did you go to is the white house first. >> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice. yes sir. >> did you go to the department of justice first or the white house first? my office went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. if you had said we've determined that it appears to be executive from the and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that fully to the committee. oforked with the office legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it's a very deliberate process. >> i'm still trying to understand the chronology. he went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to white house counsel? >> repeat that please? >> you first went to the office of legal counsel and then went to the white house counsel? >> no sir. house firsthe white -- >> that's all i want to know is the chronology. went to the white house first. you went to the subject of the complaint for advice first about wh

as you know, for those of us in the executive branch, office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. in particular, the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. while this olc opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees, it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee. however, given the executive privilege issues i discussed, neither the inspector general nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me he intended to notify the committee of the complaint, mr. chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of the process moving forward. i want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. first, i want to stress i believe the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in goo

as you know for those in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. in particular, the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community, and the communication with a foreign leader involved in intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. while this olc opinion did not require transmission of complaint to the committees it left me with dexrigs iscretion forward to the committee. given executive privilege issues i discussed neithered inspector general nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint, mr. chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process moving forward. i want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. first, i want to stress that i believe that the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in good faith thro

counsel and my question is did you go to the white house 1st i went to the office of legal counsel for advice yes sir that well i'm asking which went to 1st did you go to the department of justice office of legal counsel 1st or did you go to the white house 1st i went to the office white excuse me my team my office went to the office of legal counsel 1st to or to to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and the complaint might meet the executive privilege they viewed it and said we determine that it appears to be executive privilege and until executive privilege is determined and cleared i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this it's a very deliberate process or direct i'm just i'm still trying to the chronology so you 1st went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to white house counsel we went to the beach and then to the. police or i'm just trying to send a chronology you 1st went to the office of legal counsel and then you went

of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. in particular, the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with a foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. while this olc opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees, it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee. however, given the executive privilege issues i discussed, neither the inspector general nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint, mr. chairman, i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of the process moving forward. i want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. first, i want to stress that i believe that the whistle-blower and the inspector general have acted in g

>> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice, yes, sir. >> well, i'm asking who you went to first. office of just firjustice first the office white house first? >> excuse me, my office went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. . they viewed it and said we've determined that it appears to be executive privilege and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it's a very deliberate process. >> i'm still trying to understand the chronology. you first went to the office of legal counsel and then the white house counsel. >> repeat that please, sir. >> you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to the white house counsel? >> no, no, no, sir. no, sir. no. we went to the white house first to determine, to ask the question -- >> that's all i wanted to know. you went to the white hou

>> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice, yes, sir. >> that -- well, i'm asking which you went to first, did you go to the department of justice office of legal counsel first or did you go to the white house first? >> i went to the office -- excuse me. my team, my office, went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. they viewed it and said we've determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until executive privilege is determined and cleared i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it's a very deliberate process. >> well, director, i'm trying to understand the chronology. you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to white house counsel? >> we went -- excuse me, and then to the -- repeat that, please, sir. >> i'm trying to understand the chronology. you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you

as you know those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us. in particular the office of legal counsel opinion made to the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with the foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence. while this allows the opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committee it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee. however under the executive privilege issues i discuss either the inspector general nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time. when the inspector general informs me that he still intending to notify the committees of the existence of the complaint mr. chairman i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible a the process moving forward. i want to raise a few other points about the situation we find ourselves in. first i want to stress that i believe the whistleblower and the inspector genera

director maguire: i went to the office of legal counsel for advice. yes, sir. chairman schiff: did you go to the department of justice first or the white house first? director maguire: my team, my office went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. they viewed it and said we've determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that fully to the committee. i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it's a very deliberate process. chairman schiff: i'm still trying to understand the chronology. you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to white house counsel? director maguire: repeat that please? chairman schiff: you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to the white house counsel? director maguire: no, sir. we went to the white house first to determine -- cha

you had abelieve legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of legal counsel? director maguire: the opinions of the office of legal counsel is is binding on the executive branch. >> thank you. there has been a big deal made the fact that this is the first complaint with help from congress, but it is also true that it is the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and also the first complaint that included information that was outside of the the dni? director maguire: to the best my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. >> i would say to my colleagues, i think you are nuts. if you think you're going to convince the american people your cause is just by attacking this man. and by impugning his character when it is clear that he felt th ere's a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law. he was trying to do the writing. he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. and the entire tone here is that somehow you are political stooge done nothing but protect the president i think nuts.s anyone watching this he

do >> you believe you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of legal counsel? >> the opinion of the office of legal counsel is binding on the executive branch. >> thank you. now, there has been a big don't made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that has been with help from congress, but it's also true, isn't, it that it's the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and it's also the first time that it included information that was potentially outside of the authority. is that true? >> to the best of my knowledge, congressman, that is correct. >> and i will say to my colleagues in here i think you're nuts if you think you are going to convince the american people that your cause is just by attacking this man, and by impugning his character when it's clear that there is a discrepancy, a potential deficiency in the law, he was trying to do the right thing. he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did, and the entire tone here is that somehow you are a political stooge who has done no

>> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice, yes, sir. >> well, i'm asking what you went to first. did you go to the department of justice legal counsel first or the white house first? >> my team, my office, went to the office of the legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. they viewed it and said we've determined that it appears to be executive privilege and until executive privilege is determined and cleared i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it is a very deliberate process. >> i'm still understand the chronology. you went to the office of legal counsel and then white house counsel? >> excuse me. repeat that please, sir >> you first went to the office of legal counsel and then you went to the white house counsel? >> no, no, no, sir, no, sir. we went to the white house first to determine, to ask the question. >> you went to the white house first. so you wen

memo was publicly released as you know for those of us in the executive branch office of legal counsel opinions are binding on all of us in particular the office of legal counsel opinion states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and the communication with the foreign leader involved no intelligence operation or activity aimed at collecting or analyzing foreign intelligence wireless or will see opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committees it did leave me with the discretion to forward the complaint to the committee however given the executive privilege issues i discussed neither the inspector general nor i were able to share the details of the complaint at the time when the inspector general inform me that he still intended to notify the committee's of the existence of the complaint mr chairman i supported that decision to ensure the committees were kept as informed as possible of this process move forward i want to raise a few of the points about the situation we find ourselves in 1st i want to stress that i believe that the whis

endeavor to follow the law thank you do you believe that you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of legal counsel the opinion of the office of legal counsel is binding on the executive branch thank you now there's been a big deal made about the fact that this is a 1st whistleblower complaint that has been withheld from congress but it's also true isn't it that it's a 1st whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and it's also the 1st time that included information that is potentially outside of the authority of the d.n.i. is that true to the best of my knowledge congressman that is correct ok and i will say to my colleague sitting here i think you're nuts if you think you're going to convince the american people that your cause is just by attacking this man and by and impugning his character when it's clear that he felt there was a discrepancy and to potential deficiency in the law he was trying to do the right thing. he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did and yet the entire tone here is that somehow you're a political stooge who has done nothing

do you believe that you had a legal responsibility to follow the guide answer of the office of legal counsel? >> the opinion of the office of legal counsel is binding on the executive branch. >> thank you. now, there is a big deal about the fact that this is the whistleblower complaint withheld there congress, but it is also true isn't it that it is the first whistleblower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and it is also the first time that it included information that was potentially outside of the authorities of the dni, is that true? >> to the best of my knowledge, that is correct. >> and i will say to my colleagues sitting here, i think you are nuts if you think that you are going to convince the americanple that your cause is just by attacking this man. and by impugning his character when it is clear that he felt there is a discrepancy, potentially deficiency in the law and he was trying to do the right thing. he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. and yet the entire tone here is that somehow you are a political stooge who has done nothing b

of your office to seek counsel, direction, the white house? >> i have consulted with the white house counsel, and eventually, we also consulted with the department of justice office of legal counsel. >> my question is did you go to the white house first? >> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice, yes, sir. >> that, well, i am asking who you went to first, the department of justice legal office first or the white house first? >> i went to the -- excuse me. my team, my office went to the office of legal counsel first to receive whether or not the matter in the letter and in the complaint might meet the executive privilege. they viewed it and said that we have determined that it appears to be executive privilege, and until the executive privilege is determined and cleared, i did not have the authority to be able to send that forward to the committee. i worked with the office of legal counsel for the past several weeks to get resolution on this. it is a deliberate process. >> director, i am trying to understand the chronology so you went to the executive office and then to the white house counsel? >> excuse me. repeat that, please, sir. >> i am trying to understand

. >> legal counsel, excuse me, guidance, override laws passed by congress? >> the office of legal counsel does not override laws passed by congress. what it does is it passes legal opinion for those of us in the executive branch. and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. >> good copy. i have two final questions and i'll ask them together to give you the time to answer them both. >> yes, sir. >> what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode? when i say episode, i'm referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistle-blower revelation? you alluded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment on how this could impact intelligence operation in the future. and i do believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right? i would welcome in the end -- i know this is a little off topic, what do you see our greatest challenges and threats to this country

>> the office of legal counsel does not override laws passed by congress. what it does, it passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch, and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. >> good copy. and i have two final questions but i'm going to ask them together to give you the time to answer them both. what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode? and when i say episode, i'm referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistle-blower revelati revelation. you alluded to it in some of your previous questions but i would like your assessment on how this could impact intelligence operations in the future. and i do believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right? and i would welcome in the end -- i know this is a little off topic -- what do you see are our greatest challenges and threats to this country as the director of national intel

i feel like you have a perspective, when does the legal guidance override laws -- >> the office of legal counsel doesn't override laws passed by congress. what it does is passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch. and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everybody within the executive branch. >> good copy. i have two final questions and i will ask them together to give you time to answer them both. what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode? when i say episode, i am referring to the media circus, the politicalcircus, and the technical issues that are related to this whistle-blower revelation? you eluded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment on how it could impact intelligence operations in the future. i believe it's your first time testifying to congress in your position, all right skpbgs, andd welcome in the end, and it's off topic, what do you see as the challenges and greatest threats to this country? >> i think the greatest challenge we fac

do you believe that you had a legal responsibility to follow the guidance of the office of the legal counsel? >> the opinion of the office of legal counsel is binding on the executive branch. >> thank you. now there's been a big deal made about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that has been withheld from congress, but it's also true, isn't it, that it's the first whistle-blower complaint that has potentially falls under executive privilege and also the first time it included information that was potentially outside the authority of the dni. is that true? >> to the best of my knowledge, that's correct. >> i will say to my colleagues sitting here, i think you're nuts if you're going to think you're going to convince the american people that your cause is just by attacking this man, when it's clear he felt there was a discrepancy, deficiency in the law, he was trying to do the right thing. he felt compelled by the law to do exactly what he did. yet, the entire tone here is somehow you're a political stooge who has done nothing but to try to protect the president. i think

legal counsel scuse me guidance override the laws passed by congress. the office of legal counsel does not override laws passed by congress what it does is it passes legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. good copy and i have 2 final questions i'm asking together to give you the time to answer them both. what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode and when i say episode i'm referring to the media circus the political circus the technical issues that are related to this whistle blower revelation you alluded to it in some of your previous questions but i would i would like your your assessment of how this can impact intelligence operation in the future and i do believe this your 1st time testifying to congress in your position right. and i would welcome in the end i know this is off a little off topic what do you see our greatest challenges and threats to this country as the direct

>> the office of legal counsel does not override laws passed by congress. what it does, it passes legal theion for those of us in executive branch, and the office of legal counsel, legal opinion is finding to everyone within the executive branch. >> i have two final questions, i'm going to ask you together to give you the time to answer them both. how is your assessment of intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode, and when i say episode, i'm referring to the media circuits, the political circuits, the technical issues, that are related to this was a blower revelation. you alluded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment on how this could impact intelligence operations in the future. and i do believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right? and i would welcome, in the end, i know this is a little off-topic, what the ucr our greatest challenges and threats to our country? >> let me answer the latter part of that. i think that the greatest challenge that w

complaint, the whistleblower, but were essentially not part of the legal analysis that was done here by the lawyers of their office of legal counsel. i should add, john, that we know they kicked it over to the criminal division of the justice department. we have lawyers from the national security division, public integrity lawyers, a lot of lawyers in the department looked at the complaint that was filed by this whistleblower, and they essentially limited their analysis to whether or not this was an election law violation, whether this was a campaign finance violation. they didn't look at this as perhaps a counter-intelligence issue. one of the things the whistleblower says is that this could raise perhaps an issue of compromise for the president or other people involved, because, you know, if some foreign intelligence service knows about this, they could use this to compromise the president. that appears to not have been part of the legal analysis that the justice department did before they decided to shut this down. >> that's some important reporting. let me come to the lawyers on the panel here. i'm a layperson here, but essent

i apologize for a lot of these legal questions that may be best directed at somebody else, but i feel like you have a perspective. when does olc, office of legislative leg counsel guidance override laws passed by congress? >> the office of legal congress does not override laws passed by congress. it passes legal opinion for those of us in the executive branch. and the office of legal counsel legal opinion is binding to everyone within the executive branch. >> good copy. and i have two final questions. i'm going to ask you together to give you the time to answer in both. what is your assessment of how intelligence operations in general are going to be impacted by this latest episode? and when i say episode, i'm referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues that are related to this whistle-blower revelation. you alauded to it in some of your previous questions, but i would like your assessment in how this would impact intelligence operations in the future. and i believe this is your first time testifying to congress in your position, right? and i would welcome you in -- i know this is a little off topic, what do you see our greatest ch

what the office of legal counsel said is it does not meet the legal definition of urgent concern. >> so it said you're not required. it didn't say you cannot provide it. it said you're not required to. that is, if you don't want to, we're not going to force you, but it didn't say you can't. am i right? >> it allowed me, and i said that in my opening statement. but even so, it was referred to the fbi for investigation and i was endeavoring to get the information to you, mr. chairman, but i could not failure forward it as a member of the executive branch without the executive privileges being addressed. and i feel that the white house counsel was doing the best that they could in order to get that and it took longer than i would have liked, that's for sure. but that came with the conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts and because the transcripts were released, then no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was then free to send both the inspector general's complaint and decision to you. there was no -- >> director, i wish i had the confidence of kno

but the office of legal counsel said, it does not meet the legal definition of urgent concern. rep. schiff: so it said you are not required. ifsaid you are not required, you do not want to, we will not force you. it did not say you cannot, am i right? director maguire: it allowed me, and i said this in my opening statement. even so it was referred to the fbi for investigation, and i was endeavoring to get the information to you, but i could not forward it as a member of the executive branch without privileges being addressed. i feel that the white house counsel was doing the best that they could in order to get that and it took longer than i would have liked. the conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts and, because the transcripts were released, no longer was there a situation of executive privilege and i was free to send over the inspector general's cover letter and the complaint to you. no time was there any intent ever to withhold the information from you as the chair, this committee, or the senate intelligence committee. director maguire: i wish i had the confid

the office of legal counsel opinion was that, based on the criteria, that you are required to have in order to support this legal statute, it does not. it also said that because of that is not a matter of the intelligence community. however, you may go forward, and i have. >> that's the key issue, director. because it involves the president, it does not involve the intelligence community. that is the sum and substance. the effect of that is the inspector general has told us that he no longer has jurisdiction to investigate. by the logic of that opinion, nor does any other inspector general. now, as you point out, this was referred to the justice department. referred to the fbi and justice department. that department, under bill bar bill barr, and with breathtaking speed, decided there is nothing to see here. decided, "we don't believe it says violation of the campaign finance laws, therefore we are not authorizing an investigation." the fbi is not authorized to investigate any of this. any of this. so the igs can't do it, according to the department of justice. the fbi can't do it, be

this came through the office of legal counsel that rendered i think it was a ten page opinion office egal counsel has a long standing reputation for nonpartisan advice that is respected throughout the federal government and not only respected but binding on the federal government as we found this week through the hearings with the dni. >> and based on what we learned this week, so much, right, firg t first the transcript comes out and we hear from the dni. and i asked during the break your thoughts about the totality of what is going on and the potential for impeachment have changed from where they were. >> i really don't think so. >> you don't believe there is any impeachable offense? >> well, he has grabbed a hold of the last of the four tries here about why this is a high crime or misgreen odemeanormisd. we heard treason until somebody reminded the people making that claim that ukraine is an ally, so it can't possibly be treason. the second one was that it was bribery expect that the federal bribery statute doesn't apply for federal government officials. the third was extortion and

never happened. >> they say they have nothing to worry about. >> it's to the extent that the office of legal counsel has opined on this. i'll let you go, asha, in a second. the office of legal counsel has opined on this. they certainly legal basis to make that assertion. a court may lookis is hogwash -- >> may? asha, make the counterpoint. like look under your seat, everybody has executive privilege. who doesn't have executive privilege at this point. i don't really care what the olc says writhey make disingenuous arguments. any kind of presidential communications privilege is about his advisers providing him with advice on his article 2 duties. and corey lewandowski was not advising him on any article 2 duties, he was being asked to commit a federal offense. and even if there were some privilege here, there would be an exception to that privilege precisely because there is a potential crime that is involved. i mean, like we are really in the land of the dumb at this point and it becomes, you know, absurd to continue to try to explain this over and over. i think the american people see this and the

and whether or not the situation here is compliant and comes underneath the statute, the office of legal counsel opinion was that based on the criteria that you're required to have in order to support this legal statute, it does not. it also said that because of that it is not a matter of the intelligence community. but once again -- >> that's -- >> however, you may go forward. >> that's the key issue, director. because it involves the president, it does not involve the intelligence community. that is the sum and substance. and the effect of that is the inspector general has told us that he no longer has jurisdiction to investigate. and by the logic of that opinion, nor does any other inspector general. now, as you point out, this was referred to the justice department, it was referred to the fbi and justice department. that department under bill barr and with breathtaking speed decided there is nothing to see here, decided that we don't believe that this constitutes a violation of the campaign finance laws and therefore we're not authorizing an investigation. the fbi is not authorized to invest

paul: of course, the whistleblower complaint has now been released as well. and as well as a legal judgment by the office of legal counsel, explaining why this didn't necessarily have to be reported to the congressional committee. i want to ask about rieu city giuliani. you mentioned -- rudy giuliani. we talked about this this week. the president clearly kind of -- he was operating as a sort of independent envoy, on tv all the time, trying to get a meeting with ukrainians, trying to press this biden story, reckless behavior? >> well, look, i think one thing that's important here is that rudy giuliani is a private lawyer. okay. and while he was open about what he was doing -- and i think this is notable, paul. because he's been doing it for months. he's been out there, publicly doing this. it was never particularly wise to have a private lawyer acting freelance as it were on an issue like this. he'll say oh, it's because i'm representing my client's interest. but when your client is the president of the united states, there needs to be some different boundaries. i think it was totally appropriate for official channels to

he went to his general counsel, he went to his -- the office of legal counsel. he should have well known what would happen when he went to the office of legal counsel and william barr's department of justice. things are different. they don't play down the middle. they are playing as defense council for a president at this point. so i'm not surprised he got advice do nothing, spit on the violation. >> jack r jack, you were an under secretary for intelly against and an intelligence officer. did the administration -- the strigs has done a number of things which are inappropriate. does this cross the line to illegal? >> that's a great question and it's a question i don't think we know the answer to. as i studied for other interview tonight, i ask myself a lot of questions. if we don't know who the whistle-blower was, what was said, the context of those discussions. those are the critical questions we need to find out. was there a potential to stall all of this $250 million to the ukraine that had already been appropriated by congress until there was some type of a mo

to say this is nonsensical legal mumbo jumbo needs to get flushed out. >> the office of legal counseltorture. if they're justifying things, it does not mean it's actually a legal valid argument. we're speculating here is intelligence activity about privilege, about article 2 -- >> getting back to my point we're speculating about everything here. >> jimmy, you can't have it both ways. you're using it as a sword and a shield here. if there's nothing there and you know you have a meckmism to have anything that is classified, but even if it were you have a mechanism in place. and if the president says there's nothing there, once again have it go to congress, let them see what the basis was. we know rudy definitely had one thing wrong. he said the ig, had no way, no skill or ability to determine the credibility of anyone who comes forward with a complaint. that's obviously absurd. the ig made a recommendation of urgency. why? >> the dni seems to be trying to do things by the book and doing the right thing and ask the department of justice for an opinion as to whether it goes to congress or

you have the office of legal counsel opinion yes but yes we do it would you agree i doubt if there is a serious and credible investigation you agree there should be an investigation i believe that it is a matter to be determined by the chair and this committee part of the complaint alleges that white house officials knew that the call contained evidence of potentially illegal activity and tried to quote lock down the official transcript that did not please speak or of the house nancy pelosi there is actions that are actions that are have her up yet when you take when you have a system of electronic storage for information that is specifically for national security purposes. and you have something that. it's self serving to the president politically and it might not be you might not want people to know and you hide it someplace else that. democrats avowed that there impeachment investigation will be swift and sure but there remains much to be investigated. let's go live now to oliver salih our washington bureau all over thanks for joining us on this dramatic day let's get right to it l

and a memo that was written by the office of legal counsel had to be withdrawn because they did not cite the leading case. jack will smith came down here from harvard. they said, yes, that was wrong. we got the separation of powers wrong. we forgot to cite the leading case. so i would think from that, that you would not pursue something that was analogous to that argument. i mean, the definition of folly is to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. but in fact, there are sort of unitary executive 2.0. i say this with great affection. appeared many times in their society. he was the originator of this theory. this theory goes back to a case called morrison versus olson. an justice scalia's dissent. steve and many members of the society reviewed that dissent. it is a lonely dissent. one person dissent. in that dissent, justice scalia says, "i'm going to talk about the text of the constitution." and then he repeats the text of the constitution. but actually what he says, he cannot cite the united states constitution because there is no separation of powers provision, and that was int

of your office to seek advice at counsel direction, the white house? >> i have consulted with the white house counsel and eventually we also consulted with the office of legal counsel. >> my question is, did you go to the white house first? >> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice. >> reporter: one of the things we learned from maguire is that there are conversations going on between the whistle blower and the committees and the goal is to allow the whistle blower to provide their testimony to the lawmakers directly, dana. >> dana: during the last few hours there were new allegations about the reliability of the transcript that the white house released yesterday? >> reporter: right. the whistle blower complaint is now declassified. it is the phone call between the president and the leader of ukraine. but then there are allegations over whether the transcript is really credible and has veracity. the allegation is that this transcript was not handled in a standard way, it was taken into a secret system that requires code words and a system that also handles covert actions. so that would be things like special access programs or staff programs. so l

of your office to seek advice, counsel, direction the white house? >> i have consulted with the white house counsel and eventually we also consulted with the department of justice office of legal counsel. >> my question is, did you go to the white house first? >> i went to the office of legal counsel for advice. >> maguire testified that the whistle-blower's legal team is working with the committees on the house and the senate so they can speak to lawmakers directly about these allegations, shep. >> shepard: some gop lawmakers are challenging the credibility of the whistle-blower's complaint. >> the complaint itself states that the whistle-blower's had not direct but secondhand information from multiple u.s. officials. this issue came into play on the allegations of a cover-up involving the transcript of the july 25th phone call. here's an exchange with maguire and democrats. >> if there's cover-up activity because the president is working improperly with a foreign government, that can compromise america's secrets. >> congressman, there's an allegation of a cover-up. right now all we have is an allegation with secondhand information from a whistle-blower's. i have no knowledge

the arguments i have heard olc,ed about as to why the office of legal counsel of the department of justice may have come up with legal arguments as to why this is not an urgent complaint. sense andat makes any none of it has gone public what the real reasons are. i don't believe the president has yet formally invoked executive privilege over this complaint. there has been a lot of discussion about phone calls and transcripts and people are forgetting about the complaint. thee is a complaint in hands of the inspector general that has been found urgent and a flagrant violation. host: how long have you been working in the field? guest: a good part of my 30 yields -- years. we came across it very early when we started practicing law, with people from the cia and fbi. i have litigated a lot of fbi cases with a similar problem. host: have you seen an administration step into this process as speaker pelosi is calling out the administration for doing? guest: in the intelligence past,ity world, in the things are more transparent today than 10 years of -- 10 years ago. a lot of things happened in th

general, the acting head of the intelligence community, the dni, went and gave it to the office of legal counsel, which is an elite or used to be an elite office of 20 attorneys at the justice department. in this administration that office has been basically just giving the president get out of jail free cards left and right. they politicized that function. so that's what happened here. there is interference by the office of legal counsel. indeed also by the criminal division of the justice department as well. >> so is this a proper whistle-blower case and does this intelligence community person have the whistle-blower protection or is this person vulnerable? >> 100%. now, look, they're going to be vulnerable, because unfortunately, and we've seen this all morning, there are people who will do anything to go after this person and try to destroy their life. having represented a whistle-blower,ic tell i can tell you this is difficult to do. this person is going to go through a full attack. absolutely, this is what the whistle-blower act is all about. this is what chuck grassley has told the suprem

been helping to identify legal obstacles to the sharing of information that could be politically damaging to trump. i'm joined now by a man who used to run the office of legal counsel assistant attorney general who also served as acting solicitor general. first your reaction to the steven engel memo, the rationale which was then released of olc where the acting director says i'm not sure about this, he goes to doj, steven engel is the judge essentially in this case and he rules, no, you don't have to turn it over to congress. what do you think of it? >> i thought it was more a memorandum that read more like an advocacy document. it seemed to be fighting to find the most narrow way to read every issue. but i think actually it's conceivable that it's right ipthe most narrow, technical sense. but i think that raises the much more fundamental problem, chris, and the one you touched on which is what is their responsibility outside this particular narrow question they were asked about this particular provision of the whistle-blower statute, the technical issue being whether this was a matter within the intelligence community or not. and they had i think a hypertechnical