united states as well as his personal lawyer as well as emissary as an official head of the department, department of justice, that he says will be part and parcel of this. now, i know the attorney general is denying involvement in this. but nonetheless, you could see why the department of justice would want this transcript never to see the light of day. you can see why they have worked so hard to deprive our committee of the whistleblower complaint. and in fact, the opinion by the justice department is startling in its own regard, because in that opinion, the department of justice advances the absurd claim that the director of national intelligence has no responsibility over efforts to prevent foreign interference in our elections. well, that will come as news or at least it should to the director of national intelligence who's charged, among other things, with detecting foreign interference on our elections and with reporting to congress about foreign interference in our elections. but it's apparently the view of this justice department that the director has no jurisdiction in this area. and it is a sad fa

make sure that this whistleblower is protected because the impact of this opinion which the department of justice has been unwilling to share with us -- the impact of this opinion is that if the department of justice decides that an employee comes forward, follows the law, follows the process, they are not protected, which means this whistleblower is not protected, then no whistleblower is protected. that is the danger of the doj's misinterpretation of the law. that is where we are right now. next week, we will have an open hearing with the director of national intelligence where he can explain to the country why he believes this urgent concern should not be shared with congress. but that is where we are. i'll be happy to respond to questions. >> d believe the white house for the president was pressuring [indiscernible] >> all i do know is this -- i don't know if the white house has been directly involved because we cannot get an answer to that question, but we do know they are making some claim that privilege may apply. we also know that there are other institutions involved that are preventing

>> i've never been to the department of justice. i didn't want to find out what happens at the department of justice based on what's happened whether people involved at the department of justice, to be honest with you. >> my question is you didn't want to go because you didn't want a public log of the visit? >> are you asking the same question i just answered? i've testified that's what's in the mueller report about a public log is the best of my recollection. >> it is because you didn't want a public record of it, correct? >> i believe i said my quote is did not want to meet at the department of justice because he did not want a public log. that is a quote that someone in the special counsel's team clearly referenced is something i said, though i don't think i would've spoken about myself in the third party. >> you also said you didn't want the attorney general to have an advantage over you, correct? >> i think that is also an accurate representation, but i would have to be made aware of where that is again. >> on page 92, right in

the department of justice is charging them with rico racketeering charges it was may 2008 just after j.p. morgan had indeed bought bear stearns with the help of the government it was a shotgun wedding over the weekend remember that was the beginning of the real craziness of the financial crisis ben bernanke you cut interest rates by 75 basis points on a sunday night they inherited this massive short position that bear stearns had. accumulated and we're going to get into that in the next headline because they're now blaming bear stearns for their crime wave that went on until august 26th seen so that's the remarkable thing to me is that you and i here on price report we're covering that extensively especially in 20102011 in 2012 we're covering nonstop this precious metals manipulation from j.p. morgan that didn't seem to deter them the fact that we were shining a light and exposing their crimes they they were quite confident apparently that they continued until 2016 according to the allegations from the department of justice they were quite confident well we're doing more get away with

justice department for a criminal investigation. and the justice department concluded there was no violation of the law. one other quick point. justice says that william barr, the attorney general, never was told about this call until after the matter was referred to the justice department for a criminal investigation, has never talked to the president about this, never talked to giuliani about this, never talked to the ukrainians about it. >> but of course now we all know from the quasi-transcript that the president was talking about william barr, his own attorney general, and indicating that he could be involved in some of this. >> correct. >> as you just mentioned barr -- >> doj says that never happened. >> he never, in fact, did. the other issue about the whistle-blower, pete, is that the whistle-blower, him or herself, framed it in that initial complaint as a potential violation of campaign finance law which does implicate the department of justice so perhaps it was on that basis that the intelligence community brought in the department of justice and said take a look, do you see crime here? >> it was ultimately referred

however, as you know, opinions from department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. >> well, let me ask you this. do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice or who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that complaint to congress? did that conflict of interest concern you? >> mr. chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. it came to me and i just thought it would be prudent to ensure -- >> i'm just asking if the conflict of interest concerned you. >> sir, i have to work with what i've got and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch. i had no other -- >> what you also had was a statute that said shall and even then you said you had the discretion to provide it but did not. >> because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern. that took away the seven-day timeline. i have endeavored to work with the office of legal

morgan and charge them with rico exactly with the department of justice is now almost 10 years later harging them with rice so as usual the bank will get charged a small fine some member of the model of jamie diamond is to keep $0.90 of every dollar he steals right number one with the bank yes but these executives themselves including the head of their precious metals trading desk now they're being charged criminally in court and face up to 30 years in prison and actually will say that so far the tracker goes back and they get a slap on the wrist so the bank of course will get no penalty meaningful penalty whatsoever number one number 2 let me make this point the racketeering manipulation is going on right now it's a p. morgan at the bank today and jamie diamond has its fingers in many pies of fraud but they say but this is right now the department of justice agrees with kaiser report if you again go to dr go and start page dot net law to look for it because as of this this past month you tube has changed their algorithm so they no longer they only include legitimate press which. c.n.

because the impact of this opinion, which the department of justice has been unwilling to share with us, the impact of this opinion is that if the department of justice decides that an employee of the intelligence committee comes forward, follows the law, follows the process, is nonetheless outside the process, they're not protected. which not only means this whistleblower is not protected, it means no whistleblower is protect. that is the danger of the doj's misinterpretation of the law. so that is where we are right now. next week we will have an open hearing with the director of national intelligence where he can explain to the country why he believes this urgent concern should not be shared with the congress. but that's where we are. and we'll be happy to respond to a few questions. >> do you believe that the white house or the president himself are pressuring the acting director of national intelligence not to hand this information over to you? >> all i do know is this. i don't know whether the white house is directly involved because we can't get an answer to that question, but

don't ever a member the president ever asking me to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice. [end of video clip] >> did you share that, that was you saying on msnbc, you don't ever remember the president ever asking you to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice in any way, shape or form. that was not true, was it? mr. lewandowski: i heard that. >> and that was not true. mr. lewandowski: i have no obligation to the media. >> so you are admitting you were not being truthful in that clip, correct? mr. lewandowski: my interview can be interpreted anyway you like. >> would you like me to play it again. mr. lewandowski: you are welcome too, please. >> i will play it one more time. [video clip] mr. lewandowski: i don't ever remember the president ever asking me to get involved with jeff sessions or the department of justice in any way shape or form. [end of video clip] >> so it is true in may of 2019 you absolutely remembered when the president asked you to deliver a message to the attorney general of a speech for him to give related to the special counsel inv

however, as you know, opinions from department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. >> do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint with advice whether you should provide that complaint to congress. did that conflict of interest concern you? >> mr. chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. it came to me and i just thought it would be prudent to insure that -- >> i'm asking if the conflict of interest concerned you. >> sir, i have to work with what i've got and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch. i had no -- >> you had a statute that says shall and then you said you had the discretion to provide it but did not. >> because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern. that took away the seven-daytime line. i have endeavored to work with the office of legal counsel in order to get the material to you which you have

if a court was fed bad information by bad cops, department of justice who had a political agenda to getarrant against american citizen and we do nothing about it, we are encouraging the breakdown of rule of law, somebody needs to be punished for misleading the court, lying to the court, the counter intelligence investigation, why did they not tell president trump they had concerns about people on the campaign working with russia, the point of the counter intelligence investigation is to protect the target of the foreign influence, they told dianne feinstein, the fbi did that the chinese employee of hers may be working with chinese government and she fired him, they never warned this president, i think they were misusing the counterintelligence investigation and did the president of the united states know that the fbi and the department of justice were investigating the republican nominee for president and if he did, what did he do about it? maria: all questions around that, by the way, every time i ask anybody who is the architect of this they point to cia, i'm wondering -- >> stay tune

and the department of justice. doing so simply looks like both agencies simply want to have not just a slice of the same pie, but the same slice of the same pie at the same time. this will have the agencies stumbling over each other and will inevitably undermine, rather than further the enforcement efforts of both agencies. consumers of course deserve better for that. consumers are harmed when you are tripping over each other and are unable to do your job effectively. on the topic of big tech, i would like to hear your views today of whether viewpoint bias should be the subject of antitrust enforcement. i share many of my colleagues concerns on what appears to be bias against certain political viewpoints, particularly conservative viewpoints by companies like google and facebook. what i don't necessarily share is the suggestion by some that antitrust is necessarily the proper tool to address this issue. but i welcome your thoughts on this topic as i certainly have more to learn. we often hear talk of antitrust polic

however, as you know, opinions from department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. >> well, let me ask you this, do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who's the subject of the complaint to get advice -- or who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that complaint to congress, did that conflict of interest concern you? >> mr. chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. it came to me and i just thought it would be prudent to ensure -- >> i'm just asking if the conflict of interest concerned you. >> well, sir, i have to work with what i've got and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch. i had no other -- >> you also had a statute that says shall and even then you said you had discretion to provide it but did not. >> because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern. that took away the seven-daytime line. i have endeavored to work with the office of legal coun

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 ef avery area of this report that he was directly involved in? >> michael atkinson is a valued and respecttrusted colleague. i respect him tremendously. the question came down to urgent concern and whether or not the intelligence community whistleblower 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. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> mr. chrmurthy. >> thank you for your patriotism. i want to ask you a couple questions about the time surrounding july 25th to the time that you came into office as dni. as you know, the phone call between president trump and the ukrainian president happened on july 25th of this year. >> i believe july 25th, i believe. >> at that time the dni was dan coates and his deputy was sue gordon. the whistleblower claim was filed on august 12th of this y

however, as you know, opinions from the department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. chairman schiff: let me ask you this. do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is a subject of the complaint or implicated in the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that complaint to congress? did that conflict of interest concern you? director maguire: mr. chairman, when i saw this report and complaint, immediately, i knew that this was a serious matter. it came to me, and i just thought it would be prudent. chairman schiff: i'm just asking if the conflict of interest concerns you. director maguire: sir, i have to work with what i've got, and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch. chairman schiff: what you also had was a statute that says shall, and you had the discretion to provide it but you did not. director maguire: because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern. that took away the seven-day timeline. i have endeavored to work with the office of legal counsel i

it a matter of urged concern however as you know opinions from the department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch well let me ask you this do you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice or who is a subject of the complaint or implicate in the complaint for advice as to whether you should provide that complaint to congress did did did that conflict of interest concern you mr chairman. when i saw this report and complaint immediately i knew that this was a serious matter it came to may and i just thought it would be prudent what kind of sure i'm just asking if the conflict of interest concern do that well sir i have to work with what i have got and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch but we had no way that you also had was a statute that says shall and even then you said you had the discretion to provide it but but did not. because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern that took away this 7 day timeline i have endeavored to work with

of a u.s. department, the department of justice that he says will be part and parcel of this. now, i know the attorney general is denying involvement in this, but nonetheless you can see why the department of justice would want this transcript never to see the light of day. you can see why they have worked so hard to deprive our committee of the whistleblower complaint. and in fact, the opinion by the justice department is startling in its own regard, because in that opinion the department of justice advances the absurd claim that the director of national intelligence has no responsibility over efforts to prevent foreign interference in our elections. that will come as news or at least it should to the director of national intelligence, who is is charged with among other things with detecting influen i influence in our elections. but it is the view of the justice department that the director has no jurisdiction in this area. it is a sad fact that the director of national intelligence would agree to be bound by that view, that the director of national intelligence would adopt th

that, of course, would likely be criminal activity and could be qualified by the department of justices not an intelligence matter. >> right. we should point out again, we do not know. >> we do not. >> the nature of this, as you stated. but i think it bears repeating. but even if the dni in consultation with the department of justice or the white house says, you know, they come up with this line, it's not an urgent concern. it doesn't have anything to do with the intelligence community, under the statute, does that matter? the word was "shall" that if the inspector general says it's an urgent concern and intelligence committee and passes it on to the dni to send to it congress, isn't that kind of pro forma? or is that not the case? >> you could certainly read it that way. i think that the dni and the department are taking an exceedingly narrow view of the statute and being very care mission valley the way they've kind of drawn the focus to this definition of urgent matter, which is stated in the statute. but it is important, though, also to note that the entire statute, all the provisi

if a court was fed bad information by bad cops, department of justice who had a political agenda to getarrant against american citizen and we do nothing about it, we are encouraging the breakdown of rule of law, somebody needs to be punished for misleading the court, lying to the court, the counter intelligence investigation, why did they not tell president trump they had concerns about people on the campaign working with russia, the point of the counter intelligence investigation is to protect the target of the foreign influence, they told dianne feinstein, the fbi did that the chinese employee of hers may be working with chinese government and she fired him, they never warned this president, i think they were misusing the counterintelligence investigation and did the president of the united states know that the fbi and the department of justice were investigating the republican nominee for president and if he did, what did he do about it? maria: all questions around that, by the way, every time i ask anybody who is the architect of this they point to cia, i'm wondering -- >> stay tune

the inspector general believes that based on the opinion that you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesn't meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. is that your understanding of the department opinion as well, that the inspector general no longer has jurisdiction to look into this? >> it is my understanding that both the inspector general and i and my team are waiting for -- were waiting -- for the resolution of executive privilege to be determined. it is now no longer executive privilege. i'm not sure exactly what the statute has as far as what michael can do, but we also are looking for a way -- now, if i did not send it forward, as you know, under urgent concern within the seven days, then the statute would allow the whistle-blower to come to you and still be protected. >> director -- >> but because -- we're accommodating. >> my point is this. the department of justice has said because this doesn't meet the statutory definition, because this involves the president, the inspector general has

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

of the bill bart justice opinion, did he not? >> he considered it a matter of urgent concern however as you know opinions from the department of justice office of legal counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. >> let me ask you this. you think it's appropriate that you go to a department run by someone who is the subject of a complaint to get advice or who is a subject of the complaint are implicated of the complaint for do you should provided to congress? do you that conflict of interest concern you? >> mr. chairman when i saw this report and complaint immediately i knew that this was a serious matter. it came to me and i thought it would be prudent to ensure. >> i'm just asking if the conflict of interest concern to you. >> sirrah have to work with what i've got and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch. >> what you also had was a had was the statute and even then you said you have the discretion to provided it did not. >> because it did not meet the matter of urgent concern it took away the seven-day timeline and i endeavored to work with the office of legal counsel in order to get the mat

>> no. >> okay. >> do you think it would be appropriate to make a referral to the department of justice to try to determine that? >> i believe 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 is correct. >> of classified information. >> yes, congressman, any wrongdoing. >> all right. i don't know what time it is because our clock isn't working. i suppose my time is up, but i would 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 has done anything. if you think it will score you points, keep going down that road. >> thank you, congressman. >> i would only say, director, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. no one has said to. >> you've accused me of break egg the law, mr. chairman. >> but it is certainly our strong view, and we would hope it would be shared by the minority, that when the congress says

of the russians. and certainly the justice department was not convicted as to that. regulation says that when there is a criminal investigation as to which there's a conflict in the department of some other overriding public reason, then you may -- then the attorney general or whoever is acting may appoint a special counsel. the letter of appointment for robert mueller referred to the report in front of the house committee in march of 2016. that investigation was not a criminal investigation. it was a counter intelligence investigation. national security investigation. so there was no criminal predicate for appointment of a special counsel. it's that fun fundamentally fla. mark: soso you both agree there shouldn't have been a special counsel in the first place and yet we have one. were you concerned about his testimony? >> i was concerned by his testimony. i was concerned by the fact that so much of the report seemed to be foreign to him, at least he was not familiar with it. and i've since reflected the views of a lot of people who were watching and that was he was n

the inspector general believes that based upon the opinion that you requested of the department of justice, he is no longer allowed to look into this because it doesn't meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president. is that your understanding of the department opinion as well, that the inspector general no longer has jurisdiction to look into this? >> it is my understanding that both the inspector general and i and my team are waiting for -- we were waiting for the resolution of executive privilege to be determined. it is now no longer executive privilege. i'm not sure exactly what the statute has as far as what michael can do, but we also are looking for a way -- if i did not send it forward, as you know, as an urgent concern within seven days, then the whistleblower would be allowed to come forward and be protected. >> my point is this. the department of justice has said because this doesn't meet the statutory definition, because this involves the president, the inspector general has no jurisdiction to investigate. now, if this inspector general has no jurisd

department of justice antitrust division. there's a lot of investigating going on. he market for their part today basically unmoved by the day's development. breaking news tonight, justice department inspector general horowitz is sellin telling the e and oversight committee sees in the process of finalizing his report into the pfizer court of abuse by the fbi and the department of justice. he told those committees, there are two versions of his report, one classified and the other will be public, the report can be released by the end of this month or early october. joining us tonight to assess this further former acting a general matthew whitaker. this is the development that we have all been waiting for, the delivery of the draft report to the attorney general, your thoughts on the timing? >> this is a big deal and we have all heard that this report was eminent sometime in september, what we now know that the inspector general has submitted for review and we also know that the department of justice now has it and this is where attorney general barr has a real opport

hartmann that apartment of justice that he says will be part and parcel of this now i know the attorney general is denying involvement in this but nonetheless you can see why the department of justice would want this transcript never to see the light of day you can see why they have worked so hard to deprive our committee of the whistleblower complaint and in fact the opinion by the justice department is startling in its own regard because in that opinion the department of justice at dances the absurd claim that the director of national intelligence has no responsibility. over efforts to prevent foreign interference in our elections well that will come as news or at least it should to the director of national intelligence was charged among other things with detecting foreign interference in our elections and with reporting to congress about foreign interference in our elections but it was apparently the view of this justice department that the director has no jurisdiction in this area and it is a sad fact that the director of national intelligence would agree to be balland by that view that the director of national intelligence would adopt the view that he had no jurisdi

what more do we know about the involvement of the white house and the justice department here? >> reporter: well, erica, cnn is learning that the white house did intervene in the handling of this complaint. the white house and the justice department according to sources who spoke with our colleagues told odni they believe this complaint falls outside of the kind of intel activities that are protected by whistle-blower laws for the intelligence community. the white house counsel's office, the doj's office of legal counsel discussed this with odni and the top intel agency has said there could be an issue of privilege involved here. the intelligence community inspector general fotold lawmaks behind closed doors earlier today he was not authorized to discuss any details about the complaint. not the nature of what president trump may or may not have said not even whether president trump himself is involved as has been reported. as we just heard, house intel chairman adam schiff did not know whether the white house was involved or what pressure was put on acting intelligence director

in that forum, the department of justice and the executive branch of government and the department of justice has argued before the courts that there is no violation and no violation of the constitution. it would not be appropriate for tsa to what a client on that matter and the justice had written on it. that's >> enough on that. yes in response to a question that was just ask. you said that you are uncertain whether you conducted any audits or leases that the gsa has done with you? is -- the fact is that true? you don't know whether it's -- >> so -- >> you're currently writing the gsa. is that right? >> i'm the commissioner, that's correct. you don't know if your agency conducts audits on leases? >> we have thousands of leases and we conduct a variety of contractual lisa ministration activities every day. >> you're unsure if the audit is one of those activities? >> in terms of audits i, couldn't tell you but we enforce contract actions every day. >> i would like you after this concludes to submit for the record whether or not the she as they conducts raw tickets on any releases that

my team was -- it was the department of justice office of legal counsel that made the determination that it was urgent concern. all we wanted to do was just check and see and to me it seemed prudent with the matter at hand right now to be able to just make sure that in fact it did. and i want to say once again i endeavored to get that information to this committee. >> and just to clarify the role that the inspector general had with respect to the department of justice, i heard you say that he was involved in the conversations allowed to make his case, but also said that you give the justice department the letter. what was his exact involvement in making his case to the justice department to his decision? was he there present physically or his lawyers? >> to the best of my knowledge, the icig's transz mittmittal les well as the complaint from the whistleblower were forwarded to the office of legal counsel for their determination. i believe that that is what they based their opinion on. >> okay. so you don't think -- >> good i'm incorrect, i will come back to the committee and correct that

according to the department of justice. he received training in firearms, bomb making. all sorts of training in lebanon for hezbollah. he also targeted an israeli spy. what's interesting is he was acting as a scout for hezbollah. back in 2003 he sent photos. he was here in new york in boston sending photos of various targets in boston, in washington, d.c., bridges here in new york were part of his target. also photos of 26 federal plaza where the fbi is headquartered here in new york city. all sorts of photos that he was essentially collecting and then sending to hezbollah and the point they're saying is this was all for anticipation of an attack. a possible attack. different targets he was scouting for hezbollah. they asked him to come here and take these photos and all part of his training and association with this group. he was conducting this surveillance. also they say that he was arrested in july but they've kept it secret. most likely that's because he's been cooperating with investigators. they interviewed him some 11 times. a lot of the information they have is

>> no. >> do you think it would be appropriate to make a referral to the department of justice to try to determine that? >> i believe 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 is correct. >> of classifies information. >> yes, congressman, any wrongdoing. >> i don't know what time it is because our clock isn't working. i suppose my time is up, but i would conclude by emphasizing once again, good luck convincing the american people this is a dishonorable man sitting here. if you think it scores political points with your friends who have wanted to impeach this president from the day he was elected, then keep going down that road. >> thank you, congressman. >> no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable. >> you've accused him of breaking the law, mr. chairman. >> it is certainly our strong view and we would hope it would be shared by the minority that when the congress says something shall be done, it shall be done. when t