director maguire: no. mr. krishnamoorthi: and his olitical affiliation or her political affiliation? director maguire: no. mr. krishnamoorthi: of course, you believe the whistleblower good faith?g in director maguire: i do. mr. krishnamoorthi: and without bias? director maguire: i don't know about that. i do believe -- mr. krishnamoorthi: you have no they were without bias? director maguire: i believe they faith.ting in good mr. krishnamoorthi: bias? director maguire: i don't know bias or not bias. i just don't know, sir. of course, oorthi: you'll do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempts to retaliate him or her, correct? director maguire: i will not permit the whistleblower to be any retaliation or adverse consequences from going to the i.g., i am absolutely committed to that. unlike the oorthi: whistleblower, you do know the inspector general, obviously? director maguire: yes. in high esteem. mr. krishnamoorthi: he operated in the highest faith, right? i believe guire: michael atkin

mr. castro. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, director maguire for your testimony today. i want to say thank you, also, 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 for his courage in coming forward to congress. you mentioned that you believe 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, 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 ukraine. you've read both documents by now, haven't you? >> yes, congressman. >> would you say 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. >> okay. i want to read you a quick section

mr. maguire discomfort. mr. maguir the whistleblower complaint involved the allegations of that. it is not for me and the intelligence community to decide policy.conducthis foreign jon: the white house has sought to undermine the credibility of the whistleblower. the intelligence chief was not going there. mr. maguire: i think the whistleblower did the righttleb thing. i think hfollowed the law every step of the way. speaker pelosi: the white house tried to lock down all records. jon: democrats are seizing on the whistleblower's letter.si speaker pethis is a cover-up. this is a cover-up. jon: donald trump's anger is palpable. pres. trump: what these guys are dog, democrats are doing t this country, is a disgrace, and ed.thouldn't be all e should be a way of stopping it. after what has beebruisingnoon few days in new york. events are moving at speed and not in a direction donald trump would want. jon sopel, bbc news, washington. laura: tonight we will hear fros both sf the political debate, and we start with the national press secretary for the trump 2020 campaign.n. i spoke to he

mr. maguire for being here today. i think it's a shame that 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 did not exist. i would contend that they're intentionally not clear. the president intended it as parity and i don't believe this is the time or the place for parity 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 say that many americans have seen this movie 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. >> was that decision made by the i.g. before seeing the transcript of the conversation? >> i believe that the icig conducted to the best of his abili

director maguire: mr. chairman, the whistleblower -- >> i apologize, director. let me recognize you for your opening statement, and you may take as much time as you need. director maguire: thank you very much, mr. chairman. chairman schiff, ranking members of the committee, thank you. good morning. i would like to postpone this hearing for one week. mr. chairman, i have told you this on several occasions and i would like to say this publicly. i respect you, i respect this committee, and i welcome and take seriously the committee's oversight role. during my confirmation process to be the director of the national counterterrorism center, i told the senate select committee on intelligence that congressional oversight of the intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the intelligence community. having served as the director of the national counterterrorism center for eight months, and as the acting director of national intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to belie

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 under

mr. maguire, for being here today. you know, i think it's a 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 did not exist, they're not in the transcript. and i will contend that those were intentionally not clear and the chairman described it as parody and i don't believe this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts. nor do those involved with the conversation agree with the parody that chairman gave us. and 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 movie 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, congres

mr. giuliani's role is? director maguire: mr.ongressman, congressman quigley , i respectfully just referred to the white house and to comment on the president's personal lawyer. >> so far, what i have -- you see him as his personal lawyer but we read in the complain, he is mentioned five times. your reaction to the fact that this civilian without any vetting has played this role. director maguire: no, sir. all i'm saying is that i know what the allegations are. i am not saying the allegations are true and that is where the committee -- >> i do not think there is any question the credibility of the complaint and the transcript. the president, manages and speaks highly of mr. giuliani a highly respected man, the mayor of new york. i would like hiim to call you. i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. your reaction to a civilian dealing with this? in the complaint it talks about our national security. inspector general talks about this as the highest responsibility among those that the dni has, and obviously mr.

mr. maguire is behind closed doors. again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. the current hysteria has something else in common with the russia hoax. back then they accused the trump campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians in preparing the steele dossier. today they accused the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into fi firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating biden's own son. three democratic senators wrote a letter to reopen the investigation into former trump campaign officials. another democratic senator went to ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations on involving joe biden's son. according to ukrainian officials the democratic national committee contractor

mr. maguire, for being here. i think it is a shame that we started off this hearing with fictional remarks, implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting words into it that did not exist, they are not in the transcript. and i will contend that those were intentionally not clear and that the chairman described it as pardy and i don't believe this is the time or place when we are trying for 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 movie too many times and they are tired of it. but let me get to some questions, sir. 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 the interpretation that it was credible, but also was that decision made by the ig before seeing t

mr. chairman. thank you, director maguire for your testimony today. i want to say thank you also to the whistle-blower for having the courage and bravery to come forward on behalf of the nation. thank you to mr. atkinson, the inspector general, for his courage in coming forward to congress. you mentioned that you believe that the whistle-blower's report is credible, the whistle-blower is credible, 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 ukraine. you've read both documents by now, haven't you? >> yes, congressman. >> would you say that the whistle-blower complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released? >> i would say that the whistle-blower complaint is in alignment with what was released yesterday by the president. >> okay. i want to read you a quick section of both to under

mr. maguire who said, i had no choice.eferred this to the justice department and they told me not to. are you satisfied with his answer? >> i kinda feel bad for him. i feel the administration really put him in a situation where he could not do his job. we know the law says that he was supposed to report this. he had seven days to turn it over to the intelligence committee. that did not happen. that is why the inspector general informed the intelligence committee about this whistleblower report. present -- feel the president put pressure on him. but it is all about doing your job and during our service. he needs to comply with the law, and it doesn't matter what the department of justice or what the president says. he needs to -- he should have stepped forward and brought this information to the intelligence committee as soon as he had a. david: you are a member of the house of representatives. if it came to the point, you would have to vote on the impeachment return. what would you be looking at? i know you are a veteran a

then mr chairman and i thank you mr maguire for being here today you know i think it's a shame that 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 did not exist there not in the transcript and i would contend that those were intentionally not clear and the chairman described it as parity and i don't believe that this is the time or the place for parity when we are trying to seek facts nor do those that were involved with the conversation agree with the parity that the chairman gave us and unfortunately today many innocent americans are going to turn on their t.v. 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 movie too many times and they're tired of it but let me get to some questions sir 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 ok so you know the

mr. maguire, for being here today. i think it's a 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 did not exist. they're not in the transcript. i will contend that those were intentionally not clear, and the chairman described it as parody, and i don't believe this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts. nor do those that were involved with the conversation agree with the parody that the chairman gave us. and unfortunately today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv, and the media's 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 movie too many times, and they're tired of it. but let me get to some questions, sir, 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 lo

mr. maguire.g and steven wieting, but right now on a domestic basis, steven wieting linking the economy into the dynamics of corporate profit. you are the one guy i want to talk to. a huge mystery about the earnings season upcoming. what is the distillate of citigroup on what we will see? steven: i don't think this is a particularly great earnings season. tom: versus our expectations, which way is it? steven: probably better than expectations. it probably will be a quarter where eps is lower than a year ago, but there is a path to recovery. if you have a decent, ongoing demand outlook, you can outlast a manufacturing downturn. it does not stop us from having this manufacturing downturn. differentof gm is from the longer-lasting trade issues, but we are having a deteriorating outlook for cyclicals in the immediate future. that will affect earnings, but we are in all likelihood not knocking down the demand outlook. you find it easy for manufacturing to rebound to the level of demand. go through some

mr. maguire for being here today. i think it's a shame we started off this hearing with fictional remarks, the implication of a conversation that took place between a president and foreign leader putting words into it that did not exist. they are not in the transcript. i will intend those were intentionally not clear. the chairman described it as parody. this is not the time and place for parody when we are trying to seek facts nor that those involved with the conversation agree with the parody that the chairman gave us. unfortunately today many innocent americans will turn on their tv and the media will only show that section of what the chairman had to say. i'm also glad to know that many americans have seen this movie too many times and they are 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. >> the interpretation it was credible but also was that

maguire: thank you. >> mr. maloney? director maguire -- >> director maguire, when was your first day on the job? dir. maguire: friday the 16th of august. i think i set a record for being subpoenaed. >> you had a heckuva first week. the complaint dated august 12, no matter what you have done right, the timing is something to worry about. there has been a lot of talk today about the process. i want to summarize a couple of things. in your first couple of days on the job you are hit with this complaint. it says that the president of the united states pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponents son. that that resident asked the foreign leader to work with a private citizen, mr. giuliani, and the attorney general of the united states, william barr, on that's -- on that steam. the president -- on that sceme. the president was withholding 391 million dollars of assistance. raises u.s.t military assistance, javelins, defense weapons. he has russian troops in his country. t

mr. maguire is concealing that complaint from congress which is unprecedented. and it's also i believe illegal. >> what does it tell you that someone inside the intelligence community was alarmed by a promise the president made to a foreign leader? >> again, i can't comment on the specific complaint, however, we know three things that is based on public sources including the acting director. first, that the person about whom the complaint is made is outside the intelligence community. second, he did not feel he had unilateral authority with regard to that person, and third, that person is claiming some kind of privilege with regard to these communications. i should just reiterate there is no privilege with regard to shielding misconduct or information about misconduct. and that's why this is so important. we have to protect the whistle-blower system. these are rank and file people who make complaints about wrong doing. and we have to learn in congress and the american people need to learn what they're about and then secondly, this is about national security. it'

the first question seemed to cause mr maguire discomfort.le—blower complaint involved the allegation of that, but it is not for me and the intelligence community to decide how the president conducts his foreign policy. the white house has sought to undermine the credibility of the whistle—blower. the intelligence chief, though, was noticeably not going there. i think the whistle—blower did the right thing. i think he followed the law every step of the way. the complaint states that the white house tried to lock down all records of the call. and democrats are seizing on the whistle—blower‘s letter. this is a cover—up. donald trump's anger over attempts by democrats to impeach him is palpable. what these guys are doing, democrats are doing to this country, is a disgrace, and it shouldn't be allowed. there should be a way of stopping it. the president returned to the white house this afternoon after what's been a bruising few days in new york. events are moving at speed, and not in the direction donald trump would want. john sopel, bbc news, wa

mr. maguire. treatment of this whistle-blower, why would any future whistle-blower have confidence that they can, in fact, act and the best interest of america and say that we want to protect our democracy and democratic principle? >> the better question is, how do we have whistle-blower's not even on the conversation or listing to the conversation -- it's all hearsay and innuendo. all of it. >> this wasn't leaked. this was in fact done through legitimate process of all american whistle-blowers. as a matter of law, jason. >> harris: we will see who we hear from necks. adam schiff, the chairman of the house and tell some of it says it will potentially be the whistle-blower. or at least they will hear from the whistle-blower. thank you. always good to have you. you come too, juan. president trump seems to be taking a page out of his 2016 playbook, using the ukraine controversy to turn biden until his new hillary clinton. but biden is going on offense now. what all this could mean for the battle of t

mr. maguire has said a couple of things that are concerning. >> he, of course, is the acting chief of the dni. >> yes. mr. maguire, the chief of the dni has said that the individual about who the complainant made the complaint is outside of the intelligence community and that is somehow invoking some kind of privilege and it shields any wrongdoing and second, this is something that it doesn't matter whether it's outside of the intelligence community as long as it relates to the intelligence community and that is the subject matter that we should be aware of. >> so, and obviously, to be clear, the president can technically be outside of the intelligence community and his ability to have classified information that he wants and it clearly is central to it. >> sure. i understand that he didn't give you more because he wasn't authorized to give you the details or the substance of the complaint. correct. >> either he deemed it urgent and credible and said this is a problem. >> what's problematic about that is he's basically not being authorized by the very people about whom the complaint might

mr. maguire's expected to say about that whistle-blower case. >>> and temperatures finally falling aftertwo days of extreme heat gripping the bay area sparking fire concerns and power outages. what we're tracking rht "today in the bay" continues. and a good morning to you. thanks for starting your morning right here wit i'm marcus washington. >> and i'm kris sanchez in for laura garcia. traffic for super commuters. we want to start with kari because you have good news. >> we're coming down out of the high temperatures and upper 80s. we'll be up to 88 in pittsburgh. 83 in oakland and for the peninsula. san francisco mostly stays in the 70s. north bay reaching into the upper 80s. a few low 90s. a new crash in the nmmute. good news it's standard. maybe lighter than standard coming into livermore out of the altamont. some slowing through consuc

mr. maguire. the sergeant of arms would be asked to find him, bring him to the floor.then potentially be tried either on the floor or in the judiciary committee. that could be the next step and what we want from the director of national intelligence is the complaint by the whistle-blower. the inspector general of the intelligence community has already 0pined that we should be able to access it. what we're expecting to hear from mr. maguire is either to turn it over or he's going to explain why he has violated the law, because it says shall. it doesn't say may. it says you shall turn it over to the intelligence committees. and the reason why this is so important, katy, is that if there's no way for whistle-blowers to go to the intelligence committees with what are top secret information then we have edward snowdens to undermine the country and the many secrets we want to retain for purposes of keeping our country safe. >> do you believe that you need more information? the president has already admitted that he spoke to the ukrainian president about the bidens, he spoke

mr. maguire the democrats need him to lay out the complaint.g to get him to acknowledge he took it very seriously. they want him to say the person who filed it is not a partisan hack but a career person and they're looking to have a trump appointee help them build their case. it's a big test for the democrats. >> it's interesting, john, to the point you made. the acting director a trump appointee. so is the intelligence of inspector general. trump's inspector general says this is credible, urgent, passes it along to trump's other guy who begs to differ, refuses to hand it over. maguire is a huge wild card you say? >> he is. he's pretty much a national unkno unknown. we know how upset the president was when dan coats and other members would raise their hands and say, yes, the russians interfered. mr. maguire knows the democrats will be pressing him and the president will be watching him and he's an acting. the pressure is on him to disclose as much as he can. we'll see how much he says i cannot disclose. the pressure is on the democrats to ask t

mr. maguire because of his record of service. >> yeah. >> fair point.lways thought it was interesting you that didn't ask him anything about what happened in the phone call or the surrounding. you are not curious about any aspects of the phone call or the implications of it? >> well, for one, i've read the transcript. so i don't think he could cast any light on it. and the other is that he'd been asked by i don't know, half a dozen other people already and they had asked those questions. so there really wasn't anything new that i could have asked that hadn't been asked already or that i didn't feel like i already knew. >> are you bothered by the call or the surrounding circumstances? >> i want to back up if i could, chris, just because i think it's so important. and this is a man who served his country for 36 years. and in the last week or ten days he's been accused of breaking the law. he's been accused of being a political stooge for the president. he's been accused of protecting the president without any evidence at all. and i just think it was fair

mr. maguire and, of course, our contractor, who was out here everyday making sure that we got this job done. and now, the person who helps to make all of these projects happen, the person who makes our neighborhoods better for everyone, the person looking out for the future of san francisco, without future delay, let me introduce our mayor, london breed. [cheers and applause] >> it's so good to be back. i remember when we first set on the path to do this project for this neighborhood, andrea, i just noticed you were over there and it's great to see you and martha and so many folks from the community. you all did the work because you wanted something better for this community. we have kids everywhere and these kids from stepping stone preschool are joining us today. and you'll get your snacks in just a minute, so don't worry. [cheers and applause] >> we have kids, we have families, seniors, people who, basically, love this community and so many amazing restaurants, so many amazing places to shop. this is like really a jewel in san francisco and, in fact, when improve was supervisor, i came t

the first question seemed to cause mr maguire discomfort.complaint involved the allegation of that, but it is not for me and the intelligence community to decide how the president conducts his foreign policy. the white house has sought to undermine the credibility of the whistle—blower. the intelligence chief, though, was noticeably not going there. i think the whistle—blower did the right thing. i think he followed the law every step of the way. the complaint states that the white house tried to lock down all records of the call. and democrats are seizing on the whistle—blower‘s letter. this is a cover—up...this is a cover—up. donald trump's anger over attempts by democrats to impeach him is palpable. what these guys are doing, democrats are doing to this country, is a disgrace, and it shouldn't be allowed. there should be a way of stopping it. the president returned to the white house this afternoon after what's been a bruising few days in new york. events are moving at speed, and not in the direction donald trump would want. let's go live

the first question seems to mr maguire discomfort.olved the allegation of that, but it is not for me in the intelligence community to decide how the president conducts foreign policy. the white house has sought to undermine the credibility of the whistle—blower. the intelligence chief though, was noticeably not going there. i think the whistle—blower did the right thing. i think he followed the law every step of the way. the complaint states that the white house tried to lock down all records of the call. and democrats are seizing on the whistle—blower‘s letter. this is a cover—up. donald trump's anger and perhaps anxiety over this is evident. this morning... at a news conference last night, donald trump was unusually downbeat, almost morose. and now it's clear why, the allegations in the letter could not be more serious. donald trump landed at andrew's air force base earlier and said what the democrats are doing is a disgrace and the white house as part out a statement saying nothing has changed since the release of the complaint whi

our senate counterparts both democrats and republicans obviously understand their hearing with mr maguire is behind closed doors but again that only makes sense when your goal is to get information not to create a media frenzy. the current hysteria has something else in common with the russia hoax back then they accuse the trump campaign of colluding with the russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with the russians and preparing the still dossier today they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt is a political opponents and yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating biden's own son 3 democratic senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian general prosecutor to reopen the investigation into former trump campaign officials another democratic senator went to crane and pressure the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations involving joe biden's son according to ukra

the first question seemed to cause mr maguire discomfort.volved the allegation of that, but it is not for me and the intelligence community to decide how the president conducts his foreign policy. the white house has sought to undermine the credibility of the whistle—blower. the intelligence chief, though, was noticeably not going there. i think the whistle—blower did the right thing. i think he followed the law every step of the way. the complaint states that the white house tried to lock down all records of the call. and democrats are seizing on the whistle—blower‘s letter. this is a cover—up. donald trump's anger over attempts by democrats to impeach him is palpable. what these guys are doing, democrats are doing to this country, is a disgrace, and it shouldn't be allowed. there should be a way of stopping it. the president returned to the white house this afternoon after what's been a bruising few days in new york. events are moving at speed, and not in the direction donald trump would want. what's been striking is that the republicans s

mr. maguire, for being here today. i think it's a 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 did not exist. they're not in the transcript. i will contend that those were intentionally not clear, and the chairman described it as parody, and i don't believe this is the time or the place for parody when we are trying to seek facts. nor do those that were involved with the conversation agree with the parody that the chairman gave us. and unfortunately today, many innocent americans are going to turn on their tv, and the media's 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 movie too many times, and they're tired of it. but let me get to some questions, sir, 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 lo

director maguire: correct. >> what is your understanding right now of what mr. giuliani's role is? director maguire: congressman, i referred to the white house to comment on the president's personal lawyer. it as his you see personal lawyer, in the complaint, in this modified transcript, he has mentioned five times. the reaction to this fact that the civilian has played this role? director maguire: no, all i am saying is that i know what the allegations are. i am not saying that they are true, and that is where the committee -- rep. quigley: i do not think there is any question of the credibility in the complaint. the president speaks highly of mr. giuliani, a highly respected man, amir new york, -- the mayor of new york, i will ask him to call you along with the attorney general. the reaction of a civilian dealing with this. it talks about our national security. as thes about this highest responsibility among those that the dni has, and obviously mr. giuliani is playing this role. your knowledge does he have security clearance? director maguire: i do not know. i am neither aware or

mr. maguire is behind closed doors. but again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. the current hysteria has something else in common with russia hoax. back then, they accused the trump campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians. and preparing the steele dossier. today they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. and yet there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating biden's own son. three democratic senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian general prosecutor to reopen the investigation. into former trump campaign officials. another democratic senator went ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations involving joe biden's son. according to ukrainian officials, t

mr. maguire to make. especially in the face of attacks from republicans on the hill which are only going to escalate. let's remember why adam schiff scheduled this hearing in the first place, is because the dni would not transmit this report. that pressure worked, we saw the whistle-blower report today. most of the news from today, the bombshell allegations in that whistle-blower complaint. however, there was a little bit of news in this hearing that the dni made at the beginning, and that is the first entity he went to outside of his own office to decide what to do with this complaint was the white house. why is that significant? because what we saw in this whistle-blower complaint is an allegation not just about underlying misconduct by the white house, by the president himself, but that the white house was trying to cover this up from the beginning. we now know when the dni -- and i think the dni was acting in good faith, he didn't know what to do. he went to the white house. he went to people who were

mr. maguire is behind closed doors. again, that only makes sense when your goal is to get information, not to create a media frenzy. the current hysteria has something else in common with the russia hoax. back then they accused the trump campaign of colluding with russians when the democrats themselves were colluding with russians and preparing the steele dossier. today they accuse the president of pressuring ukrainians to take actions that would help himself or hurt his political opponents. yet, there are numerous examples of democrats doing the exact same thing. joe biden bragged that he extorted the ukrainians into firing a prosecutor who happened to be investigating biden's own son. three democratic senators wrote a letter pressuring the ukrainian general prosecutor to re-open the investigation into former trump campaign officials. another democratic senator went to ukraine and pressured the ukrainian president not to investigate corruption allegations involving joe biden's son. according to ukrainian, officials, th

mr. director, under the clear letter of the law. and yet it wasn't. director maguire, i was very pleased when you were named acting director. if sue gordon was not going to remain i was grateful a man of your superb military background was chosen. a navy s.e.a.l. 36 years and director of national counterterrorism center since december 2018. your credentials of impressive. and in limited interactions we've had since you've become director you have struck me as a good and decent man. which makes your actions over the last month all the more bewildering. why you chose not to provide the complaint to this committee as required by law. why you chose to seek a second opinion on whether "shall" really means "shall" under the statute. why you chose to go to a department led by a man, bill barr, who himself is implicated in the complaint and believes he exists to serve the interests of the president, not the office itself, mind you, or the public interests but the interest of the person of donald trump. why you chose to allow the subject of the complaint to play a role in deci