't know. i know it's all over the place. it's been reported by different media for the past several weeks. where they get their information from i don't know. >> so -- >> it was not from the intelligence community, from me or my offers. >> thank you, director. so, this is not the first time this has happened to this president. it happened with the call between the mexican president, the australian prime minister, so it's happened twice before that 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 actions of this situation as you

said that's 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 within with any other head of state i could consider privilege conversation. >> clearly those conversations are being captured by the intelligence agencies. so -- >> not necessarily, sir. if the president of the united states -- i should say this, they're captured and then disseminated. captured and disseminated to the intelligence agencies. >> i have to be careful in this open hearing in how i respond to that. the intelligence community, they collect things that to protect -- >> i just want to make sure, we

have the either the president of united states not talk to foreign leaders or we should just publish all the transcripts because that's what's happening here. >> ranking member -- >> somebody's leaking this and it's likely coming from the agencies that you oversee. >> ranking member the -- no, sir -- >> i'm not saying you don't know. we have the transcript with the mexican president, the australian prime minister and now a transcript of a call with the you krukrainian president l out. >> members of the national security counsel and others, others were briefed from state department as well the transcripts they have an area of responsibility they would be informed on the interaction so there were a number of people that from the white house briefed on the call this would be not something. >> the white house probably

didn't leak this out. >> i wouldn't say the white house. but there are individuals within the white house that may or may not. i don't know. not from an intelligence intercept i will say that. >> right. i'm just saying, the did d dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred. it's important for the state department and appropriate agencies to get. when a president talks to a foreign leader, it's confidential. contents are confidential. there could be some factses of that conversation you want to get to the appropriate agency not just the ic. i want to be clear about that. but this is now the third time. i'm not aware of this ever happening before, of contents of calls like this getting out. >> i really don't know, ranking member. i'm not aware. i don't have the numbers -- it just seems to me it's unprecedented.

i'd also say i think it's the decision by the president yesterday to release the transcripts of his call with the y ukrainian is unprecedented. >> be careful what you say, because they're going to use these words against you. >> either way, i'm honored to be here did >> i appreciate your service to this country for a long time. i'm sure we'll be talking again soon. hopefully not in thepublic, hopefully behind closed doors. i yield >> mr. himes. >> thank you, chairman. director maguire, thank you for being here and thank you for your profound service and the service of your family to this country. director, what i find bewildering about this whole conversation is that we're 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. we're not aware of this murk i can decision to withhold aid. we're not aware of a possible retaliation against a u.s. ambassador, none of this happens but for the decision of your inspector general mike ychael atkinson. to come to this committee severseven days after the complaint was required by law to be transm transmitted to us. it was his decision, personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of conspiracy theorys the ranking member thinks is happening here but it was the decision of michael atkinson an appointee of this president, following not advice but his own

conscience without his decision to do this none of this happening, correct? >> i applaud michael. i amrud michael, the way he's done this. he's 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. >> i asked a different question, without his decision, it's a simple question, without his decision none of this is happening, is that correct? >> we got to back up to the whistle-blower as well. >> i should have noted the whistle-blower deserves the same accolades that mr. atkinson does. mr. director, were you ever advised by the white house not to provide this complaint to congress for any reason? >> no, congressman. >> 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 the subpoena of congress, to turn over the complaint, who made the decision to defy that subpoena on september 15th. >> congressman, urgent concerns. >> i'm asking a very simple question. who made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena? i'd like to know who that somebody was. >> congressman, no one did. i endeavored once we had no long the seven-day time line but what i needed to do is 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 a few other issues they were dealt with. i'd like to have as i said to the chairman, perhaps this moved a little faster than it did.

this is a very deliberate process. finally it came to a head yesterday. you know, when i received the information on the 26th of august we had seven days based on the whistle-blower protection act. we only lose those certain days. you have the information. >> sir, i'm focused on the subpoena. the subpoensubpoena's on the de you're saying that a decision was never taken not to comply with that subpoena and somehow it wasn't complied with? >> congressman, i didn't 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 were very supportive. it wasn't ready to go but i was committed to this committee and 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 t?in>>co ngressman, i'm the president's intelligence officer, i speak with him several times throughout the week. >> did you ever speak to the president about this complaint? >> my conversations with the president because i'm the director of national intelligence privileged and it would be inappropriate with 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. >> to be clear with the president of united states, you're not denying that you spoke with the president about the complaint? >> what i'm saying, congressman, i will not divulge privileged conversations that i have as director of national intelligence -- >> has the white house

instructed you to insert that privilege? >> no sir. as a member of the national security counsel and that i have to maintain the discretion and protect the conversation with the president of the united states. >> thank you, director. apparently the clock is broken. i'll yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. conaway. >> thank you for being here. we're a competitive disadvantage because neither one of us are lawyers. you have lawyers on your staff, sir? >> i do, congressman. >> and your lawyers have looked at this urgent concern thoroughly and have given you advice? >> yes, congressman. >> if the black letter law was so clear how is it that we have different attorneys giving you and i different opinions. that's a rhetorical question. with respect to this issue. just to clarify, mike atkinson

was in front of us last week did a really good job of what he did and didn't do. as part as his investigation he didn't request records of the call from the president, and the reason he did, he decided the difficulty of working through all of that probably meant he couldn't comply with the 14-daytime frame, he didn't try to overrun the white house's executive privilege that the president had with president zelensky. he also said in his letter, i also determined, quoting michael, i also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that information relating to the urgent concern appeared credible. that's a different statement than flat-out credible. a rhetorical statement. anything from your lawyersed a vieszing you that determination of urgent concern lies solely

with the icig? >> no, sir. i was never advised by my legal >> to your knowledge, has the justice department ever weighed in to say that the dni can't make a separate decision with respect to the seven-day process that the matter is not of urgent concern as your team decided? >> the matter of urgent concern is legally defining term. it's pretty much yes or no. >> apparently, that's not the case, admiral. because ig said it was. and you're saying it's not under that legal definition because it involved the president who last time i checked, you're pretty familiar chain of command. you're in his chain of command. for definite reasons, it doesn't meet the whistle-blower protections of the ig and your

team made that call. >> my team's -- it was 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 make sure that in fact it did. when it didn't, i want to say once again, i endeavored to get that information to this committee. >> to clarify the role that the inspector general had with respect to the department of justice i heard you said that he was involved in the conversations allowed to make his case, you gave the justice department the letter, what was his exact involvement in making his case to the justice department? >> to the best of my knowledge, the icig's transmittal letter as

well as the complaint from the whistle-blower were forwarded to the office of legal counsel for their determination. i believe that what is they based their opinion on. if i'm incorrect i will come back to the committee and correct that. >> appreciate that, sir. tough spot. appreciate your long storied history. i apologize if your integrity was insulted. that happens in this arena a lot. the fact that we have differences of opinions, we start to attack each other and call each other's names. my experience is when you is legal matter, i have lawyers that i pay, i stick with the lawyers that i'm paying. you have good legal advice on this issue. in a really tough spot.

making sure this whistle-blower protected. at the same time, if there was something awry was, it getting the full airing that it's getting. i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. thank you mr. chairman and director, thank you so much for being here. i want to turn to what i fear one of the most damaging long-term effects of the whistle-blower episode, the chilling effect that it will have on others in government who may witness misconduct now may be afraid to come forward to report it. sir, i'm worried that government employees and contractors may see how important this situation has played out and decide it's not worth putting themselves on the line. the fact that a whistle-blower 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 protect? >> congresswoman, i think that's a fair assessment. i don't disagree with what you said. i have dev youred to transmit to the intelligence committee my support and for at least two hours this morning not many people in the intelligence committee who are doing something other than watching this. >> what happened with this whistle-blower episode will have a chilling effect. i want to ask you, have you

given direction to this whistle-blower that he can in fact, he or she can in fact come before congress. when the president called the whistle blower a political hack and suggested he or she was disloyal to the country, you remain silent. the statute seems pretty clear that you shall -- everybody has a role to play. the process seems pretty clear. part of it is also includes you directing the whistle-blower of his or her protected rights. can you confirm that you directed that whistle-blower that he or she can come before congress? >> there are several questions there. one, i don't know the identity of the whistle-blower. two, now that the complaint has come forward we are working with his counsel in order to be able

to provide them with security clearance. >> so, sir, i think it's pretty -- my question is pretty simple -- can you assure this committee and the american public that the whistle-blower is authorized to speak to the committee with the full protections of the whistle-blower act? can you confirm that ux that's a yes or no question. >> right now, i'm working through that with the chair. to my best ability the chair was asking for the whistle-blower to come guard. >> can you assure that the american public that the end result will be that the whistle blower will be able to come before this committee and congress and have the full protections of the whistle -- al all, what is the whistle-blower statute for if not to provide those full protections against retaliation, against litigation. >> congresswoman, i'm doing everything i can to support. >> will the gentlewoman yield?

>> yes. >> that whistle-blower will be able to rely the full facts within his knowledge, the concerned wrongdoing by the president or anyone else that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell the committee. do i have your assurance that the whistle-blower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law? >> yes, congressman. >> so, mr. director, i also want to understand what you're going to do to try and assure the trust of the employees and contractors that you represent to assure the american people that the whistle-blower statute is in fact being properly adhered to and no further

efforts would be to obstruct an opportunity for a whistle-blower who has watched misconduct to actually get justice? >> congresswoman, supporting and leading the men and the women of the intelligence community is the highest priority. i believe that i sir -- >> sir, i want to say and go on record in being clear this will have a chilling effect and that's exactly not what this statute was intended for, it was intended for transparency. it was intended also to give the whistle-blower certain protections and i think the american people deserve that. thank you. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> mr. turner. >> director, thank you for being here. thank you for your service and clarity you have described the deliberations that you went through in applying the laws with respect to this complaint.

it's incredibly admirable in the way you approached this. i have read the complaint and i read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of the ukraine. concerning that conversation, i want to say the president, this is not okay. that conversation is not okay. i think it's disappointing to the american public when they read the transcript. it's not what's in the complaint. we now have the complaintened the transcript and people can read the allegations of the complaint are not the allegations of the subject matter of this conversation. what else it's not, it's not the conversation that was in the chairman's opening statement. while the chairman was speaking i had someone text me, is he making this up? yes, he was. sometimes fiction is better than the actual words or the text. luckily the american public are smart and they have the

transcript. now, we have seen this movie before. we have been all year on litigating impeachment long before the july 25th conversation happened between the president and the president of ukraine. and we have heard the clix of the cameras in this intelligence community room we're not focusing on the issues of national security threats. now the complaint we now have, mr. director, is based on hearsay, the person who wrote it, i talked to people and they told me these things. american public has the transcript and the complaint. they have the ability to compare them. what's clear about the complaint it's based on political issues. mr. director, he's alleging -- or she is alleging that the actions of the president were political in nature. that's my concern about how this is i plied to whistle-blower

statute. the statute is better provide them to come to congress when they're concerned about abuses of powers and laws. it's about the intelligence community, abusive surveillance, about the abuse of the spy mechanisms that we have, this is about the product of surveillance, someone has been -- someone had access to surveillance that related the president's conversations. i'd like for you to turn for a moment and tell us your thoughts of the whistle-blower process and the concerns as to why it has to be there so that the intelligence community can be held accountable and we can have oversight, because it wasn't there for oversight of the president. it was there for the oversight for the intelligence community. if you describe your thoughts on

that. on the issue of executive privilege, much made about the law says on the whistle blower statute you shall. first, can you tell us about the importance of the whistle-blower statute with respect to accountability of the intelligence community and our role of oversight there and then your, your process -- your facts of being stuck in the middle when you have these conflicts of law. >> congressman, the intelligence community whistle-blower protection act is to apply to the intelligence community. and then it pertains to financial, administrative or operational activities within the intelligence community and under the oversight and responsibility of the director of national intelligence.

it does not allow a member of the intelligence community to report any wrongdoing that comes from anywhere in the federal government. and so, with that, i do believe that is about the intelligence whistle blower protection act was the best vehicle that the whistle-blower had to use. it came to me and discussion with our icig who's a colleague, and the determination was made by the -- well, that he viewed that it was in fact credible and it was a matter of urgent concern. and i just thought it would be prudent to have another opinion. i have worked with lawyers my whole career. whether it was the rule of confli conflict, or rules of engagement or just the uniform code of military justice and i have found that different lawyers have different opinions on the

same subject. we have nine justices of the supreme court. many often than not the opinions are 5-4. there are differences of opinions. when this matter came to me i have a lot of life experience, i realized the importance of the matter that is before us this morning. and i thought that it would be prudent for me to insure that in fact it met that statute before i sent it forward in compliance with the whistle blower protection act. >> i yield back. >> as aside, i want to mention my colleague is right on both accounts. it's not okay but also by summary of the president's call at least in part by parody it's a separate problem in and of itself. of course the president never said if i -- if you don't

understand me i'm going to say it seven more times. my point is that's the message the ukraine president was receiving in not so many words. mr. carson. >> thank you, chairman schiff. thank you director maguire for your service. director maguire, this appears to be the first intelligence community whistle-blower complaint that has ever -- ever been withheld from congress. is that right, sir? >> congressman carson, i believe that it might be. and once again, i said in my statement it's in fact as far as i'm concerned unprecedented. >> it's unprecedented, sir. do you know why it's unprecedent snd i think it's because the law that congress at this very committee drafted really couldn't be clearer. it states that upon receiving such an urgent complaint from

the inspector general you the director of national intelligence, quote, shall, end quote, forward it to the intel committees no ifs or buts. your office has consistently and uniformly still transmitted those complaints to the intelligence committee, is that right, sir? >> congressman, carson, in the past, whether or not they were credible they were forwarded but each and every instance prior to this it involved members of the intelligence committee serving on organizations turned control of dni. this one is different because it didn't meet those true criteria. >> director, does executive privilege or laws that regulate the intelligence community,

preemt the safeguards of democracy. >> no, chairman carson, it does not. >> notwithstanding this mandate and the consistent practice of your office that you withheld this urgent complaint from congress at the direction of the white house and the department of justice, you follow their orders than the law. if the inspector general hadn't brought this complaint to us, you and the trump administration might have gotten away with this unprecedented action. you affirmed your dedication to the rule of law. i'm having trouble understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here, can you explain that to us, sir? >> congressman carson, couple of things. the white house did not -- did not direct me to withhold the information. neither did the office of legal

counsel. that unclassified and has been disseminated. the question came down to urgent concern, a legal definition, it doesn't mean, is it important? is it timely? urgent concern meant the criteria. all that did it just take away the seven days. now, as i said before, just because it wasn't forwarded to this committee doesn't mean it went unanswered. the icig and the justice department referred to it to the fbi for investigation. so, that was working while i was in endeavoring to get the executive privilege concerns addressed so that it can then be forwarded. it wasn't stonewalling. i didn't receive direction from anybody. i was trying to work through the process and the law the way it's

written. i have to comply with the law it is. if i could do otherwise it would have been much more convenient to me, congressman. >> and lastly, director, as you sit here today, sir, do you commit to providing every single whistle blower complaint intended for congress to the intelligence committee as required by the statute? >> if it's required by statute, yes. >> that's good to hear. the unprecedented decision to withhold this whistle-blower complaint from congress, i think it raises concerns, very serious concerns for us and for me, and i think that we need to get to the bottom of this. i yield the balance of my time. >> how much time does the gentleman have remaining? >> well, director, you were not directed to withhold the

complaint is that your testimony? >> that's absolutely true. >> you exercised your discretion to withhold the complaint from the committee. >> i did not, sir. what i did i delayed it because it didn't meet the statutory definition of urgent concern and i was working through -- >> director, you're aware, you spent a lot of time focusing on the definition of urgent concern. you're aware of the practice of the office has been that regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, the complaint is always given to our committee, you're aware that's the unbroken practice since the establishment of your office and the in spector general, are you aware of that. >> chairman, every previous whistle-blower complaint forwarded to intelligence committee involved a member of the intelligence community, has

responsibility. >> the past practice has been -- we're talking about urgent here, whether you it it meets the statutory practice, you're aware of that. >> i'm aware that this is unprecedented. and with that sir, i agree. this has never happened before. then, again, this is a unique situation. >> but you, director, made the decision. you made the decision to withhold it from the committee for a month when the white house had made no claim of executive privilege, when the department of justice said, you don't have to give it to them but you can. you made the decision not to. >> that's not true, sir. what the office of legal counsel said that it does not meet the legal definition of urgent concern. >> you're not required -- it didn't say you cannot provide it. it said you're not required. if you don't want to we're not

going to force you you're not required. it doesn't say you can't, am i right sf. >> it allowed me, but even so, it was referred to the fbi for investigation and i was endeavoring to get the information to you, mr. chairman. but i could not forward as a member of the executive branch without executive privileges being addressed. i feel the white house counsel was doing the best they could to do that. it came to a conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts and because the transcripts were released no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was then free to send both the inspector general's cover letter and the complaint to you. at no time was there any intent on my part to withhold the information from you, the chair,

and the committee. >> i wish i had the confidence of knowing but for this hearing, but for the deadline we were forced to set with this hearing we would have been provided that complaint. i don't know if we would have seen that complaint. mr wenstrup. >> i think it's shame we started off this hearing with fictional remarks, the implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader putting words into it that didn't exist. they're not in the transcript. i will contend those were intentionally not clear. the chairman described it as parody. i don't think this is parody when we're trying to seek facts. unfortunately today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv and the media is only going to show that section of what the chairman had to say but i'm also glad to know that many americans have seen

this movies too many times and they're tired of it. let me get to some questions if i can. let's go to the word "credible." credible does not mean proven true or factual, would that be correct in this situation? >> i find no fault in your logic, congressman. >> so, you know, the interpretation it was credible. but also, was that decision made by the ig before seeing the transcript of the conversation? >> i believe that the icig conducted to the best of his about the investigation and he found to his ability that base tdz on the evidence and discussing it with the whistle-blower he thought that in fact it was credible. >> the ig didn't necessarily have the transcript of the conversation. >> no, he did not. >> to another point, one of the issues that arose of the russian investigation, the latitude provided to the u.s. president

to conduct foreign affairs in 2017 i asked then cia director brennan how he viewed statements of obama to russian president medvedev, more flexibility to investigate after his 2012 election. he would transmit the information to putin. director brennan wouldn't entertain my question adue to te fact that conversations were between heads of governments. a similar question related to this whistle-blower complaint, one, you said this executive privilege is unwavable. >> congressman, only the white house and the president can waive executive privilege. the president asetters executive

privilege. >> director brennan gave me the impression then that's the rule, that's the law, i'm going to go with that, do you believe the president is entitled to withhold his conversations from the congress if it's used in a whistle-blower case? >> i think the president when he conducts diplomacy and deals with foreign heads of state he has every right to be able to have that information be held within the white house and the executive branch and if yesterday i think the transmission of the call is unprecedented. it's also i think that other future leaders when they interact with our head of state might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction they have with the president because of that release. >> we may need to change our process here because i guess if a decision regarding executive privilege maybe it should made

prior to submitting the communication to congress. >> i believe the committee wrote the law and based on what we're doing today, perhaps it needs to be re-looked at, i don't know, i leave that to legislative branch. >> the 14 days, that might be kind of tough to adhere to. i think maybe, you know, this is a special circumstance, unprecedented, maybe some leeway in the time frame instead of the narrow 14 days. do you know, do you feel, did the ig ever feel they felt rushed to making the decision because of the 14-day? >> no, congressman. i believe he's a very experienced inspector general. when you work under a time line like that, he worked with his staff and i think endeavor to the extent he was following the statute as it was written.

any prudent lawyer would like to have more time to collect facts and do other things. michael atkinson was under the 14-day time line. >> did you feel rushed in any way, sir? >> i did not. >> thank you. i yield back. ms. speier. >> thank you, director maguire, for your extraordinary long service to our country. at in time in this process, did you threaten to resign if the complaint wasn't provided to committee. >> no, i have not. i know that story has appeared quite a bit. i issued a statement yesterday. >> all right, thank you. when you read the complaint were you shocked at all by what you read? >> congresswoman, as i said, i had a lot of life experience. i joined the navy. >> i understand your record. can you answer it.

>> i realized full and well the importance of the allegation and i have to tell you congresswoman, when i saw that i anticipated having to sit in front of some committee some time to discuss it. >> all right, the complaint refers to what happened after the july 25th conversation between the ukraine president and the president of the united states. and the white house lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location in order to lock down and that was the term used in the complaint all records of the phone call. did you -- that reaction to the transcript seem to you like a recognition within the white house that the call was compl e completely improper? >> congresswoman, i have no firsthand knowledge of that. all i have the knowledge that the whistle-blower alleges in

his allegation, the whistle-blower complaint, i don't know whether that's true or not. >> so knowing that the whistle blower appeared to be credible based on the evaluation by the inspector general and knowing that that effort was undertaken by the white house to cover it up, why would you then as your first action outside of the intelligence community go directly to the white house to, to the very entity, that was being scrutinized and complained about in the complaint, why would you go there to ask their advice as to what you should do. >> congresswoman, the allegation that's made by the whistle-blower is secondhand information. not known to him or her firsthand. >> except mr. maguire it was determined to be credible. there was investigation done by the inspector general.

let me go on to another issue. to respond to every single statement out there that was incorrect. >> all right, thank you.

>> i appreciate that. the president on monday said also, who is this so-called whistle-blower, who knows the correct facts? is he on our country's side? do you believe the whistle-blower is on country's side? >> i believe that the whistle-blower and all employees who come forward in icig to raise concerns are doing what they perceived is the right thing. >> working on behalf of our country? are you aware the whistle blowers within the federal government have identified waste, fraud and abuse of over $59 billion that has had the effect of benefiting the taxpayers in keeping our country safe as well. >> congresswoman, i'm not familiar with the dollar value. having been in service for four

decades. i'm very well of the value -- >> thank you. one final question, did the president of the united states ask you to find out the identity of the whistle-blower? >> i can say, although i would not normally discuss my conversations with the president, i can tell you emphatical emphatically, no. >> thank you. i yield back. mr. stewart. >> mr. maguire, thank you for being here today. i want to know the good news is i'm not going to treat you like a child. i'm going to give you a chance to answer the questions. i want to thank you for your service. remind you, you said it earlier, how many years of service, military service do you have? >> i have 36 years of service to the united states navy. 4 of those as a navy s.e.a.l.

>> that's great. i had a mere 14 years as an air force pilot. i proudly wear these air force wings. these are my father's air force wings. for someone who hasn't served in the military, i don't think they realize how deeply offensive it is to have your honor and your integrity questioned. some on this committee have done exactly that. they've accused you of breaking the law. one part of many that i could from the chairman. this raises grave concerns that your office together with the department of justice and possibly the white house have. i'm going to give you the opportunity to answer very clearly. are you motivated by politics in your work or your professional

behavior. >> excuse me -- >> are you motivated by politics in your work or your professional behavior. >> no, congressman. i'm not. i'm not political. i'm not partisan. i did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of national intelligence. i thought there were perhaps other people who would be more best and more qualified to do that. the president asked me to do this and it was an honor to step up. >> thank you. do you believe you have followed the laws in the way you have handled this complaint? >> i do. >> in any way, protect the president or anyone else from where whereondoing. >> i have not. i have endeavored to follow the law. >> do you believe you had the legal responsibility -- >> the opinion of the office of legal counsel is binding on the executive branch. >> thank you. there's been a big deal made that this was the first

whistle-blower complaint that's been withheld from congress. it's also true that the firstow potentially falls under executive privilege and that it included information outside of the authority of the dni, is that true? >> to the best of my knowledge, mr. congressman, that's correct. >> if you think you're going to convince the american people that your cause is just by attacking this man. and by impugning his character when it's clear that he felt there was a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. yet the entire tone here somehow you're a political stooj who has done nothing but to protect the president of the united states. the clear impression that you're a man of integrity that did what

you felt was right, regardless of the questions and the innuendos cast by some of my colleagues sitting here today. i think we can agree leaks are unlawful and that leaks are damaging and for hef's sake we have seen plenty of that over the last three years. there's a long list of leaks that have clear implications for our national security. i want to know, do you know who's the press information about this case and have you made any referrals to the department of justice for unlawful disclosures? do you know who's feeding information about this case? >> no. >> okay. >> do you hit the it would appropriate to make referral to the department of justice to try to determine that. >> anybody who witnesses or sees any wrongdoing should refer any

wrongdoing or complaint to the department of justice for investigation. >> including investigation about leaks. >> that's correct. >> classified information. >> yes, congressman. any wrongdoing. >> all right. i don't know what time it is. i suppose my time is up. i'd conclude by emphasizing once again, good luck convincing the american people that this is a dishonorable man sitting here. good luck convincing the american people that he's done anything -- score political points with friends who want to impeach this president keep going down that road. >> thank you, congressman. >> let me just say, director, no one has accused of being a political stooge or dishonorable. no one has said so, no one has

suggested that. it's certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority when the congress says that something shall be done it shall be done. when it involves the wrongdoing of the president it's not an exception to the statute. the fact that whistle-blower has been left twisting in the wind for weeks, attacked by the president it should concern all of us, republicans and democrats, that this was allowed to come to be allegations this serious and this urgent were withheld this long. but no one is suggesting that there's a dishonor here but nonetheless we're going to insist that the law be followed. >> mr. chairman, will you yield. >> quickly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your service and being here. >> as you know, those in public life who work and deal with other countries, ambassadors, secretaries of state, many in in

the intelligence field, they're vetted, they go for approval before the senate they have to get clearance. you understand the policy reasons for that. do you have any issues with civilians without approval. without clearance for taking on those rolls. and why would you have those concerns. >> in order to be, in order to be able to handle sensitive information whether it would be diplomatic or intelligence information one must be vetted. the important of protecting national security in order, we can't bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand and holy water to give them a security clearance. the fbi went back for 15 years in my background examined all of my financial records to make

sure that i was in fact worthy of having an intelligence clearance. we do the same thing with the intelligence community, everyone who's privileged, who has access to intelligence information is a sacred trust. the american people expect us to keep us safe. in order to do that we need to ensure that any person who has access to this sensitive information of the united states has been thoroughly vetted to ensure they're able to handle that information. >> not just the intel issues but issues of national policy that people have an official role that they carry out on the behalf of the united states and we know what their role is, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> what is your understanding of what mr. giuliani's role is? >> congressman quigley, i referred to the white house to comment on the president's personal lawyer.

>> okay. so far, you see that he's his personal lawyer. we read in the xlabt, modified transcript, he's mentioned five times your reaction to the fact that civilian without any of this vetting has played this role? >> no, sir. all i'm saying i know what the allegations are i'm not saying the allegations are true and that's where the xwhit tee -- >> i don't think there's any question about the credibility of the complaint in the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. giuliani, highly respected man, mayor of new york, i'd like him to call you or ask him to call you along with the attorney general, your reaction to civilian dealing -- in the complaint, it talks about the national security. the inspector general talks about this as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has and obviously, mr.

giuliani's playing this role, to your knowledge does he have security clearance? >> i don't know. congressman quigley, i'm not aware or unwear whether or not mr. giuliani has a security clearance. >> before we this happened, we were aware of his role, doing what you do. >> congressman quigley, my only knowledge of what mr. giuliani does i'd have to be honest i get from tv and the news media i'm not aware of what he does in fact for the president. >> you're aware of any communication by mr. giuliani and your office about how he should proceed with this role given the classified nature, the national security implications that are in the complaint that are in the transcript in the role that he's playing? >> well, i have read the transcripts just as you have so my knowledge of his activity in

there is just limited to the conversation that the president had with the president of ukraine. >> we respect your role and while we have difference of opinions we continue to respect your integrity and your honor but we have other vast amount of experience you have and we need to understand how it plays juxtaposition with the complaint. -- suspend all u.s. assistance to ukraine. your reaction to that. >> congressman quigley, anything that has to do with the president's lawyers in these matters should be referred to the president for that. >> i'm just reading the complaint. >> i lead and support the intelligence community and the 17 different departments and agencies underneath my leadership. i don't lead the president and i have no authority or responsibility over the white house.

>> but you're aware with all your experience the fact that we have the relationship with ukraine they're dependent upon us. this complaint doesn't concern you, you can't say that publicly that doesn't concern you. >> there are a lot of things that concern me. i'm the acting director of national intelligence. his conversation, how the president of the united states wants to conduct diplomacy is his business and not whether or not i approve or disapprove of it that's the president's business. >> the issue is whether it commits a crime and that bothers you. >> director, you may complete your answer if you wish. >> if you wanted to respond you may. >> no. i'm fine. thank you, chairman. thank you, mr. maguire. thank you for being here. we appreciate your life of public service. my question relates to prior to

the transmission on august 26th from the ig to the dni were there any conversations that you prior to august 26 related to this matter? >> congresswoman, there's been a lot that's happened in the last several weeks. as far as the timeline is concerned, i'd like to take that and get back to you and give you a full chronology if i may on the actual timeline of events. >> that would be very helpful to this committee in terms of if there were any preliminary conversations, what was discussed, and if there was any action taken as a result of those conversations. i want to turn to the complaint itself which has been made public for the american public to read and let me preface this by saying that i greatly appreciate your statement that you believe the whistle-blower is operating in good faith. i think that's very important for americans to hear. on page one -- and i'm not going to improvise for parity purposes

like the chairman of this committee did. i'm going to quote it directly. on page one the complaint reads, quote, i was not a direct witness to most of the events described. this seems like a very important line to look into, and i think the american public will have questions in particular about that line. so my question to you is, for the record, did the ig fully investigate the allegations into this complaint at this time? has the ig fully investigated the allegations in this complaint? >> i believe that the intelligence communitier and yi inspector general did a great job and made the determination that it was both credible and urgent. i have no reason to doubt that michael atkinson did anything but his job. >> so when you talk about a full investigation where the veracity of the allegations of the

complaint were looked into, there were many references to white house officials. do you know if the ig spoke with those white house officials? do you know if he investigated, again, the truthfulness of these allegations, or was it a preliminary investigation? >> congresswoman, i'd have to defer to the ig to respond to you on that, but what i do know, although i do not know the identity of the whistle-blower, i do know that michael atkinson had, in fact, discussed this with the whistle-blower and found his complaint to be credible. as far as who else he spoke with, i am unaware of what went on in michael atkinson's investigation into this matter. >> so as of today, the only individual that we know the ig spoke with is the complainant, is the author and the whistle-blower? >> congresswoman, what i'm saying is i'm unaware who else michael atkinson may have spoken to. i'm unfamiliar with his investigative process and everybody that he spoke to in this regard.

>> thank you for the answer on the record. again, for the american public, they're going to have many questions as they read this complaint today, and because on page one it says no direct knowledge, i think it's very important that we conduct -- that we have questions answered for individuals that do have direct knowledge and with that i yield back. >> thank you, congresswoman. mr. swalwell. >> thank you. mr. maguire, do you agree that the definition of a coverup is an attempt to prevent people from discovering a crime? >> i'd say that's close. i mean, i'm sure there's others but i don't disagree with that, sir. >> in the whistle-blower's complaint, the whistle-blower alleges that immediately after the president's call with the president of ukraine on july 25, white house lawyers moved quickly to direct white house officials to move electronic transcripts from one computer system where it was normally stored to a secret, classified

information system, is that right? >> congresswoman -- excuse me, sir, i apologize. >> is that what was alleged in the whistle-blower complaint? >> kmom a congressman -- >> yes or no. >> you read that allegation and the first people you go to are the white house lawyers who are telling the white house officials who see this transcript and move it into a secret compartmentalized system, those are the first people you go to? >> well, a couple of things -- >> is that yes or no? >> yes. >> i'm going to keep going here. you get this complaint. inspector general says urgent, credible, you have no wiggle room to not go to congress and instead you send your concern to the subject of the complaint, the white house. so, did the white house tell you after you sent your concern about privilege, did they tell you to go to the department of justice next? >> we -- my team, my counsel in

consultation with the intelligence community inspector general went to the office of legal counsel. >> so -- >> we were not directed to do that. >> and mr. maguire, you said that this did not involve ongoing intelligence activities. however, the whistle-blower says that this is not the first time that the president's transcripts with foreign leaders were improperly moved to an intelligence community code ware system. is that a part of the allegation? >> i believe that's in the letter and i will let the letter speak for itself. >> what can also speak for itself is if a transcript of a foreign leader is improperly moved into an intelligence community classification system, that actually would involve your responsibilities, is that right? >> not necessarily. i do not -- it is not underneath my authority and responsibility, and once again, this is an allegation that has been made. it does not necessarily mean that that is a true statement.

>> and the allegation was determined to be urgent and credible by the inspector general, is that right? >> yes, it was. >> would you also want to know, consider you are the director of national intelligence and transcripts are being moved into a secret intelligence system whether other transcripts, perhaps maybe the president's phone calls with vladimir putin, with mbs of saudi arabia or erdogan or kim jong-un, would you want to know if those are also being improperly moved because the president is trying to cover up something? >> congressman, how the white house, the executive office of the president and the national security council conduct their business is their business. >> it's actually your business to protect america's secrets, is that right? >> it's all of ours, this committee as well. >> if there's coverup activity because the president is working improperly with a foreign president -- >> if there's allegations of a

coverup, it might lend credence or disprove that but right now all we have is an allegation of secondhand information whistle-blower. i have no idea on whether or not that is true and accurate statement. >> the department of justice opinion you relied upon said that you are not responsible for preventing foreign election interference, is that right? that was in the opinion. >> what the office of legal council did was over 11 pages -- >> they said -- >> an opinion, defining and explaining their justification for it not complying with urg t urgent -- >> are you responsible for preventing election interference? >> election interference -- >> by a foreign government. >> congressman, election interference. >> this answer is yes or no. are you responsible for preventing election interference? >> election interference is -- >> boy, i really hope you know the answer to the question. >> it's priority of the intelligence community. >> is it your priority? >> yes, it is. >> so this complaint also alleges a shakedown with a

foreign government by the united states president involving a rogue actor, as mr. quigley pointed out, who has no clearance, no authority under the united states and an effort by the white house to move the transcript of this call to a secret system, is that right? that's at least what's alleged. >> i believe that election security is a fundamental pri a priority. however, this is a conversation with another foreign leader, not election security. >> i yield back. >> thank you, congressman. >> if that conversation involved the president requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, is that not an issue of interference in our election? >> chairman, once again, this was sent to the federal bureau of investigation -- >> i understand that but you're not suggesting, are you, that the president is somehow immune

from the laws that preclude a u.s. person from seeking foreign help in a u.s. election, are you? >> what i'm saying, chairman schiff, is that no one, none of us, is above the law in this country. >> mr. herden. >> thank you, chairman. admiral, it's a pleasure to be here with you. i tell my friends that i've gotten more surveillance as a member of congress than as an undercover officer in the cia and i think you've gotten more arrows shot at you being director of national intelligence than your almost four decades on the battlefield. a specific question, the letter contained in the whistle-blower package is actually dated august 12th and i recognize this may be a better question to be asking the icig. that letter is dated august 12th and it's to the chairman and select committee on intelligence and to the chairman of this committee. do you know if the whistle-blower provided that letter to those two chairmen concurrently with the icig?

>> no, congressman. as i said earlier, i believe that the whistle-blower and the icig acted in good faith and followed the law every step of the way. >> good, good copy. we've talked about the way the law on the whistle-blower statute says you shall share if it's decided to be an urgent concern. however, best practices has always been to share regardless of that urgent concern. do you see any reason, negative impact on the intelligence community if that legislation was changed to say all whistle-blower complaints should be shared with the committees? >> that's correct. and in addition to that, congressman, i mean, let's just say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. members of this committee, although you are the intelligence committee, are not members of the intelligence community. and as the dni, i have no authority or responsibility over this committee.

>> but my question is, do you think that if every whistle-blower complaint that was brought to the intelligence community inspector general was always shared with this committee, would that have any impact on intelligence equities? and i ask that because i don't know why, when the statute was written, that it didn't say all should be shared rather than only urgent concern. my question to you as the head of the intelligence community, do you think if we changed that law, would it have impact on intelligence equities? >> i don't think that a law can be changed to cover all things that might possibly happen. i think we have a good law. i think it is well written. however, as i said, congressman, this is unprecedented and this is a unique situation why we're sitting here this morning. >> sure, and i hope we're not in this position again. however, if we do find ourselves in this position again, i want to make sure that there's not any uncertainty in when information should be shared to this committee.

was the onuspend ukrainian n omb aide as was alleged in this complaint? >> as far as i'm concerned personally, congressman, no, i have no knowledge of that and i am unaware if anybody within the idni is aware of that. i just don't know the answer to that. >> when -- and i apologize for these legal questions that might be best directed at somebody else but i feel like you have perspective. when does the office of legal counsel guidance override laws passed by congress? >> the office of legal counsel does not override laws passed by congress. what it does, it passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch, and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone

within the executive branch. >> good copy. and i have two final questions but i'm going to ask them together to give you the time to answer them both. what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode? and when i say episode, i'm referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistle-blower revelati revelation. you alluded to it in some of your previous questions but i would like your assessment on how this could impact intelligence operations in the future. and i do believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right? and i would welcome in the end -- i know this is a little off topic -- what do you see are our greatest challenges and threats to this country as the director of national intelligence. >> well, let me answer the latter part of that. i think that the greatest challenge that we face is not

necessarily from a kinetic strike with russiainthe greates that we do have is to make sure that we maintain the integrity of our election system. we know right now that there are foreign powers who are trying to get us to question the validity on whether or not our elections are valid. so first and foremost, i think that protecting the sanctity of our election within the united states, whether it be national, city, state, local, is perhaps the most important job that we have with the intelligence community. outside of that, we do face significant threats. i'd say number one is not necessarily kinetic but cyber. this is a cyber world. we talk about whether or not great competition is taking place with russia and china and we are building ships and weapons to do that, but in my estimation, the great competition with these countries is taking place right now and

doing that in the cyber world. >> my time is running out but the broader operations on intelligence operations on this whistle-blower situation. >> in light of this, i clearly have a lot of work as the leader of this community to reassure -- to reassure that the intelligence community, that in fact, i have totally committed to the whistle-blower program. and i am absolutely, absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual as well as making sure that michael atkinson, who is our icig, continues to be able to do his job unfettered but i certainly have to be proactive in my communications with my team. >> mr. chairman, i yield back my time i may or may not have. >> mr. castro. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director maguire for your time time. also thank you to the whistle-blower for having the courage and bravery to come

forward on behalf of the nation. thank you to mr. atkinson also, the inspector general, in his courage in coming forward to congress. you mentioned that you believe that the whistle-blower's report is credible, that the whistle-blower is credible, that the whistle-blower acted in good faith. you've had a chance now as we have and i believe the american people have had an opportunity to review both the whistle-blower complaint and the transcript that was released of the phone call between the president of the united states and the president of the ukraine. you've read both documents by now, haven't you? >> yes, congressman. >> would you say that the whistle-blower's complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released? >> i would say that the whistle-blower's complaint is in alignment with what was released yesterday by the president. >> i want to read you a quick section of both to underscore exactly how accurate and

consistent this complaint is. on two page the whistle-blower says, according to white house officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the president pressured mr. zelensky to -- and then there's a few bullet points. the first one says, initiator continue an investigation into the activities of former vice president joseph biden and his son hunter biden, and then the third bullet point, meet or speak with two people the president named as his personal envoys on these matters, mr. giuliani and attorney general barr to whom the president referred multiple times in tandem. in the transcript that was released, on page four of the first paragraph into what looks like the third sentence, president trump says, the former ambassador of the united states, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the ukraine were bad news. so i just want to let you know that. the other thing, there's a lot of talk about biden's son, that

biden stopped the prosecution, and a lot of people want to find out about that. so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, et cetera. do you have reason to doubt what the whistle-blower has brought forward? >> getting back into michael atkinson's determination on whether or not it was credible or urgent concern, as the dni, it is not my place to ensure that it is credible. that is the icig's job as the inspector. he has determined that it is credible. my only trouble was that, in fact, it involved someone who is not in the intelligence community or in an organization under which i have authority and responsibility. outside of that -- >> director maguire, you agree that it involved intelligence matters. it involved matters of election

interested feer interference, persons including the u.s. president. if you had knowledge or the cia had knowledge that the government was going to drum up an investigation against a former president, that wouldn't qualify as an intelligence matter? would that qualify as an intelligence matter? yes or no. >> well, i don't mean to say that's kind of a hypothetical question, sir. >> i don't think it's hypothetical. that's exactly what's in the transcript. that's what he's asking for. >> the complaint, the complaint -- oh. >> the president is asking the president of ukraine to investigate a former vice president of the united states. does that qualify as an intelligence matter that the cia would want to know? >> the conversation was by the president to the president of ukraine, as you know, and it is his -- i am not -- >> mr. maguire, i understand, but that cannot be -- that cannot be an ultimate shield against transparency. it can't be an ultimate shield

against accountability. the president is not above the law. one thing that you haven't told us is if your office or the inspector general is not able to investigate, then who is able to investigate? >> congressman castro, once again, sir, as i mentioned several times so far, although it did not come to the committee, the complaint was referred to the judicial department for criminal investigation. this was not swept under the rug. >> i have one more question for you. why did your office think you should appeal the ig's determination about, quote, unquote, urgent concern to the doj? that has never been done before. >> this is unprecedented. in the past there has never been a matter that the inspector general has investigated that did not involve a member of the intelligence community or an organization that the director of national intelligence -- >> one last point i would make with respect to -- you keep saying the president is not part

of the intelligence community. i believe he is. the president, you agree, has the ability to declassify any single intelligence document. do you agree that's true? >> the president has original classification authority. >> then how is that person outside of the intelligence community? >> excuse me. he is the president of the united states above the entire executive branch. >> thank you. >> thank you, congressman. >> mr. ratcliff. >> thank you, chairman. admiral, good to see you. >> good to see you again, sir. >> served in the navy 36 years, commanded s.e.a.l. team two and retired as vice admiral of the navy, correct? >> that's correct, congressman. >> despite the fact that after that service you became acting dni 23 days after the trump-zelensky call and four days after the whistle-blower made his or her complaint, you were subpoenaed before this committee after being publicly accused of committing a crime, correct? >> yes, congressman. >> chairman schiff wrote a

letter on september 13th accusing you of being part of a, quote, unlawful coverup, and then the speaker of the house took it one step further. she went on national tv and said not once but twice that you broke the law, that you committed a crime. she said the acting director of national intelligence blocked him, meaning the icig, from disclosing the whistle-blower complaint. this is a violation of the law. you were publicly accuse of committing a crime and falsely accused of committing a crime as you have accurately related. you were required to poll not just the opinion of what the law is but an 11-page opinion about whether or not you were required by law to report the whistle-blower complaint, correct? >> that's correct. >> that opinion says -- the question is whether such a complaint falls within the

statutory definition of urgent concern that the law requires the dni to forward to the intelligence committee. we conclude that it does not. did i read that accurately? >> yes. i better have, right? that's an opinion not from bill barr. that's an opinion from the department of justice ethics lawyers, not political appointees but career officials that serve republicans and democrats, the ethics lawyers at the department of justice that determined that you did follow the law. so you were publicly accused. you were also falsely accused, and yet you're here today. i haven't heard anything close to an apology for that. welcome to the white house of representatives with democrats in charge. let me turn to the matter that we're here for. a lot of talk about this whistle-blower complaint. the question is, at this point, given what we have, why all the focus on this whistle-blower. the best evidence of what president trump said to president zelensky is a

transcript of what president trump said to president zelensky. not casting aspersions on the whistle-blower's good faith or their intent but a second account of what someone didn't hear is not the best evidence of what was said. to that point, despite good faith, the whistle-blower is in fact wrong in numerous respects. and i know everyone is not going to have time to read the whistle-blower's complaint but the whistle-blower says that i am deeply concerned -- talking about the president -- that there was a serious or flagrant problem, abuse or violation of the law. the whistle-blower then goes on to say, i was not a direct witness to the events described. however, i found my colleagues' accounts of this to be credible. and then talking about those accounts of which this whistle-blower complaint is based on, the whistle-blower tells us the officials that i spoke with told me, and, i was told that, and i learned from

multiple u.s. officials that, and white house officials told me that, and i also learned from multiple u.s. officials that. in other words, all of this is secondhand information. none of it is firsthand information. the whistle-blower then goes on to cite additional sources besides those secondhand information. those sources happen to include mainstream media. the sorsurces what the whistle-blower bases his complaints on include "the washington post," "the new york times," politico, the hill, bloomberg, abc news and others. in other words, much like the steele dossier, the galallegati in the whistle-blower's complaints are based on thirdhand mainstream media sources rather than firsthand information. the whistle-blower also appears to allege crimes not just against the president but says with regard to this scheme to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020

election that, quote, the president's personal lawyer, mr. rudolph giuliani, is a central figure in this effort, and attorney general barr appears to be involved as well. buried in a footnote a couple of pages later the whistle-blower admits, i do not know the extent to which, if at all, mr. giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on the ukraine with attorney general barr. the attorney general does know because he issued a statement yesterday saying there was no involvement. my point in all of this is, again, the transcript is the best evidence of what we have, and so that the american people are very clear what that transcript relates is legal communications. the united states is allowed to solicit help from a foreign government in an ongoing criminal investigation which is exactly what president trump did in that conversation. so if the democrats are intent on impeaching the president for lawful conduct, then be my guest. i yield back.

>> thank you, congressman. >> mr. heck. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director, thank you for being here, sir. thank you very much for your service. i want to step back a bit and put into perspective i think what's at stake here. obviously yesterday the white house released the transcript of that july 25th conversation between president trump and president zelensky. we now know that this phone call was indeed a part of the whistle-blower complaint. yesterday the chair at a press conference characterized the president's conversation in that call as a shakedown of the ukrainian leader. he was not suggesting that it was a shakedown for either information or money but instead it was a shakedown for help to win a presidential election which is coming up next year. so now let's rewind to may 7th of this year when fbi director

christopher wray testified before the united states senate that -- and i'm quoting now -- any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to the fbi any conversations with foreign actors about, quote, influencing or interfering with our election. director wray is of course the top cop in the united states of america. you agree with director wray, do you not, sir? >> congressman heck, i do not disagree with director wray and -- >> is that the same thing as you agree with him, sir? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. let me go on -- >> it was referred to the fbi. >> let me fast forward. was it referred to the fbi by the president who actually engaged in the conversation? >> the -- >> no, it was not. let me fast forward to june 13th when -- that's five weeks in

advance of that when the chair of the federal elections commission made the following statement. follow me, please. let me make something 100% clear to the american public and anyone running for public office. it is illegal for any person to accept, solicit or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with the u.s. election. this is not a novel concept. election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation. do you agree with the fbc chair, winetribe, mr. director? >> i agree that our election is sacred and any interference from an outside source is just not what we want to do. >> and to solicit illegal? >> i don't know about that. i'm not a lawyer, sir. yon i don't mean to be evasive.

>> you think it is okay for a public official to solicit or it may be okay? you do not know the law in this regard. you think it may be okay for a candidate or elected officials to solicit foreign interference in our election? i cannot believe you're saying that. you're not really saying that, right? >> i'm not saying is that, congressman heck, at all. >> we should know that the fec chair was prompted to say this because it was just literally -- literally the day before that the president of the united states sat at the resolute desk in the most iconic room in the united states, the oval office, and said that fbi director wray was wrong. you're obviously disagreeing with that. he also said that he would consider accepting foreign help, and of course yesterday we learned that the president did, in fact, did, in fact, do exactly that, solicited that help. director, whether it's this president or any president, do

you believe it is okay for the president of the united states to pressure a foreign country into helping him or her win an election? >> congressman heck, i believe that no one is above the law. we've discussed what we think applies to the law. >> so it is illegal to solicit? >> no, i can't answer that. once again, sir -- >> i can't reconcile your two statements. is it okay for a president to pressure -- any president to pressure a foreign government for help to win an election? >> it is unwarranted. it is unwelcome. it is bad for the nation to have outside interference, any foreign power -- >> thank you. and by extension, it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well? >> all i know is that i have the transcripts as you have. i have the whistle-blower complaint as you have. and -- >> i wasn't referring to the

whistle-blower complaint, but if any president were to do this, and i accept your answer. i think it's beyond unacceptable, director, i think it's wrong, and i think we all know it. i think we were taught this at a very young age and there's a voice within most of us, unfortunately, evidently not all of us, that suggests that it is wrong. it is illegal and it is wrong, and i thank you, sir. and with that i yield back. >> congressman, if i may just answer once again -- >> i've run out of time. >> no -- >> director, you may answer. go ahead. feel free to respond. >> once again, it was referred to the federal bureau of investigation. >> not by the president. >> no. by this office. >> right. >> and by the office of -- by the icig. >> director wray said that any

candidate or elected official should immediately report it. he didn't say that the director of oni should report it but the person did not do what director wray said should occur, period. >> thank you, congressman. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. welch. >> thank you. director, i want to say thank you. there's nobody in this room who can claim to have served their country longer and more valiantly than you, and i heard in your opening remarks that your family before you has been committed to this country, and i say thank you. second, i appreciated your candor when, in your opening statement, you acknowledged that the whistle-blower acted in good faith. and third, i appreciated your acknowledgment that the inspector general also acted in good faith and according to his view of the law. i want to say this, when you said you were in a unique

position, that's an understatement. you got a complaint involving the president of the united states and also the united states attorney general. i disagree with some of the decisions you made, but i have no doubt whatsoever that the same sense of duty that you applied in your long and illustrious career guided you as you made these decisions. so thank you for that. but i want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. the dni has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections, correct? >> that's correct. >> and of course you're aware, as we all are, of the mueller report and his indictments against 12 foreign nationals, russians, who actively interf e interfered in our election, correct? >> i have read the report. >> so it's just a huge responsibility that your agency

has, correct? and in this case, because of the two things you mentioned, that the president is the one person that's boabove the intelligence community and your sense of executive privilege, you did not forward the complaint to us, correct? >> i did not -- yes, congressman welch, because i was still working with the white house -- >> i understand that and you've been very clear on that but let me just ask a hypothetical just to show the dilemma that you were in. let's say a u.s. senator who is well connected -- or a private citizen really well connected had access to and had a conversation with the leader of a foreign country and asked that person for a favor, the u.s. senator let's say, of providing dirt on a political opponent. is that something that you would see that should be forwarded to this committee? >> congressman, i don't mean to be disrespectful but it's very

difficult to answer hypothetical questions. i'm not sure i understand. >> i won't make it hypothetical. let's say instead of a conversation between the president and the president of ukraine, it was a u.s. senator who let's say was the head of the foreign relations committee and was asking for the foreign leader -- >> i understand. >> would you forward that to our committee? >> once again, i think i mentioned that a little earlier in our conversation, the united states senator is not a member of the intelligence community, and the director of national intelligence does not have the authority and responsibility for the u.s. senate. so any wrongdoing in that regard should be referred to the department of justice for criminal investigations. >> well, i'd respectfully disagree with you because obviously that would be a solicitation by that u.s. senator for interference in our elections and that's in your jurisdiction, correct?

>> election interference, yes, congressman welch. but once again, congressman, although it is, as far as what the legal responsibility to do in compliance with the intelligence reform act, the whistle-blower protection act, it does not -- the statute does not allow for that to be done. >> well, i disagree with that. but here's the dilemma that you are in and we're in and we're now going to be able to follow up because executive privilege if it existed was waived. under your approach as you saw it, it means that no one would be investigating the underlying conduct because in this case executive privilege applies or may apply, and number two, the president who had the conversation is above the law. that's a dilemma for democracy, is it not? >> the complaint was sent to the federal bureau of investigation

totally disregarding any concern for executive privilege. >> but the federal bureau of investigation never did a followup investigation, right? >> i believe that they have concluded the investigation. i'm not sure. in addition to being involved with this matter here, i also have other pressing matters as the director. i apologize. >> and the justice department, led by mr. barr, who is the subject of the complaint, is the department that provided the opinion that there's no action to be taken. >> i believe that the attorney general was mentioned in the complaint, not necessarily subject of the complaint, sir. >> he was mentioned. >> yes, sir. >> i yield back, thank you. >> congressman welch, thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. maloney. >> director maguire, what was your first day on the job? >> my first day on the job was friday, the 16th of august, and i think i set a new record to the administration for being

subpoenaed. >> you had a heck of a first week, didn't you, sir. >> i've got much going for me, sir. >> the complaint is dated august 12th. whatever else you've done right in your career, sir, your timing has got to be something you worry about. >> congressman, i think that dan coats' timing is better than mine. >> sir, there's been a lot of talk here today about the process. i just want to summarize a couple of things if that's okay. in your first couple days on the job, sir, you're hit with this complaint and it says that the president of the united states pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponent's son in fact, into that president asked the foreign leader to work with a private citizen, mr. giuliani, and the attorney general of the united states, bill barr, on that scheme. the president at that time was withholding $391 million of assistance, holding that over

that ukrainian president's head. that ukrainian president raises in the conversation u.s. military assistance, javelins, defensive weapons. he's got russian troops in his country. the wolf is at the door. the president asked for a favor, complains about ukrainian reciprocity, not getting enough from you, that's what reciprocity is, right? we got to get something from you if we're giving something to you. he names the political opponent by name, the bidens. ukrainian president says he'll do it, that he'll do the investigation. that's what you're hit with. you're looking at that complaint, and in the second paragraph alleges serious wrongdoing by the president of the united states and the first thing you do is go to the president's men at the white house and women and say, should i give it to congress?

in the second paragraph of that complaint, sir, it also suggests the attorney general could be involved and the second thing you do is go to the attorney general's people at the justice department and ask them if you should give it to congress. sir, i have no question about your character. i've read your bio. i have some questions about your decision and the judgment in those decisions. see any conflicts here? >> congressman, i have a lot of leadership experience, i do. as you said, it came to me very early on in this. the fact that i was just -- i am the acting dni and i was still using garmin to get to work, that this came to my attention involving the president of the united states and the important matter of this, in the past as i said before, i have always worked with legal counsel. because of the magnitude of this decision, i just -- sir, as a

naval officer for years, i just thought it would be prudent -- >> i understand the prudent point. >> sir, if i may, my life would have been a heck of a lot simpler without becoming the most famous man in the united states. >> my question, sir, is when you were considering prudence, did you think it was prudent to give a veto power over whether the congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the two people implicated by it? is that prudent? >> i have to work with the situation as it is, congressman maloney. only the white house can determine or waive executive privilege. there is no one else to go to. and as far as a second opinion, my only avenue of that was to go to the department of justice office of legal counsel. >> and you understand, sir, that if unchallenged by your own inspector general, your decision, that prudence, would have prevented these serious allegations from ever reaching the congress. quick question, in response to

mr. himes, i think you left the door open that you spoke to the president of the united states about this whistle-blower complaint. sir, did you speak personally to the president of the united states at any time about this complaint? >> congressman, once again, i am the president's intelligence officer. i speak to the president. i cannot say one way -- >> mr. director, i know you speak to the president a lot. it's a simple question, sir. did you speak to him about this whistle-blower complaint? yes or no? >> congressman maloney, my conversation with the president of the united states is privileged. >> you're not denying that you spoke to the president. i'm not asking about the content. did you or did you not speak to the president about this whistle-blower complaint? >> i speak to the president about a lot of things and anything that i say to the president of the united states is privileged. >> i'm not asking for the content. >> i'll tell you once again, i speak to the president and anything i say to the president is confidential. >> thank you, sir.

>> that's the way it is. >> i understand. thank you. >> director, you understand we're not asking about your convsatis with the president about national security, about foreign policy, about the national counter-terrorism center. we just want to know did you discuss this subject with the president? you can imagine what a profound conflict of interest that would be. did you discuss this subject, this whistle-blower claim with the president? you can say i did not discuss it with him if that's the answer. that doesn't betray any privilege. and you can say i did discuss it with him but i'm not going to get into the content of those conversations. that question you can answer. >> chairman schiff, once again, my conversation, no matter what the subject is with the president of the united states, is privileged conversation between the director of national intelligence and the president. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman, and director maguire, thank you for being here with us today.

thank you for your service. >> good morning, congresswoman. >> i know that you said you took your first oath in 1974. >> yes, ma'am. >> that's a long time, but a long time to be proud of the service. i took my first oath in 1984 when i was sworn in as a law enforcement officer and i thank you so much for saying that public service is a sacred trust because regardless of the circumstances, who's involved, public service is a sacred trust. i've had an opportunity as a law enforcement officer -- i'm a member of congress now -- but to investigate internal cases involving other personnel. i've had an opportunity to investigate numerous other cases, criminal cases, and never once, just for the record, director maguire, did i ever go to the suspect or the defendant or the principal in those cases to ask them what i should do in

the case. there's been a lot of talk this morning, the whole discussion, the whole reason why we're here centers around the u.s. relationship with ukraine. i think you would agree that ukraine is very dependent on the united states in terms of assisting them and defending themselves. could you, based on your many years of experience in the military and now in your new position, talk a little bit about that relationship and how important it is for the united states to assist ukraine if they're ever going to be able to defend themselves. >> yes, congresswoman. i think that the united states has been extremely supportive of the ukraine. i would say that they are relying on us as they rely on other people in europe. i would also say that the united states is probably paying more of their fair share for the support of ukraine than the others. the threats are real for the ukrainian people and the stake of freedom and democracy is also

very much. >> ukraine would probably never get there without the assistance of the united states. >> if others were willing to step up and support, they might be able to get there. >> but they are not. we're there. so i think you've said it would be difficult for ukraine to meet that goal of defending themselves without our support, correct? >> it would be a challenge, yes, congresswoman. >> this complaint outlines a scheme by the president of the united states and i'm not really sure what to call rudy giuliani these days, what his role is, maybe he's the new fixer, i'm not sure, but either way it involves a scheme to coerce ukraine, this country that you say is so very dependent on the united states to defend themselves, to coerce ukraine to assist in the president's re-election efforts in 2020. in the report from your

inspector general, the memo that was sent to you, it says on july 18th, the office of management and budget official informed the department and agencies that the president earlier that month issued instructions to suspend all u.s. security assistance to ukraine. neither omb or the nfc staff knew why this instruction had been issued. during interest age agency meetb officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this system had come directly from the president but they were still unaware of a policy rationale. the 23rd, 26th, on the 18th this issue first came up where the president was rescinding or suspending that assistance that you said ukraine so desperately

depends on. director maguire, we deal with what's reasonable here and i believe your inspector general included that in the report because this whole issue is about ukraine's position, their relationship with the united states, their dependency on the united states and the president's efforts to coerce ukraine and to engage in an illegal and improper investigation. do you believe that's why your inspector general added that about suspending their support to ukraine? >> i think that michael atkinson found it to be credible and he viewed that it was a matter of urgent concern to forward to this committee. >> do you think it's reasonable for the american people and for this committee on both sides to believe that there is a correlation or a nexus between the president suspending the aide and the conversation that took place on the followup

conversation? >> yes, congresswoman. that is the allegation that is made and i did not have access to the transcripts. my only information was the icig's cover letter and the whistle-blower allegation. the other information coming to light yesterday as released by the president changes things in different light. >> mr. chairman, may i ask one more quickly? >> without objection. >> my understanding is that the inspector general is a career intelligence person. he's worked in the department of justice. he's received numerous awards for outstanding, exemplary performance. did you have any reason to deny or not believe his conclusions in every area of this report that he was directly involved in? >> congresswoman, michael atkinson is a valued and trusted colleague and i respect him tremendously. the question came down to, as

we've just over and over again, urgent concern of whether or not the intelligence community whistle-blower protection act as written allows me to forward it to this committee. that's where i got stuck, ma'am, and i'm sorry. >> thank you, director. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> mr. murthee. >> mr. maguire, thank you for your service to our country and thank you for your patriotism. i want to ask about the time surrounding july 25th to the time that you came into office as director of national intelligence. as you know, the phone call between president trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year, correct? >> i believe july 25th. >> at least one of them happened on july 25th. at that time the dni was dan coats and his deputy was sue gordon. as you know, the whistle-blower claim was filed on august 12th of this year and then you took

office on august 16th, four days later. prior to taking your new job or since, did you discuss the july 25th call or the whistle-blower complaint with dni coats? >> i wouldn't have taken the job if i did. no, sir. >> how about with sue gordon? >> no, not at all. i don't believe to the best of my ability, i do not think that either direct coats or sue gordon have any sense whatsoever about this whistle-blower complaint or that michael atkinson had it. >> before your current role, did you discuss ukraine with president trump? >> no, congressman. i haven't discussed ukraine with anybody. let me put it that way. >> you haven't discussed ukraine with anybody in your current role as the acting dni? >> well, as intelligence reports, we've got about 190 countries out there so whatever the president's daily brief is and matters that pertain to that, but as far as intelligence

equities in that region right now, this has just not been something that has come to my attention in the six weeks that i've been the acting dni. >> turning to the whistle-blower and the inspector general, you don't know the identity of the whistle-blower, right? >> congressman, i do not and i've made it my business to make sure that i don't. >> you don't know his political affiliation? >> i do not. >> or her political affiliation. and of course you believe that the whistle-blower was operating in good faith. >> i do. >> and without bias. >> i don't know about that. i do not know about that. i do believe that the -- >> but you have no reason to believe that he or she was acting with bias, correct? >> i believe that the whistle-blower was acting in good faith. >> but you have no reason to believe that the person was biased? >> i would not know whether biased or not biased, sir. >> you will do everything you can to protect the whistle-blower from any attempts to retaliate against him or her, correct? >> i will not permit the whistle-blower to be subject to any retaliation or adverse

consequences for going to the inspector general. >> unlike the whistle-blower, you do know the inspector general. >> yes, i hold him in high steam. >> and like the whistle-blower, he also operated in the highest faith, right? >> i believe that michael atkinson -- yes. >> andinterestingly, mr. atkinson was actually appointed by president donald trump, right? >> yes, he was. he's a presidential appointees. >> what lends real credibility to the whistle-blower's complaint is the fact that mr. atkinson, an appointee of the president, would actually bring forward a complaint against his boss, and that's something that is especially courageous. what i want to hear from you is that you will also do everything you can to protect mr. atkinson from potential retaliation. >> congressman, absolutely. >> very good. now, the white house released a memoranda of telephone

conversation from the july 25th, 2019 call, right? >> i believe that's what was transmitted yesterday morning, sir. >> they call that a telecon in the jargon of these memoranda, is that right? >> this is the first time i've ever seen the transcript of a presidential conversation with a foreign leader. >> have you been -- >> telecon would be short for telephone conversation though. >> exactly. have you been a party to a conversation between the president and a foreign leader on a phone call? >> when i'm in the office to provide the intelligence brief to the president, some foreign head of state might call in. the president may either ask us to leave or just stay there for a brief call from time to time, yes, sir. >> and there are note takers who actually scribble down furiously what's being said on those calls? >> if they are note takers, they would not be the oval office with us. they might be listening somewhere else, sir. >> like from the situation room. >> i don't know but somewhere

within the white house, yes. >> within this particular situation, maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call. >> that's the allegation, yes. >> they were all taking notes presumably? >> if they're good public servant, yes. >> were you ever a party to a call where the notes that you took were then given to someone at the white house for keeping? >> i have never been party to any call other than my own. i would take notes of my own at my level or at the national counter-terrorism center but i've never been privy with a conversation with the president where i would be taking notes. it would be happenstance, i happened to be there and he felt comfortable enough to leave me for a brief conversation. it's not anything that i would be in that office for in particular in that matter. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you, congressman, very much. >> i'd like to recognize the

ranking member for any final questions he would have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. maguire, i want to thank you for your attendance today. congratulations for surviving legal word challenge charades today. i expect hopefully we'll see you behind closed doors like this is supposed to be done, and i would just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if they would like to impeach the president, they need to go to the floor of the house and actually call for a vote. the intelligence committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment. so, there's a process in the constitution that i would advise you all follow. in the meantime, director maguire, i want to apologize to you for being accused of crimes that you have not committed. it's totally inappropriate behavior for anyone to accuse someone that served four decades like you. i hope you do not have to go through this any longer. with that i yield back the

balance of my time. >> thank you, ranking member. >> i have a few more questions to followup because i thought i heard you say a moment ago that you had no communication with the president on the subject of ukraine. did i understand you to say that? >> i have not had any conversation with anyone on the subject of ukraine that didn't deal with the matter that we have right now in regard to the whistle-blower complaint. so not particularly with the office of legal counsel as far as mentioning the ukraine or as far as the justice department. all i did was send the documents forward. the allegations are in there and i just let the documents speak for themselves. >> you're saying that you did not have any conversation the subject of ukraine that did not involve this complaint? >> that's correct, sir. i've been the acting dni for six

weeks. i have -- >> i'm just trying to understand because that is suggestive that you did have a conversation with the president. >> no, no, no. that is not what i said, sir. >> director, you mentioned early on when we were on the subject of what the inspector general was able to investigate or not investigate, whether the president is within the intelligence community or subject of the intelligence community and by the way, the at statute doesn't require that the subject of the complaint be within the intelligence community. it requires the whistle-blower to be an employee or detaily. it doesn't require that the subject, the person complained of be an employee of the intelligence community. but you have adopted an interpretation by the justice department that essentially says the president is above the

director, therefore the president is not subject to the jurisdiction of the director, therefore it doesn't meet the definition of urgent concern, therefore, the inspector general is done. >> chairman -- >> the inspector general can't investigate anymore, that's the inspector general's 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 with the responsibility and the authority of the director of national intelligence. >> i'm 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. >> that's the way it should be but i'm trying to figure out whether that's the case 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 allowe t