while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism when i return to the national counterterrorism center to ensure you are fully and currently informed of the tele just activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the intelligence community the american people expect us to keep them safe the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee support preferred i turned to the matter of hand there are a few things i would like to say i am not partisan and i am not political i believe in a life of service and i am on it to be a public servant i served under 8 presidents while i was in uniform i have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times the 1st time when i was sworn into the united states navy in 1974 and 9 times during my subsequent promotions in the united states navy most recently former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director of the national counterterrorism center. i agree with you the oath is sacred it's the foundation of our constitution the oath to me not only that i swear a true faith and alle

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. ofing served as the director the national counterterrorism center for eight months and as the acting director of national intelligence for the past six weeks, i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. as i pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism and when i returned to the national counterterrorism center. to ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the intelligence community. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committees support. before i turned to the matter at hand, there are

during my confirmation process to be director of the national counterterrorism center i told the intelligence congressional ov oversight is critic the and central. having served at director of the national counterterrorism center for eight months and as acting director of national intelligence the past six weeks i continue to believe strongly that the role of congressional oversight. as i pledged to the senate, i pledge to you today that i will continue to work closely with congress while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism or when i return to the national counterterrorism center to ensure you are fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities to facilitate your able to perform your oversight of the intelligence community. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee's support. before i turn to the matter at hand, there are a few things i would like to say. i am not partisan, and i am not political. i believe in a life of service and i am honored to be a public ser

money and resources are dedicated to resources and yet, we have nick here who wan the national counterterrorism center, was the deputy before that and have said that absolutely none of that time was directly focused on domestic terrorism. nick, how does the public understand how the national counterterrorism center wasn't focused on this threat? >> i'm the nonlawyer of the bunch here, but i would fully subscribe to the set of comments made before me that we need a better legal framework. the way our government approaches the set of domestic challenges that we face is different than the way we approach our set of international terrorism concerns and a couple of things that happened in the last couple of years that brought that home to me. when i would go abroad and meet with my counterparts and think about international versus domestic terrorism and would look at me if i was bringing a lexicon to the table because they didn't make any such divide but talked about terrorism and the kinds of terrorism. why are you americans complicating this by thinking of it in two different ways. when i thought about t

while i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism or when i return to the national counterterrorism center to ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the intelligence community. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee's support. before i turn to the matter at hand there are a few things i would like to say. i am not partisan and i am not political. i believe in a life of service, and i'm honored to be a public servant. i served under eight presidents while i was in uniform. i have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times. the first time when i was sworn in to the united states navy in 1974, and nine times through my subsequent promotions in the united states navy. most recently former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december when i became the director of the national counterterrorism center. i agree with you. the oath is sacred. it's a foundation of our constitution. the oath, to me, means not only that i

his long service in government, former head of the national counterterrorism center. someone who worked for republican and democratic administrations. he is a man widely respected in the intelligence community and national community circles -- national security circles. this is going to be quite a moment. >> he has only been in this job for two months. >> poor guy. >> i mean, it was going to be temporary. now it's way temporary. he is obviously in the witness chair. i'm going to be fascinated to see what happens on the republican side. yesterday, aside from a very few small cracks from senate republicans, they were in lockstep. this is going to be the test. first big test of, can the president shoot somebody on fifth avenue and get away with it? >> it's hard to read this in any other way than this is very, very bad. >> "the washington post" reporting that just yesterday, he threatened to quit if he was not allowed to, according "the post" fully testify that. >> he denied that. the seriousness of this makes you understand the position that the inspector general was in a

they directed the fbi, director of homeland security and to hear it as national counterterrorism center. none of them showed, we are very disappointed as we know. i indicated we are not a partisan committee but one of the challenges working with the trump administration are those members that we believe to this committees are not really made available to us in we made the inquiry in early july that here we are in the anniversary of 9/11. ever since i've been on the committee and i've been on the committee since it was created. we have always had that presentation by those top level officials and are now telling us we can only come around 30 october. that's not where it should be and will not put the focus on the priority or for the committee on both sides, democrats and republicans voice their absolute disappointment in their presence not being available for the committee hearing. our witnesses were excellent but it did not give us administrative position as to what is going on from a global terrorist standpoint. >> because it deals with homeland security your thoughts on the news conce

robert wast least, the director of the national counterterrorism center after serving in government positions in the george w. bush and barack obama administrations. he has now the senior director for national security and the counterterrorism program at the mccain institute for international leadership and a professor of practice with the sandra day o'connor college of law at arizona state university. that is a lot of background and experience to bring to bear on this issue that is confronting us today. so we will start off with laying the stage. bobby, what is domestic terrorism and what statutes do we have to help us address it? >> the first thing to understand is that thereion can be and are there is often a difference between what we might describe as the ordinary common sense definition or sense of the phrase, and what particular legal definition there might be. let's start with the commonsense understanding, which is usually described as something like the following -- illegal acts of violence where the mental state of the person conducting the act or intent is to have a coercive effec

i'm serving either in this capacity as acting director of national counterterrorism, and when i return to the national counterterrorism center. to ensure you are fully and currently informed of intelligence activities to facilitate your ability to perform your oversight of the intelligence community. the american people expect us to keep them safe. the intelligence community cannot do that without this committee's support. before i turn to the matter at hand, there are a few things i would like to say. i am not partisan, and i am not political. i believe in a life of service, and i am honored to be a public servant. i served under eight presidents while i was in uniform. i have taken the oath to the constitution 11 times. the first time, when i was sworn into the united states navy in 1974, and nine times during my subsequent promotions in the united states navy. most recently, former director dan coats administered the oath of office last december, when i became the director of the national counterterrorism center. i agree with you. the oath is sacred. it's the foundation of our constitution. the oath to me means not only t

party to any call other than my own, i would take notes for my own at my level or in the national counterterrorism center. but i have never been privy to a conversation with the president where i happened to take notes. it's not anything that i would be in that office particularly for that matter. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you, congressman, very much. thank you. >> i would like to recognize the ranking member for any final questions that he would have. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. maguire, i just want to thank you for your attendance here today, congratulations for surviving legal word challenge charade here today. i suspect 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 vote. the intelligence committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment. so there is a process in the constitution that i would advise you all follow. in the meantime, director maguire, i am -- i want

homeland security has been put in place in the federal government, national counterterrorism center,spent on equipment and probably a lot of waste in that spending of a trillion dollars. but the bottom line is we haven't had a major terrorist attack in this country since 9/11. smaller attacks, but we haven't had the big one. gerri: and other countries have had a lot of attacks since 9/11. have we learned lessons from them as well as from 9/11 about how we protect ourselves? >> yes. i would say that the intelligence communities of the world, certainly developed countries, are very close-ni. people don't raze that. -- realize that. that communication going on france, england, u.s., germany are talking all the time. so we've learned a lot of lessons. gerry: do we -- intelligence is critical, right? and, again, the u.s. made big changes to its intelligence apparatus after 9/11 and much more cooperation between intelligence agencies -- >> correct. gerry: how do you think that's working 18 years on? >> i think it's working reasonably well. i don't have that depth of insight anymore, but i

i would take notes for my own at my level or as director of national counterterrorism center to a have never been privy conversation of the president where i would be involved in taking notes. happenstance. i happened to be there. he felt comfortable enough to leave me for a brief conversation. anything that i would be in that office particularly for that matter. mr. krishnamoorthi: thank you for your service. director maguire: thank you, congressman, very much. thank you. i'd like to recognize the ranking member for any final questions he would have. mr. nunes: thank you, mr. chair. mr. maguire, i want to thank you here today.endance congratulations for surviving egal word challenge to raid today. i suspect hopefully we will see you behind closed doors, like this is supposed to be done. i would just urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, like to impeach the president, they need to go to the floor of the house and vote.ly call for a the intelligence committee is not an appropriate place to try of impeachment. so there is a process in the constitution that i would advise you

he sits on the advisory board for national counterterrorism center and for the director of national intelligence, and he serves on the evidence to homeland security group. ladies and gentlemen please welcome philip months national archives. [applause] >> you missed the most important part of the. i lived in memphis tennessee the bluff city. screamac. >> i was running there in town memphis which is a historic part of memphis. must be three or four years ago whether to write another book. reflecting on some of what i witnessed at the cia particulate during the excruciating time after 911 and realizing this among my colleagues former friends had written their stories but many of the people that i worked with would never speak and would never write in their stories would never be told if no one talked to them. they put the story together in one simple narrative and explained what happened. so he decided the morning running my 5 miles in midtown memphis that i would do the. this is mostly their stories. dishonor history, it's not every document the ever appeared related to what we called the program,

conversations with the president about national security about foreign policy about the national counterterrorism 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 to discuss this subject this was a bore playing with the president you can say i did not discuss it with him if that's the answer but 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 chairmanship of once again you know why conversation no matter what the subject is with the president of united states is privileged conversation between the director of national intelligence and the president ms deming's thank you so much mr chairman and director maguire thank you for being here with us today thank you for your service when in congress i know you said that you took your 1st oath in 1974 spam that's that's a long time but a long time to be proud of the service i took my 1st oath in 1984 when i was sworn in as a law enforcement officer and i

also know him based on government work, most recently as the former director of the national counterterrorism's center. >> within have to write is rebecca weiner. the commissioner for intelligence analysis. if you haven't taken a look at it, there was an op-ed published last week from a standpoint that looks at this issue. than the senior vice president of programs at the anti- defamation league and former director of the office for community partnerships at the department of homeland security. there is a range of different views on the subject. a couple of points of order, one is, we will have a discussion for about 40 minutes . then we will open it up to questions from you. please remember, this is about question . if you start giving a monologue i will cut you off and ask where that question is. speak into the microphone. raise your hand and we will call on you. you can identify yourselves and then ask your question into the microphone. that would be great. be one, ts to move to the national geograph as emergency, , is an we don't expect one. the policy is to move over to the national geographic mu

he sits on the advisory board for the national counterterrorism center and for the director of national intelligence and service on the homeland security group. please welcome philip mudd to the national archives. [applause] >> you missed the most important part, i live part-time in memphis, tennessee. >> thank you. i was running in a place called midtown memphis, a historic part of memphis wondering whether to write another book. i've written a couple. reflecting on some of what i witnessed during that excruciating time after 9/11 and realize some of my colleagues had written their stories, many of the people i worked with would never speak, would never write and their stories would never be told if no one talked to them, put their stories into one narrative and explain what happened so i decided running my 5 miles in midtown memphis i would do that. this is mostly their story. it's not a history. is not every document that ever appeared related to the program, it is the story of men and women i served with and he decided to speak to me because they trusted me. step back in time with m

costa, moderator of "washington week" on pbs, and michael leiter, former director of the national counterterrorism center welcome, all kristen, what's the lawsutest t you're hearing from the white house? mike pompeo is touting the oil supply and saying we never panic. so what do we know about where the president stands now he just boarded a plane traveling from albuquerque, new mexico, headings towards fundraisers in california. >> that's right, president trump not at the white house today, andrea, as he continues to monitor this situation he will be out in california, fundraising. he did strongly indicate that the administration believes iran is behind this attack, but ultimately said that they want to gather the evidence and wait for saudi arabia to make a final conclusion worth noting that all of the informs out of saudi arabia at this point in time also pointing the finger at iran so the question becomes what happens next to that point, president trump has been sending some mixed signals, andrea, on the one hand saying the administration is locked and loaded and ready to respond, on the other hand re

nick rasmussen was director of the national counterterrorism center under president obama and president trump. before that, he served on president bush's national security council, joining it less than one week after the 9/11 attacks. ben, let's start with you. you have been very critical of the president's foreign policy, but at the end of the day, it has now been 18 years without another major attack on the united states. as long as that remains the case, do most americans care about how many national security advisers the president goes through, or is it just about them staying safe? >> well, stephanie, first of all, obviously, the top priority for anybody sitting in any of the jobs that nick and i had is keeping americans safe. i think americans also care, obviously, about whether or not we're immersed in wars overseas. those have obviously become unpopular over the last 18 years with afghanistan and then iraq. and right now, it's at a sense that we may be sliding in the direction of conflict with an iran, or that we're in an escalating trade war with china that really does hurt ame

conversations with the president about national security, about foreign policy, about the national counterterrorism 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 complaint 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, you know, 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. >> ms. demmings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and director mcguire. thank you for being here with us today. thank you for your service. >> morning, congresswoman. >> i think you said that you took your first oath in 1974. that's a long time, but a long time to be proud of. i took my first oath in 1984 when i was

presidents with the conversation about national security, about foreign policy, about the national counterterrorism center. we want to know, did you discuss the subject with the president? you can imagine what a profound conflict of interest that would be. did you discuss this whistleblower claim with the president? you can say i did not discuss it with him. that does not betray any privilege. 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. dir. maguire: chairmanship -- my conversation 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. i know you said you took your first oath in 1974. that is a long time, but a long time to be proud of your service . i took my first oath in 1984, when i was sworn in as a law enforcement officer. i thank you for saying that public service is a sacred trust. circumstancesthe or who is

when i became the director of the national counterterrorism center. the oath is sacred.the oath to me not only that i swear true faith and allegiance to that sacred document. i view it as a covenant i have with my work force that i lead and every american. and faithfully discharge the duties of my office. i come from a long line of public servants who stepped forward even the most difficult times in when i took it was the first time in 70 years that an immediate member of my family was not wearing the cost of the nation. as a naval special warfare officer. i had the honor of command to get every level in the seal community. it was at times very demanding. but the rewards of serving in america's special operations community. more than make up for the demands. after my retirement. i was fortunate to work for a great private sector from. i left the business world after 3 years to lead a nonprofit charity. some question why would leave a promising business career to run a charity. the action was quite simple. it was another opportunity to serve. i led a foundation dedicated

he had served as the director of the national counterterrorism center.in, i don't think ever expected to see himself in a position like this, even as acting, the senior in the administration. look for the places where he's asked to talk about his interactions with the justice department, with the white house, particularly with the white house counsel as well, who we understand played a big role in this. i think that's where you're going to look for those signs of tension. and where he disagreed or frankly where he agreed and was prepared to go along with what the administration wanted to do. >> shane harris, intelligence and national security reporter with "the washington post," thank you for helping us understand your reporting tonight. i appreciate it. >> thanks, rachel. good to see you. >>> we have a deluge of news ahead. stay with us. still, we never stopped making it stronger. faster. smarter. because to be the best, is to never ever stop making it better. the 2020 c-class family. lease the c 300 sedan for just $429 a month at your local mercedes-be

august 16 of 2019 prior to serving as acting dni, he served as the sixth director of the national counterterrorism centernd in that role according to the bio he bolstered the national counterterrorism -- in congress -- better align the management and operations and so on with his biography. if you want to read it, it is at dni.gov. a story in the washington post got a lot of attention, including some pushback from joseph maguire himself including the national director -- director of national intelligence threatened to resign over concerns the white house might attempt to force him to stonewall congress when he testified thursday about that whistleblower complaint against the president. the washington post saying revelations reflect the extraordinary tensions between the white house and the nation's highest ranking intelligence officer. pushback from the white house maguireire himself -- denied he had done so, that he had threatened to resign. in a statement he said at no time has i considered resigning my position since assuming this role. i have never quit anything in my life and i am not going to start

you have also institutionalsome changes we might think about, both in terms of the national counterterrorism center's jurisdiction, which as nick and others pointed out has been traditionally very focused on foreign intelligence and terrorist activity, or at least with some connection to foreign terrorists, but also you talk about potentially state department entity listings that might be relevant. we can put those on the table. from -- these organizations in europe and southeast asia and elsewhere, that are terrorist organizations that are white supremacist. right now there are 68 organizations on the foreign terrorist organization must, not one of them is a white supremacist, white nationalists, or f known nationalist. it is viewpoint neutral. the vast majority are islamic extremists. there's a handful of others. but the criteria are the organization must be foreign because they don't have first amendment rights. they must engage in acts of andorism, or attempt to, must present a threat to u.s. national security. i'm not an expert on these groups but i do know that there are certainly some foreign

the director of the fbi and homeland security and the head t, national counterterrorism center, none of it showed -- we were very disappointed. i indicated we were not a partisan committee. one of the challenges working with the trump administration is those members we need to come before various committees are not really made available to us. we made inquiry in early july early julye that here we are on the anniversary of 9/11. ever since i have been on the committee and i have been on the committee since it was created, we have always had that presentation by top-level officials. they are now telling us that we can only come around the 30th of october. that is not where it should be and does not put the focus or the priority and for the committee on both sides, democrats and republicans voice their absolute disappointment in their presence not being available for the committee hearing. our witnesses were excellent, but it did not give us the administrative position as to what is going on from a global terrorist standpoint. host: because it deals with national security, your thought

invited the acting director of homeland security, the head of the fbi and the head of the national counterterrorism centerthey couldn't fit it in. they didn't show up. that is unheard of and frankly offensive as someone who was in the cia and pentagon. so i think we just have a problem right now where the administration is stonewalling. and we are a co-equal branch of government. we have to show some muscle too. we have to respect the constitution and push for more answers. but the administration is -- you know, they're pushing us to -- they're playing chick question us on forceful action that i think -- i would rather be making laws. i would rather not be in the game of chicken. but they are pushing us there. >> itmpeachment. 134 representatives are in favor of that process beginning. you're not on that list. what are you weighing as all of this unfolds? you see the committee laying out a plan for this investigation to proceed? >> i mean, listen, i think -- first of all, if you want to know what's going on in my district, yes, there are people who ask me about impeachment. what i use as the grocery store

some institutional changes that we might think about and both in terms of mctc, the national counterterrorism center's jurisdiction, which, as nick and others in the previous panel pointed out, has been traditionally very focused on foreign intelligence and terrorist activities, or at least with some connection to foreign terrorists. but also you've talked about potentially state department entity listings that might be relevant here. so, put those on the tableful we'll have at them -- table. we'll have at them. mary: this draws also from harsha mentioning these organizations in europe and southeast asia and elsewhere that are terrorist organizations, although i don't think you used that word, that are white supremacist organizations. right now there are 68 organizations on the state department's foreign terrorist organization list, not one of them is a white supremacist or white nationalist or ethnonationalist organization. the criteria are viewpoint-neutral. so the vast majority on the list are islamic extremist organizations. there's a handful of others related to like the farc in south america and

conversations with the president, about national security or foreign policy about the national counterterrorism 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 with the president, you can say i did not discuss it with him if that's the answer, or you could say i did discuss it with him but i will not get into the content of the conversation, and that question you can answer? >> 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. >> mrs. demings. >> 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 you said you took your first oath in 1974, and 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

asking about the conversations about national security, about foreign policy, about the national counterterrorism 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 whistleblower claim with the president? you can say i did not discuss it with him, if that is the answer. that doesn't be trey privilege and you can say i did discuss it but i'm not going forget into the contents 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. >> ms. demmings. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. director maguire, thank you for being with us here today. thank you for your service. i know that you said that you took your first oath in 1974. >> yes, imagin rk, ma'am. >> a long time to be proud of the service. i tomy first oath in 1984 when was sworn in as a law enforcement officer and i t

prior to being named acting dni he is the sixth director of the national counterterrorism center. >>dy mccarthy, ian pryor and jason chaffetz. it will be a breaking morning. bill: one other thing i will add. there person said there was no there there in the theres script in the secure location it was held up until this morning. makes it pretty weak because none of it is first hand. andy mccarthy begin with you. you had a day to digest from yesterday. today what do you expect from where we are? >> i expect a lot of talk about process, bill. if it were not, if the conversation itself which is really what the nub of the complaint is here were explosive in order to inflate the importance of the conversation, they want to associate it with law breaking. they're trying to fit night the statute why we're hearing from the dni this morning but the stute doesn't apply to the president. the process doesn't apply to a conversation of this nature and the reason i think there is a desperate attempt to link it to law breaking is because the conversation itself is not particularly damning. >> andy,

conversations with the president about national security, about foreign policy, about the national counterterrorism 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 complaint 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. >> ms. democrings. >> thank you mr. chairman and director maguire, thank you for being here with us today. thank you for your service. >> morning, congresswoman. >> i know 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

counterterrorism executive order, the sanctions will target the finances of 15 leaders associated with hamas, the islamic state and al qaeda. joining us tonight senior fellow at the center for national interests former state department senior advisor and both trump and george w. bush administrations christian whiten. sebastian gorka, author, former strategist to president trump. katie mcfarland former deputy national security advisor to president trump. thank you all for being here. let's start with john bolton. we have heard the president's viewover the reasons for it. -- view of the reasons for it. does any other view matter? >> no, i don't know what the relationship between the two has been. lou: it was good enough to last a year and a half. >> well, precisely, but i do know what the relationship between the national security advisor and the president is supposed to be like. i have known every national security advisor and every president going back to nixon and kissinger. it is the president who is in charge. the president has very few options to mold an advisor to his way of thinking. the national security advisor is one of those few. so it is up to the national security adviso