Special Report: Acting DNI Testifies Before Congress On Trump Ukraine Phone Call | NBC News

Keillor has to say now that this whistleblower complaint, the redacted version of it, is now available in the public record and we will get to that point later this afternoon, the members of that committee will have had the opportunity to ask Paul if his questions to these Privately, we have already heard from two men from people like Mitt Romney, who said the allegations were extremely troubling: the quote used by Pat Toomey, another Republican, said it is inappropriate for the president's behavior to be supported in a foreign leader for this purpose. do the dirty work of her political campaign Savannah she had to come well Jeff thank you very much and we see Adam Schiff the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who has now sat with the witnesses in his place and in a moment we would expect to hear the statements opening ceremony of the president and ranking member at any time when the presidential oath requires the President of the United States to do two things: faithfully execute his office and protect and defend the Constitution;

That oath, of course, cannot be honored if the president does not first defend the country if our national security is in danger if our country is left defenseless the need to faithfully execute the office becomes moot where there is no country or office to execute and, Therefore, the duty to defend the nation is fundamental to the president's responsibilities, but what about this second responsibility to defend the Constitution? What does that really mean? The founders were not, of course, talking about a piece of parchment, but were expressing the President's obligation to defend the institutions of our democracy to defend our system of checks and balances that the Constitution enshrines to defend the rule of law, a principle over which was born the idea of ​​the United States that we are a nation of laws, not of men, if we do not defend the nation there is no Constitution, but if we do not defend the Constitution there is no nation worth defending yesterday we were presented with ammunition evidence yet that the president of the United States has betrayed his oath of office betrayed his oath to defend our national security and betrayed his oath to defend our Constitution yesterday we were presented with a record of a

call

between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine in which the president, our president, sacrificed our national security and our Constitution for his personal political gain.

To understand how we did it, we must first understand how overwhelmingly dependent Ukraine is on the United States militarily, financially, diplomati

call

y and in every other way and not only on the United States but on the person of the president Ukraine was invaded for its neighbor for our common adversary for Vladimir Putin's Russia and remains occupied by the Russians irregular forces in a long latent war Ukraine desperately needs our help and for years we have provided it and in a bipartisan manner, that is, until two months ago, when President Trump inexplicably withheld her. It is in this context after a brief congratulatory call from President Trump to President Solinsky on April 21 and after the president's personal emissary, Rudy Giuliani, made it very clear to Ukrainian officials for several months that the president wanted information about his political opponent, it is in this context that the new president of Ukraine would speak with Donald.

Trump spoke by

phone

on July 25. President Szalinski was eager to establish himself at home as a friend of the president of the most powerful nation in the world. He had at least two goals: to meet with the president and to obtain more military aid. And what happened in that? Call Zalinsky begins by ingratiating himself and tries to get the president's support. He expresses his interest in meeting with the president and says that his country wants to acquire more weapons from us to defend itself and what is the president's response because it is read as a classic blackmail to the dispossessed organized crime. of his rambling character and in a few words this is the essence of what the president communicates we have been very good to his country very well no other country has done as much as us but you know what I I don't see much reciprocity here.

I hear what you want. But I have a favor I want from you. I'm only going to say this seven times, so you better listen carefully. I want you to make up bad things about my political opponent. You understand many things. about this and that I will put you in touch with people and not with just anyone I will put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States my attorney general Bill Barr he has the full weight of American law enforcement behind him and I will put you in contact Rudy you will love him trust me you know what I'm asking so I'm just going to say this a few more times a few more ways and by the way don't call me anymore I'll call you when you've done what I asked you this It is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine.

It would be funny if it weren't such a graphic betrayal of the president's oath, but since it represents an actual betrayal, there is nothing the president says here that is credible. interest to America after all, it is rather the most important form of tragedy, since it forces us to confront the remedy that the founders provided for such blatant use of the charge of impeachment now this matter would not have come to the attention of our committee or the nation without the courage of a single person, the whistleblower as you know, director more than perhaps any other area of ​​government, as we deal with classified information the Intelligence Committee relies on whistleblowers to reveal irregularities when they occur when the agencies do not

report

themselves because outside parties are not allowed to examine their work and guide us if that system is allowed to collapse as happened here if whistleblowers come to understand that they will not be protected - one of two things happens: wrongdoing is not

report

ed or whistleblowers take matters into their own hands and release classified information to the press in violation of the law and putting our national security at risk.

This is why the whistleblower system is so vital to us and why your handling of this urgent complaint is also so worrying today we can say for the first time since we published this morning the whistleblower complaint that you marked as unclassified that the substance of this call is a central issue. although by no means the only issue raised by the whistleblower complaint that was shared with the committee for the first time last night, by law, the whistleblower complaint that brought to light this serious misconduct should have been brought forward to this committee weeks ago and for you.

Sir. director under the clear letter of the law, and yet he was not Director McGuire. I was very happy when they appointed him interim director. If Sue Gordon wasn't going to stay, I was grateful that a man of her magnificent military background was chosen as a Navy SEAL. for 36 years and director of the National Counterterrorism Center since December 2018, his credentials are impressive and in the limited interactions we have had since he became director of the NCTC, he has struck me as a good and decent man, which makes his actions over the last month are all the most baffling decided not to file the complaint with this committee as required by law why did you decide to seek a second opinion on whether it really means owe according to the statute why did you decide to go to a department run by a man bill Barr, who is himself implicated in the complaint and believes that it exists to serve the interest of the president, not the office itself or the public interest, but the interest of the person of Donald Trump, while you choose to allow the issue of the whistleblower play a role in deciding whether Congress would ever hear the complaint why he remained silent when the intelligence professional under his care and protection was ridiculed by the president was accused of potentially betraying his country when that whistleblower alone act of appearing has shown more dedication to the country more understanding of the president's oath than the president himself we await your explanation senior member Núñez I thank the gentleman I want to congratulate the democrats for the launch of their latest information warfare operation against the president and his extraordinary ability to once again involve the mainstream media in his campaign, this operation began with media reports from the main instigators of the Russia collusion hoax that a whistleblower who claimed that the President Trump made an ill-fated promise to a foreign leader, the published transcript of that call has already debunked that central claim, but that didn't matter, the Democrats simply changed the rules and started claiming that there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo to Let this conversation serve as the basis for the removal of the president.

Speaker Pelosi went further when she was earlier asked if she would put on the brakes. on the impeachment trial, if the transcript turned out to be benign, she responded by quoting, so there you have it, if the whistleblowing operation doesn't work, the Democrats and their media we have candidates who quote, we have many candidates for impeachable crimes, that It was his date, so there you go. If the whistleblowing operation doesn't work, the Democrats and their media can always bring something else to light and what other information has come to light since the original false report about a promise made, we have learned the following: complaint was based on rumors. evidence provided by the whistleblower the inspector general did not know the content of the

phone

call in question the inspector general found that the whistleblower displayed arguable political bias against Trump the Department of Justice investigated the complaint and determined that no action was warranted the Ukrainian president denies having been pressured by President Trump, so once again this assumes that the scandal ends up being nothing like what we were told and once again the Democrats, their media mouthpieces and a cabal of leakers are making up a false story without taking into account the monumental damage they are doing to our public institutions and trust in the government and without acknowledging all the false stories they propagated in the past, including countless accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to hack the elected elections of 2016, we're supposed to forget all those stories, but we believe this one in summary.

What we have with this story is yet another file. I will point out here that in the mania of the Democrats to annul the 2016 elections, everything they touch is irremediably politicized with the deception of Russia, it was our intelligence agencies that became a political weapon to attack the presidents and today the whistleblowing process is the victim, until about a week ago the need to protect that process was a primary bipartisan concern of this committee, but if the Democrats were truly concerned about defending that process, they would have pursued this matter with a quiet investigation and sober as we do with all whistleblowers, but that would have been useless for them, they don't want answers, they want a public spectacle and that's why we have been treated to an endless parade of press releases, press conferences and fake

news

stories this The hearing itself is another example that whistleblower investigations should not be conducted in public at all, as our Senate counterparts, both Democrats and Republicans, obviously understand their hearing with Mr.

McGuire is behind closed doors, but again, that It only makes sense when your goal is to obtain information and not 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 the Russians when the Democrats themselves were colluding with the Russians, and preparing today's dossier they accused the president of pressuring the Ukrainians to take actions that would help or hurt him. to their political opponents, and yet there are numerous examples of Democrats doing exactly what Joe Biden boasted about extorting. the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor who was investigating Biden's own son.

Three Democratic senators wrote a letter pressuring the Ukrainian attorney general 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. over the involvement of Joe Biden's son, according to Ukrainian officials, Democratic National Committee contractor Alexander Alexandre Chalupa tried to get Ukrainian officials to provide information about Trump associates and tried to get the former Ukrainian president to comment publicly on alleged ties to Russia. The Ukrainian official, sir, hey leshenka was a source for Nellie or the wife of the Justice Department official Bruce or while working on the anti-Trump operation carried out by Fusion GPS and financed by the Democrats and of course the Democrats in this same committeeThey negotiated with people they thought were Ukrainians to get Trump nude photos People can reasonably wonder why Democrats are so determined to impeach this president when in just a year they will have the opportunity.

In fact, a Democratic

congress

man, one of the first to call for Trump's impeachment, gave us the answer when he said quote. I worry that if we do not impeach the president, he will be re-elected. Winning elections is difficult and when you compete you have no guarantee of winning, but The American people have a voice in this and made their voice. I heard in the last presidential election that this latest tactic by the Democrats to overturn the people's mandate is crazy and dangerous. They should participate in this whole dishonest protest show and get back to work solving the problems, which is what all the members of this committee were sent here to do.

Judging by today's farce, the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim to none. I give up. I believe that, gentleman director, could you take the oath? And raise your right hand, do you swear or do you solemnly affirm that the testimony that we will give today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God, thank you, can you take a seat on the record? will reflect that the testimony has been properly sworn Director McGuire, would you agree that the whistleblower's complaint alleges serious wrongdoing on the part of the President of the United States, Mr.

President, in fact, I apologize to you, Director, allow me to thank you for your opening speech and you can take as much time as you need. Thank you very much, mr. president president chef senior member Núñez and members of the committee good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and the committee for agreeing to postpone this hearing for one week, this provided sufficient time to allow the executive branch to successfully complete its consultations on how to accommodate the committee's request sr. President, I have told you this on several occasions and I would like to say it publicly.

I respect it. I respect this committee and welcome and take seriously the committee's oversight role during my confirmation process as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that Congressional oversight of intelligence activities is critical and essential to successful operations with the intelligence community having served as director of the National Counterterrorism Center for eight months and as Acting Director of National Intelligence for the last six weeks. I continue to firmly believe in Congress's oversight role, as I promised the Senate. I promise you today that I will continue to work closely with Congress while I serve in this capacity as Acting Director of Domestic Counterterrorism or when I return. to the National Counterterrorism Center to ensure that it is fully informed and up-to-date on intelligence activities to facilitate its ability to conduct its oversight of the intelligence community.

The American people expect us to keep them safe. The intelligence community cannot. Without the support of this committee. I preferred to resort to the question of hands. There are some things I would like to say. I am NOT a partisan and I am NOT a politician. I believe in a life of service and it is an honor for me to be a public servant. I served under eight presidents while in uniform. I have taken the oath to the Constitution 11 times when I was first 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 took the oath last December when I became director of the National Counterterrorism Center I agree with you the oath is sacred it is a foundation of our Constitution the oath to me means not only that I swear true faith and allegiance to that sacred document but, more importantly, I see it as a covenant I have with my workforce that I lead and with every American that I will fulfill the duties of my office well and faithfully.

I come from a long line of public servants who have stepped up even in the most difficult of times, in austere times, to support and defend our When I took off my uniform in July 2010, it was the first time in 70 years that a member immediate family did not wear the nation's garb as a Naval Special Warfare Officer I had the honor of commanding at all levels in The seal community was at times very demanding, but the rewards of serving in the Special Operations community of The United States more than compensates for the demands after my retirement.

I was fortunate to work for a large private sector company. I left the business world after three years to run a non-profit charity. Some asked me why I would leave a promising business career to run a charity. The answer was quite simple. It was another opportunity to serve. I ran a foundation dedicated to honoring the sacrifice of our fallen and seriously injured

special

operators. The foundation. I led and enabled hundreds of our fallen children to attend college. It was extremely meaningful and rewarding in the winter of 2018. Former Director Dan Coach asked me to return to government service to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.

This request was totally unexpected and was not a position I was looking for, but it was another opportunity to serve my particular country. I knew that many of the young sailors and junior officers I had trained 20 years earlier, when they were now high-ranking combat veterans deploying and still sacrificing, I decided they could continue. serve returning to government service with the minimum I could do and now here I sit before you as

acting

director of national intelligence with the departure last month of Dan Coates and Sue Gordon, two exceptional leaders and friends. They asked me to take over. big shoes and leave the intelligence community until the president nominates and the Senate confirms the next Director of National Intelligence.

I accepted this responsibility because I love this country. I have deep respect for the men and women of our intelligence community and mission. We execute every day on behalf of the American people Throughout my career I have served and led in turbulent times I have covered every action based on the following criteria It must be legal It must be moral and it must be ethical No one can take an individual's integrity away It can only be given if each action meets those criteria. You will always be a person of integrity and in almost four decades of public service my integrity has never been questioned until now.

I am here today to state unequivocally that you are

acting

DNI I. I will continue with the same faithful and non-partisan support and it is important that you adhere to the Constitution and the laws of this great country while serving in this position for any period of time. I want to make clear that I have maintained my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way in the matter before us today. I also want to express my support for whistleblowers and rights and laws. Whistleblowing has a long history in our country dating back to the Continental Congress.

This is not surprising. Because as a nation we desire good government, therefore we must protect those who demonstrate courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the workplace, in fact, at the beginning of executive branch ethics training Every year we are reminded that public service is a public good. trust and as public servants we have a solemn responsibility to do the right thing, including reporting concerns about fraud and waste abuse and bringing such matters to the attention of Congress under the intelligence community's Whistleblower Protection Act. I applaud all employees who come forward under this Act.

I am committed to ensuring that all whistleblower complaints are handled appropriately and to protecting the rights of whistleblowers. In this case, the whistleblower raised an issue with the intelligence community. General Inspector. The Inspector General is adequately protecting the identity of the complainant and will not allow the complainant to be subject. to any retaliation or adverse consequences for reporting the complaint to the inspector general. Upholding the integrity of the intelligence community and workforce is my number one priority throughout my career. I trusted the men and women of the intelligence community to do their jobs, so I could do mine and I could personally attest that their efforts saved lives.

Now I would like to move on to the complaint and provide some general context on how we got to where we are today, on August 26, the Inspector General sent me an employee complaint. In the intelligence community, the Inspector General stated that the complaint raised an urgent concern, a legally defined term under the Whistleblower Protection Act that has been discussed at length and in our letters to the committee on September 16 and 17 before moving on to the discussion about whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern the first to speak on an even more fundamental issue in reviewing the complaint, we were immediately struck by the fact that many of the allegations in the complaint are based on a conversation between the president and another foreign leader, such calls are generally subject to executive privilege, so we checked with the White House counsel's office and were informed that much of the information in the complaint was in fact subject to the executive privilege, a privilege that I do not have the authority to waive because of that.

We were not immediately able to share details of the complaint with this committee, but we continued to consult with White House counsel in an effort to do so. Yesterday, the president released the transcripts of the call in question and therefore we can now reveal the details. both the complaint and the Inspector General's letter transmitted to us as a result. I have provided the House and Senate Intelligence Committees with the full, unredacted complaint, as well as the Inspector General's letter. Please also allow me to discuss the matter of urgent concern in conveying a complaint to me. The Inspector General took the legal position that because the plant's complaint alleges matters of urgent concern and because he found the allegations to be credible, I was required under the intelligence community's Whistleblower Protection Act to forward the complaint to our supervisory committees within seven days of receipt.

As we have explained previously in our letters, urgent concern is a legally defined term for urgent concern, allegations must, in addition to being classified, assert a serious and flagrant problem of abuse or violation of the law and be related to the administration of funds or the operation of an intelligent activity. within the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence, however, this complaint concerns entirely the conduct of someone outside the intelligence community unrelated to the administration of funds or operation of an intelligence activity under my supervision because the allegation in the front did not seem to fall into the law.

Marco my office consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel of the United States Department of Justice and included the Inspector General in those consultations after reviewing the complaint and the transmittal letter from the Inspector General, the office of legal counsel determined that the allegations of the complaint do not meet the legal requirement The definition refers to an urgent legal concern and I discovered that I was not legally required to transmit the material to our Oversight Committee under the Whistleblower Protection Act and that the classified version of that memorandum of the Office of Legal Counsel went public, as you know for those of us in the executive.

The opinions of the legal counsel branch are binding on all of us, in particular, the opinion of the legal counsel branch states that the president is not a member of the intelligence community and that the communication with the foreign leader did not involve any operation or intelligence activity intended to collect or analyze. Foreign intelligence and OLC opinion did not require transmission of the complaint to the committee; I was left with the discretion to send 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 the Inspector General informed me that he still intended to notify the committees of the existence of mr.

Chairman I supported that decision to ensure that the committee was kept as informed as possible about this process. To advance. First I want to raise a few other points about the situation in which we find ourselves. I want to emphasize that I believe the complainant and the Inspector General have acted in good faith at all times. I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and followed the law while respecting the privileged nature of the information and waiting patiently while executive privilege issues were resolved whenever possible. We have worked in partnership with the inspector general on this matter, although we havedifferent opinions on the topic, whether it is your urgent concern or not.

I firmly believe in the role of the inspector general. I really value the independence that he brings and his dedication and his role in supporting me and the committee. informed of matters within the Intelligence Committee Second, although executive privilege prevented us from sharing the details of the complaint with the committee until recently, this does not mean that the complaint was ignored by the Inspector General and consultation with my office referred this matter to the Department of Justice. for investigation Finally, I appreciate that in the past whistleblower complaints have been presented to Congress regardless of whether they were deemed credible or met the requirement of recurring urgent concern, however, I am not familiar with any prior cases in which a complaint As a whistleblower has touched on such complicated and sensitive issues, including executive privilege, I believe this matter is unprecedented.

I also believe that I handle this matter in full compliance with the law at all times and I undertake to do so, sir. I appreciate the committee giving me this opportunity to discuss this matter the continued commitment to working with Congress in its important oversight role thank you very much sir Thank you director boom would you agree that the whistleblower's complaint alleges serious wrongdoing by the President of the United States? The whistleblower's complaint involved the accusation that it is not my place in the intelligence community to decide how the president conducts his foreign policy or his interaction with leaders of other countries, sir.

I'm not asking you to weigh in on how the president conducts his foreign policy. I am asking you if, as the statute requires that this complaint involve serious wrongdoing in this case by the President of the United States, an allegation of serious wrongdoing by the President of the United States is not the subject of this complaint. It is the subject of the allegation of the complaint and two things, Mr. President and let me ask you about whether the Inspector General found that serious allegation of misconduct on the part of the President credible. Did you also find it to be credible?

I did not criticize the Inspector General's decision about whether it was not credible or not. My question was whether it was not credible or not. It meets the urgent concern and the seven-day deadline that would follow, but it is also. If in my question, laugh, I have no doubt in your judgment that you consider it a serious matter, well, I don't and you would agree. Wouldn't you like, Director, if this complaint alleging serious irregularities on the part of the president were credible? It's not for me to judge, sir, what might become of you, it's for you to judge apparently, I mean I agree, it's not for you to judge, you'll have to provide it. to Congress but, in fact, you judged whether this complaint should be presented to Congress and we can at least agree that the Inspector General reached a strong conclusion that this whistleblower complaint was credible, that's right, that's in the cover letter that has been provided. to another committee I think the inspector general's decision and recommendation that in fact the allegation was credible has also been made public, can we also agree that it was urgent that if the President of the United States was withholding aid military an ally even when you received the complaint and did so for a nefarious reason which is to exert influence or the president of Ukraine to dig up fabricated garbage about your opponent.

Can we accept that it was urgent while aid was withheld? There are two. There are two things. I'm talking about the common understanding of what urgent means because the inspector general said this was urgent, not just in the legal sense, this was urgent, since everyone understands that term, can we agree that it was urgent, it was urgent and important, but my job as a director of national intelligence had to comply with the whistleblower protection law and that could here to the definition of urgent concern, which is a legal term and adhere to the meaning of the term, yes sir, in this case sought a second opinion or if it really means that by going to the White House, no sir, there were two things, as I said in my statement, one it seemed like it also had executive privilege issues.

I am not authorized as Director of National Intelligence to waive executive privilege and at any time during the last month that you filed this complaint, did the White House assert executive privilege on Mr. President, I've tried hard, I think it's a yes or no question. Have they ever asserted executive privilege? They were working through executive privilege procedures to decide whether or not to exercise executive privilege and therefore never exercised executive privilege. The answer is yes, sir. President, if they had done so, we would not have published the letters yesterday and all the information that had been received.

No, the first place he went to the White House. I understand that from his initial statement, he did not go to the associate judge. The first place he went to. a second opinion went to the White House. I didn't seek a second opinion. The question was whether the information contained here is subject to executive privilege, not whether it raised an urgent concern, so the first place he turned for advice on whether he should provide the complaint as required by statute to Congress was the House White I am not authorized as Director of National Intelligence to provide executive privilege information I think it is prudent as a member of the executive branch to check to ensure that this is in fact the case No, I'm just asking about the sequence here.

Did you go to the White House first to determine whether you should file a complaint with Congress? No, sir, that was not the question, the question was whether or not you have executive privilege, if not, yes or no. You should send it to Congress. Well, it's the first part she went outside of his office to seek advice from a lawyer in the White House. I have consulted with the White House counsel and, ultimately, we also consulted with the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. and my question is: did you go to the White House first?

I went to the Legal Counsel Office for advice. Yes sir. Well, I ask you who we went to first. Did you first go to the Department of Justice's legal counsel office? I went to the White House first, I went to the office, of course, excuse me, my team, my office went to the Office of Legal Counsel first, I did a tour to find out if the subject matter in the letter and in the complaint could meet the privilege executive, they looked at it and We said we determined that it appears to be executive privilege and until executive privilege is determined and clarified, I did not have the authority to be able to send it to the committee.

I worked with the Office of Legal Counsel over the past few weeks to obtain a resolution. In this, it's a very deliberate process, well, director, I'm still testing our standard chronology, so first it went to the general counsel's office and then to the White House counsel, we went, excuse me, and then to that one's office, Please sir. I'm just trying to stay on the chronology: first he went to the political counsel's office and then he went to the White House. Lawyer no, no, sir, no, sir, no, we went to the ER, we went to the White House first to decide to ask, okay, that's it.

You wanted it to be said that you went to the White House first, so you first went to the subject of the complaint to ask for advice on whether you should take the complaint to Congress. There were problems within this, a couple of things, one of them seemed like he has executive power. privilege, if you have executive privilege, it is the White House that determines that I cannot determine that as Director of National Intelligence, but in this case the White House, the president is the subject of the complaint, he is the subject of the irregularity, were you aware? when you went to the White House to seek advice on whether evidence of White House wrongdoing should be presented to Congress, did you know that the White House counsel has taken the unprecedented position that the privilege applies to communications involving the president when he was present? involving the president when he wasn't president involving people who never served in the administration involving people who never served in the ministry even when they're not even talking to the president did you know that's unprecedented for the White House?

White House where he went to seek advice on whether he should submit a complaint involving Mr. President, as I said in my opening statement, I believe that everything that is happening here in this matter is unprecedented and that is why my former directors of National Intelligence conveyed it to you if they admitted an urgent concern or if it was serious, this It was different and to me it seemed prudent to be able to verify and guarantee as a member of the executive branch before sending it. I just have a couple of questions about the rotation of the highest ranking member and it's possible that he will consume as much time as I did with the second place member.

You went to the Department of Justice and you went to that department headed by a man, Bill Barr, who was also involved in the complaint, and you knew that when you went to the Department of Justice to get a correct opinion, that Bill Barr was mentioned in the complaint, sir. Chairman I went to the legal counsel's office in consultation with the IC IG, he was part of that to receive whether or not he met the criteria, yes, but the IC IG vehemently disagreed with the opinion of the Department of Bill Barr Justice, isn't it? We still meet, we consider it a matter of urgency.

However, as you know, the opinions of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel are binding on all of us in the executive branch. Well, let me ask you, do you think it's appropriate for me to go to a department run by someone who is the subject of the complaint to get advice or who is the subject of the complaint or involved in the complaint to get advice on whether to take that complaint to Congress? . Does that conflict of interest concern you, mr. President, when I saw this report and complained I immediately knew this was a serious matter, it occurred to me and I thought it would be prudent.

I'm not sure. I'm just asking if the conflict of interest worries you that much. Sir, I have to work with what I have and that is the office of legal counsel within the executive branch, but don't wait, you also had a statute that says you must and even then you said you had the discretion to provide it, but you did. Not because I didn't follow through on the urgent matter of concern that took me off my seven-day schedule. I have made every effort to work with the Office of Legal Counsel to get you the material that we provided yesterday.

Now I have to do it. I tell you, President, it may not be at the time that I or you would have wanted, but the legal counsel's office has to make sure that they make prudent decisions and yesterday, when the president released the transcripts of his call with the president of Ukraine, then I could no longer in the executive privilege no longer applied and that was when I was free to send the complaint to the director of the committee. Don't you think the whistleblower is a political trick? I don't know who the complainant is? Sir. President, to be honest with you, I have done everything I can to ensure that your anonymity is protected.

That doesn't sound like much of a whistleblower defense. Here someone you founded everything well. He does not believe that the whistleblower is a political trick. Are you a director? I think, as I said before, Mr. President, I think the whistleblower is operating in good faith, so they couldn't be in good faith if they were acting as a political pirate, could they be, Mr. President? President, my job is to support and lead the entire intelligence community, that individual works for me, therefore it is my job to make sure I support and defend that person. You have no reason to accuse him of disloyalty to our country or suggest that he do so.

I am indebted to some other country, no sir, not at all. I believe the whistleblower followed through every step of the way, however, he earned the statute in this situation involving the President of the United States, who is not in the intelligence community or on matters under my responsibility. Monitoring did not meet criteria for urgent concern. I'm just asking about the whistleblower right now. I think the complainant did the right thing. I think he followed the law every step of the way and we just started with and then why director when the The president called the whistleblower a political stunt and suggested that he or she might be disloyal to the country.

Why did he remain silent? I did not remain silent, mr. President, I assured a statement to my staff admitting my commitment to protecting whistleblowers and guaranteeing that I would provide protection to anyone within the intelligence community who came forward, but the way this was blowing up, I didn't think that it was appropriate for me to make a press release so that we would contradict each other on every trick. I think not only was it appropriate, but there is nothing that would have given more confidence to the workforce than hearing him say publicly that no one should call out this professional who did it. the right thing, a pirate or a traitor or anything else.

I think thatIt would have meant a lot to the workforce, mr. and as you recognized, welcome mr. Director, it's a pleasure to have you here and you will be part of a farce of legal puns, they will try to get you to say something that can be repeated by the media that is here and that wants to report this story. I just want to make one thing clear because one of the quotes I will use is that you say this was a credible complaint that will be used and twisted while you say it was true and I want to give it a chance for you, you have not investigated the veracity or veracity of this complaint, that is correct, ranking member, the incredible determination was made by the IC inspector general, he made the determination that it is credible and he also made the determination of urgent concern, my The question was not: I did not question his judgment there, the question I had was: Does this allegation of wrongdoing in fact meet the legal criteria of urgent concern and the other question, as I said, complicated things, in fact, the allegations within this whistleblower complaint? it involves executive privilege thanks for clarifying that you ever mentioned it a little bit in your testimony, but have you ever or do you know of any former dnis that has testified about whistleblower complaints in the public, to my knowledge, our ranking member?

I don't know, are you aware of any cases like this that have been put in the spotlight? Would this be the way to handle it in public? I'm not aware of any, but I want to say again that I believe the situation we have and why we are here this morning is because this case is unique and unprecedented, so why is our case not normally handled in public every other cases that came before this committee or the Senate committee, whether or not they met the criteria Urgent concerns were submitted because they involved members of the intelligence community who were in fact in organizations under the authority and responsibilities of the DNI z.

This one just didn't come that way because it involved a member, an individual who is not a member of the intelligence community or an organization under the authority of the DNI, so this is different from all the others in the past and I am aware of So I want to explain how all this came to light recently. Basically, it has been an orchestrated action. effort for over two weeks if we were first informed a week and a half ago and told very specifically that the whistleblower did not want to obtain any of this information, they did not want it to be leaked, so there were only a few potential groups of people who would have known about this complaint. you and your people within your office, yes, sir, the people within the inspector general's office and the whistleblower and whoever that whistleblower is.

I gave you this information, so what I'm trying to determine is how it would work and how all the major media outlets got it, even though they were wrong about a lot of things, but they had the basics that it involved the President of the United States spoke to a foreign leader, anyone too? You or someone in your office leaked this to the Washington Post or NBC News. Remember? I'm leaving the intelligence community. We know how to keep a secret how that got to the press. I didn't really know sir, I just know it's everywhere and like you said it's been reported on by different outlets over the last few weeks where they get their information from.

I don't know, so you know it wasn't like that. It was not from the intelligence community or from me or from my office. Thank you director, so this is not the first time this has happened to this president, what happened with a call between the Mexican president and the Australian prime minister, so it happened twice before the transcripts. it was leaked and of course this time it was leaked again and the president fortunately was able to publish this because of the actions of this situation as you said it is unprecedented is it normal for the current states to have their conversations leaked for the third time .

I would have to leave that up to the White House to respond to that, its ranking member, but to me, the President of the United States' conversation with any other head of state, I would consider it a privileged conversation, but clearly I don't want to. to say that those conversations are being captured by intelligence agencies, so not necessarily, sir. I mean if the president were to say this, they were captured and then released, it would not have been safe for them to be released to the intelligence agencies. I have to be careful that this is open.

Hearing that, you know how I respond to that, the intelligence community and the National Security Agency, obviously, you know they collect things that are to protect. I just want to make sure because I just want to say, are we going to be foreign leaders when Isis? That the president of the United States does not speak to foreign leaders or that we just publish or publish all the transcripts because that is what is happening here with high-ranking members and someone is leaking this and it is probably coming from the agencies that you oversee. Recognize that I am not saying that.

You don't know it, but we had the transcript with a Mexican president, the Australian Prime Minister and now the content of a call with the Ukrainian president has been leaked. Ranking Member, the allegation in the whistleblower's complaint was that there were about 12 people who heard about the conversation, members of the National Security Council and others and then others were informed from the State Department, as well as the transcripts because They have our area responsibilities and a regional responsibility so they would be informed about the interaction, so there were a number of people who since the White House report on the call this would not be such a good thing, I'm calm.

I'm pretty sure this White House probably didn't leak this. I wouldn't say the White House, but there are people inside the White House. That may or may not be, I don't know, but it wouldn't be an intelligence intercept. I'll say it's true, I'm not. I'm just saying that the dissemination, the dissemination of these calls is supposed to be sacred, right, I mean, it is and it's important for the State Department and the appropriate agencies to get it. I'm not saying it's all in the intelligence agency, but when a president talks to a foreign leader, his sensitive content is confidential.

There may be some facts from that conversation that you don't know. I want to get to the appropriate agency, not just not just the IC. I want to be clear about this, but this is the third time that I am not aware of this happening before call content like this is spread. I don't really I don't know, ranking member, I don't know, I don't have the numbers to think about, but it seems to me to be unprecedented and I would also say that I think the president's decision yesterday to release the transcripts of his conversation with the president of Ukraine is probably unprecedented.

I appreciate you being here and having fun. Be careful what you say because they will use these words against you. Well, I tell you what a senior member is an honor for me. here and I wanted to lead down and I appreciate your service to this country for a long time and I'm sure we'll talk again soon hopefully not in public hopefully behind closed doors like it's supposed to be done thank you. A lot to give back, sir. Himes Thank you sir. president director McGuire, thank you for being here and thank you for his deep service in serving his family to this national director.

What I find disconcerting about this whole conversation is that we are not sitting here today and the American public is not aware of the accusations of the president asking for an investigative favor on his political opponent, we are not aware of the shady decision to withhold aid, we are not aware of mr. Giuliani is a parent institution of a State Department staff, we are not aware of possible retaliation against a US ambassador. None of this happens except for the decision of his inspector general Michael Atkinson, a man who was appointed by the President Trump and confirmed by a Republican Senate. coming to this committee seven days after the law required that the complaint be transmitted to us was his decision, a personal decision, not the kaleidoscope of fantabulous conspiracy theories that the ranking member believes is going on here, but it was the decision of Michael Atkinson, a designated person.

For this President to come to this committee not following his advice or any law, but following his own conscience without his decision to do this, none of this is happening correctly. I applaud Michael. I applaud Michaels for the way he has done it, he has performed well. Faith, he has followed the law every step of the way. The question is, Congressman, did he get it or did he not meet the legal definition? No, no, sir. I asked a very different question that was without his decision and it is a simple question without his decision. none of this is happening, that's right, well, we also have to support the whistleblower, so he's fine, and he should have noticed that the whistleblower also deserves the same praise as mr.

Atkinson is a director. Did the White House ever advise you not to bring this complaint to Congress for any reason? No

congress

man is well and, as I understand it, the view was that he was not required to transmit despite the very clear wording of the document. complaint to Congress so the decision was made to defy a subpoena from this Congress the September 17th subpoena to serve the complaint who made the decision to defy that September 17th subpoena congressman urgent concerns sir I'm asking a very simple question who I made the decision to defy the congressional subpoena.

Someone said we will not comply with the subpoena and I would like to know who that someone was. Congressman. Nobody did it. I pushed myself once we no longer had pressing concerns with the seven-day work schedule. To get the information to the committee what I had to do was get work to overcome the obstacles of executive privilege with the White House counsel's office, although this was the most important issue for me, you know, the White House has quite a few others issues that were addressed, you know I would have liked to have said, as I told the president, that maybe this moved a little faster than it did, but this is a very deliberate process and ultimately, you know that yesterday They reached a critical point, so you know, when I received the information on August 26, we had seven days under the Whistleblower Protection Act, all we did was waste those seven days, it may have taken longer than we thought.

We would have liked it, but you would have liked it, but you have the information. so I focus on the subpoena, yes sir, the subpoena is on your desk to subpoena the United States Congress, it is quite clear and what you asked for, you are saying that the decision was never made not to comply with that subpoena. and yet somehow it was not fulfilled. I'm again looking for the decision-making process to ignore a legal subgenre of Congress but I didn't ignore it. I dealt with the chair of this committee and asked to have one more week so I could do what I needed to do to get this information published.

He was very kind on this committee and he was also very supportive of me. It wasn't something he was ready for, but he was completely committed to this committee and to the president. to get that information and I was finally able to provide that yesterday okay, thank you director um director, have you or your office ever spoken to the president of the United States about this complaint, congressman? I'm the president's intelligence officer. I spoke with him several times. times throughout the week sir, let me repeat my question: did you ever talk to the president about this complaint?

My conversations with the president because I am the Director of National Intelligence are privileged and it would be inappropriate for me because it would destroy my relationship with The president on intelligence matters must disclose any of my conversations with the President of the United States, but to be clear that For the record, you are not denying that you spoke with the president about this complaint, what I am saying, Congressman, is that I will not vacate the privileged conversations that I have as Director of National Intelligence with the president. Has the White House instructed you to assert that privilege?

No sir, I just have, he's just a member of the executive committee of an executive branch as a member. of the National Security Council and also angry with the Homeland Committee and you know, I just had to maintain discretion and protect a conversation with the president of the United States, thank you director, I appreciate that response, apparently the clock is broken, but I give in. get the rest of my time back Thank you Congressman Mr. Conaway, I think my president, Admiral, thank you for being here, you and I are at a competitive disadvantage because neither of us are lawyers and that can be a badge of honor for some of us, you have lawyers in your staff circle, I , congressman, myself and your lawyers have taken a hard look at this definition of what you are concerned about and given you advice, yes congressman, if the black letter law was so clear in black letter, how come we have different lawyers?

Since you and I havedifferent opinions, that is a rhetorical question that regarding this topic just to clarify Mike åkesson was in our group in front of us last week he did a very good job of telling us what he did and what he didn't do, now we know for sure what That's what he was able to do as part of his investigation, he didn't request records of the call from the president and the reason he did that is because he mentioned that the difficulty of sorting all that out probably would have meant that they wouldn't be able to meet the 14 days. so even he didn't try to invade White House executive privilege over the conversation the president had with President Izinski.

He also said in his letter. I also determined that this is quoting Michael. I also determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the information related to the urgent concern appeared credible now that is a different statement than a flatly credible statement only it is again a rhetorical statement is there anything in the statute of your attorneys advising you that says that The determination of the urgent concern rests solely with the IC IG, right, sir? My legal advisor never informed me in that regard. As far as you know, the Department of Justice ever intervened to say that the fact that the DNI cannot make a separate decision regarding this seven-day process is that the matter is not a virgin concern when you and your team they decided that matter of urgent concern is a legally defining term, it's pretty much yes or no, apparently that's not the case, so bad because IG said yes and you're saying it's not under that legal definition. because it involved the president, he's last time I checked, you're pretty familiar with changing command, I know he's not in your chain of command, he's not in your chain of command, you're in his chain of command, so why not? very definite reasons. seems credible, does not meet the statutory definition of urgent concern regarding IG protections for whistleblowers and your team made that call this General Specter made a different call no, no sir, my team is a rubbish, the directive was the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel who made the determination that it was not an urgent concern, all we wanted to do was just check and see and it seemed prudent to me with the matter at hand right now to be able to make sure that in fact, he did and when he didn't, I want to say again that I went out of my way to bring that information to this committee, so just to clarify the role that that Inspector General had with respect to the department of justice .

I heard him say that he was involved. in the conversations he allowed you to present your case, but he also said that you gave him the letter and you gave a letter to the Department of Justice what was your exact involvement in presenting your case to the Department of Justice and their decision because they are actually present physically or their lawyers. As far as I know, the IC IGS transmittal letter as well as the complainant's complaint were sent to the legal counsel's office for determination. I think that's what they based their opinion of him on "he's fine," so they don't think he had a role for them.

If I'm wrong, I'll go back to the committee and correct that, sir. Okay, I appreciate that difficult point. I appreciate its long history. I apologize if your integrity. It was an assault that happens in this field many times justified in most of the times no and yours insulted your integrity it was not justified of interest the fact that we have differences of opinion when we begin to lose those differences of opinion we begin to attack each other other names of each and that type of thing, so my experience is when you have a legal matter I have lawyers I have I pay you have lawyers you pay a stable usually stick with the lawyers I'm paying And then you get good legal advice on this issue and a really difficult situation when you want to make sure that this whistleblower is protected, but at the same time, if there was in fact something wrong here, it would be to get as much information out as possible.

I clearly understand, thank you for your service and I thank you very much in return, Congressman Masu. Thank you, mr. President and Director McGuire, thank you very much for being here. I want to address what I fear may be one of the most damaging long-term effects of this episode of whistleblowing, and that is the chilling effect it will have on other members of the government who may witness it. misconduct, but now you may be afraid to report it, sir. I am concerned that government employees and contractors may see how important this situation has been and decide that the fact that a whistleblower followed all the steps is not worth the risk. proper procedures for reporting misconduct and then the Department of Justice and the White House appear to have intervened to keep the complaint hidden.

It's problematic, sir. I want to know whether or not you see how problematic this will be and will have a chilling effect on the members of I See that you are sworn to represent and ostensibly protect the congresswoman. I think that's a fair assessment. I don't disagree with what she said. I've been trying hard to convey to the intelligence community my support for whistleblowers, and I'm pretty sure that for at least two hours this morning there aren't many people in the intelligence community who are doing anything productive other than getting this right, so I think my concern is valid that, in fact, what has happened with this whistleblowing episode will have a chilling effect.

Indeed, I also want to ask you: have you instructed this whistleblower that he or she may in fact appear before the head of Congress when the president called the whistleblower a political pirate and suggested that he or she was potentially disloyal to the country? He remains silent, I'm not sure why, but I also think it adds to the chilling effect. The statute seems pretty clear that everyone has a role to play. The process is pretty clear and part of it also includes you leading the process. whistleblower of his protected rights, can you confirm that you have indicated to that whistleblower that he can appear before Congress?

Well, congressman, there are several questions, one of them I do not know the identity of the complainant, now that the complaint has arrived. Going forward, we are working with his lawyer to be able to provide them with security clearance. I think it's pretty good. My question is quite simple. Can you assure this committee and the American public that the whistleblower is authorized to speak before the committee in full confidence? Whistleblowing Act protections can you confirm that that is a yes or no question at this point? I'm working on that with the president and to the best of my ability, I think the president is asking for the whistleblower to come forward and I'm working on it. with advice from the committee to support that, can you assure the American public that the end result will be that the whistleblower will be able to come before this committee and Congress and have all the protections of the whistleblower, after all, what is the whistleblower a statue for? ? if not to provide that complete protection against retaliation against the litigating congressman, I am doing my best to endeavor to support that the lady will relent.

Yes, doctor, I have your assurance that once you obtain security clearances for the Whistleblower Council, that whistleblower will be able to. that they relate all the facts within their knowledge, that they are concerned about irregularities committed by the President or anyone else, that he or she is not inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there is no White House watchdog or anywhere else sitting next to them telling them what they can answer not answer Do I have your assurance that the complainant will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protection of the law?

Yes, congressman, thank you. I surrender to the gentleman, so mr. Director, I also wanted to understand what you are going to do to try to ensure the confidence of the employees and contractors that you represent to assure the American people that, in fact, the whistleblower statute is being adequately respected and that no further efforts will be made. to obstruct an opportunity for a whistleblower who has observed misconduct to actually get justice, congressman, yes, supporting and leading the membrane and women of intelligence committed to my top priority. I don't consider them working for me as Director of National Intelligence, I think. that I, sir, just want to say and put on record that this will have a chilling effect and that is not exactly what the statute was intended for, it was intended for transparency, it was intended to be intended and also to provide the complainant with certain protections and I think the American people deserve it.

Thank you, Congressman, Mr. Turner, director, thank you for being here, thank you for your service and the clarity with which you have described the deliberations that you went through and the application of the laws regarding this complaint, it is incredibly admirable the way you who has addressed this. I have read the complaint and I have read the transcript of the conversation with the president and the president of Ukraine about that conversation. I want to tell the president that this is not right, it's not that the conversation is not right and I think it's disappointing for the American public when they read the transcript.

I can say what else is not, is not what is in the complaint, now we have the complaint and the transcript and people can read that the accusations in the complaint and the complaint are not the accusations that are the subject of this conversation, what else is not It's, it's not the conversation that was in the President's opening statement as the President spoke. In fact, someone texted me. Was he making this up? Yes, yes, he did it because sometimes fiction is better than real words or text. Fortunately, the American public is smart and has the transcript, read the conversation, and knows. when someone is making it up now, we have seen this movie before we have been here all year litigating the impeachment long before the July 25 conversation between the president and the president of Ukraine occurred and we have heard the clicks of the cameras .

In this intelligence committee room where we have not focused on the issues of national security threats but on the calls and the impeachment, which is really an assault on the electorate, not only as president, now the complaint that we have now It's Mr. The director is based on rumors, the person who wrote it says that I talked to people and they told me these things. Part of the American public has the transcript of the complaint, so they have the ability to compare them. What is clear about the complaint is that it is based on political issues, sir. . director, he is alleging or she is alleging that the president's actions were political in nature, now that is my concern about how this applies to the whistleblowing statute.

The whistleblowing statute is intended to better give those in the intelligence community the opportunity to go to Congress when they are concerned about abuses of powers and laws, but this is about the intelligence community, this is about abuse of surveillance , the abuse of the espionage mechanisms that we have, it is the product of surveillance, someone has had access to surveillance. He recounted the president's conversations and brought us closer. I would like you to come back for a moment and tell us your thoughts on the whistleblowing process and the concerns about why it has to be there so that the intelligence community can be held accountable and we can have oversight because you certainly weren't there to oversee the president, but to oversee the intelligence community, so if you could describe your thoughts on that, I was very interested in your discussion, but on the question of executive privilege because there has been a lot of talk about the fact that the law says in the statute of whistleblower that clearly there will be a conflict of laws when you have both the executive privilege issue and the shell word issue, so first could you tell us the importance of the whistleblowing statute with respect to the accountability of the intelligence community and our supervisory role as you process the effects of being caught in the middle where you have these conflicts of laws, mr. congressional director the intelligence community The Whistleblower Protection Act must apply to the Intelligence Committee and then with respect to financial, administrative or operational activities within the intelligence community under the supervision and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence, does not allow than a member of the intelligence community to report any irregularities coming from any part of the federal government in writing, and with that I believe it is intelligence.

The Whistleblower Protection Act was the best vehicle that the whistleblower had to use, they came to me and I discussed it with Ric IG, who is a colleague, and the decision was made, you know he believed that it was, in fact, credible and that it was a matter of urgent concern and I thought it would be prudent to have another opinion. I have worked with attorneys throughout my career, whether onthe rules of armed conflict, Admiralty claims or rules of engagement or just the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and I have found that different lawyers have different opinions on the same issue, we have nine Supreme Court justices.

In court most of the time the opinions of five four that does not mean that five were right and four are wrong there are differences of opinion but when this matter came to me I have a lot of life experience and I realized the importance of the matter that is before us this morning and I thought it would be prudent for me to make sure what that statute actually meant before I submitted it under the whistleblower protection law and I hope that answers your question, say that as an aside. I want to mention that my colleague is right on both counts, not right, but also my summary of the president's call was intended to be at least partly on parity, the fact that that is not clear is a separate problem in itself Of course, the president never said, if you don't understand me, I'm going to save you seven times as much.

My point is that that is the message that the president of Ukraine was receiving and not so many words, Mr. Carson Thank you Chairman Schiff Thank you Director McGuire for your service Director McGuire this appears to be the first intelligence community whistleblower complaint that has ever been retained before Congress, that is true Mr. Congressman Carson, I believe it could be and once more I said in my statement, in fact, as far as I am concerned, it is unprecedented, it is unprecedented, sir, do you know why it is unprecedented? I think it's because the law that Congress wrote this same committee couldn't be clearer, it says that upon receiving such an urgent complaint from the Inspector General, you, the Director of National Intelligence, must send it to the Intel committees within seven days with no ifs or buts and even when the IG has determined that the complaints are not an urgent concern or even credible.

The office has consistently and uniformly transmitted those complaints to the intelligence committees, it is true, Mr. Congressman Carson, in the past, even if they were not a matter of urgent concern or if they were not credible, they were forwarded, but in each and every of the cases before this. in involved members of the intelligence community who serve in organizations under the control of the DNI this is different because he did not meet those two criteria director has executive privilege sir in his mind or the laws that regulate the intelligence community are preempted or deny even the laws that safeguard the security of America's democratic elections and its democracy itself, Mr.

President, of course, and yet not, despite this unequivocal mandate and the consistent practice of your office, you withheld this urgent complaint before Congress under the direction of the White House and the Department of Justice they follow their orders rather than the law and if the Inspector General had not brought this complaint to our attention, you and the Trump administration could have gotten away with this action without precedents, sir, yesterday issued a statement affirming your oath. to the Constitution and your dedication to the rule of law, but I'm having trouble understanding how that statement can be true in light of the facts here, can you explain that to us, Mr.

Congressman Carson, a couple of things that the White House didn't do? They told me to withhold the information and the Legal Counsel Office did not do so either. That opinion has not been classified and has been disseminated. The question came down to an urgent concern, which is a legal definition does not mean if it is important if it is timely and urgent the concern met certain criteria that we have discussed several times here so we did not do it and all you did sir was simply remove the seven days now as I said before The fact that it has not been sent to this committee does not mean that it has not received a response, the IC IG and the Department of Justice referred it to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for investigation, so this is not nothing and that was working while I struggled to get the executive privilege concerns. addressed so that it can then be forwarded was not an obstruction I did not receive instructions from anyone I was just trying to follow the process and the law as it is written I have to comply the way the law is not the way some people would like me to If it were so and if Ike could have done otherwise, the position of congressman and ultimately director would have been much more suitable for me as you sit here today, sir, will you commit to providing each and every whistleblower complaint? intended for Congress to the intelligence committees as required by the statute, sir, if the statute requires it, Congressman Carson, yes, I will, that's good to know, sir, and I certainly hope so because I believe that the unprecedented decision to withhold this whistleblower complaint to Congress I think raises very serious concerns for us and I and I think we have to get to the bottom of this.

I give up the rest of my time President, thank you, thank you, Congressman Carson, thank you, how much time does the gentleman have left? 27, well, director, you were not ordered to retain the The complaint is that his testimony yes, that is absolutely true, so he exercises his discretion to retain the complaint before the committee. I didn't, sir, what I did was delay it because it didn't meet the legal definition of urgent concern and I was working in director, you are aware that you spent a lot of time focusing on the definition of urgent concern, you are aware that the practice of your office has been that, regardless of whether the complaint meets the definition of urgent concern, regardless of whether the inspector general found it credible or incredible the complaint is always presented to our committee you know that's the unbroken practice since the establishment of your office and the inspector general are you aware of that president every previous whistleblower complaint that was sent to the intelligence committees involved a member of the intelligence community and an organization under which the Director of National Intelligence had authority and responsibility , but you are aware that the past practice has been that we are talking about a pressing concern here that, whether you or the inspector general, everyone else believes that it meets the legal definition the past practice has always been to give it to this committee, you are aware of that right, I am aware that this is unprecedented, it is okay and this for everyone, and with that, sir, I agree, this has never happened before, but again, this is a unique situation, but its director made the decision to retain him from the committee for a month when the White House had not claimed executive privilege when the Justice Department said it did not have to give it to him, but can he make the decision not to do so?

It's not true, sir, what the Office of Legal Counsel said that it doesn't meet the legal definition of urgent concerns, so they said you're not obligated, they didn't say you can't provide it, they said "you're not obligated to that." It's that if you don't want we're not going to force you, you're not obligated, but he didn't say you can't, I'm right, what is it, what did he allow me and I said that in my opening statement, but it was still referred to the FBI for verification. investigation and I was trying to get the information to you, Mr.

President, but I couldn't follow it as a member of the executive branch without executive privilege being addressed and I feel like the White House counsel was doing the best he could to get it and he took it. longer than I would have liked, for sure, but that came to a conclusion yesterday with the release of the transcripts and because the transcripts were released, there was no longer a situation of executive privilege and then I was free to send both the long-awaited letter. presentation of the general complaint to his doctor. At no time was there any intention on my part, sir, to withhold information from you as chairman of this committee or director of Senate Intelligence.

I wish I had the confidence to know, but for this hearing, but for the deadline that we were forced to With this broadcast we would have been given that complaint, but I don't know if we would have ever seen that complaint, Dr. Winstram. Thank you, Mr. President and I thank you, Mr. McGuire for being here today, you know, I think it's a shame that we started this hearing with fictitious comments, the implication of a conversation that took place between a president and a foreign leader, putting in words that didn't exist, aren't in the transcript and I will maintain that they were intentionally unclear and the President described it as a parody and I do not think this is the time or place for parody when we try to look for facts or those who were involved in the conversation.

I agree with the parody that the President gave us and unfortunately today many innocent Americans are going to turn on their televisions and the media is only going to show that section of what the President said, but I am also happy to know that many Americans have seen this movie too many times and they are tired of it, but let me answer some questions sir, if I may, I will allow you to go to the word credible, credible does not mean proven to be true or factual, would that be correct in this situation. I don't find that I fail in his logic, Congressman, okay, so he knows that the interpretation was credible, but it was also that decision made by the IG before seeing the transcript of the conversation.

I think the IC IG carried out the investigation to the best of their ability and found their ability. ability that based on the evidence and discussing it with the complainant, he thought it was actually credible, but the IG didn't necessarily have the transcript of the conversation, okay, that's my question, so on another point, you know One of the issues that arose from the Russia investigation in the last Congress was a question about the freedom given to the president of the United States to conduct foreign affairs in 2017. I asked then-CIA Director Brennan how he viewed statements made by President Obama to Russian President Medvedev about having more flexibility to negotiate after his 2012 election and President Medvedev responded that he would pass the information on to Vladimir and that Medvedev was with President Obama who was in an open audience.

Director Brennan did not accept my question and insisted on not answering due to the fact that the conversation was between the heads of government, that is what he said, he also stated that he was avoiding getting involved in partisan political issues, which brings me to a question related to this whistleblower complaint. You said this executive privilege is unbreakable and I think that's consistent with the CIA. Director Brennan was implying that Congress is just the White House and the president can waive executive privilege. The president exercises a productive privilege and only the White House and the president can resign.

That director Brennan gave me the impression that that was the rule. That's the law. so I'll have to accept that, but do you really think the president has the right to withhold his communications to Congress if the conversation is used in a whistleblowing case? I think that the president when he carries out diplomatic activities and deals with foreign heads of state says that he has every right to be able to have that information within the White House and the executive branch and yes yesterday I think that the transmission of the call is unprecedented and I also think that other future leaders when they interact with our Chief State members might be more cautious in what they say and reduce the interaction they have with the president because of that release, so we may need to change our process here because I suppose if a decision is made on executive privilege, perhaps it should be made before it is presented. the communication to Congress well, I think this committee drafted the law and based on what we are doing today, you know, maybe it needs to be reviewed, I don't know, I leave that to the legislative branch, so also if necessary. to change the process, you know, the 14 days can be difficult to meet, so I think maybe you know that this is an unprecedented

special

circumstance, maybe there should be some wiggle room in the deadline instead of the tight 14 days and me and I don't.

I don't know if you know, did you feel or did the IG ever say that they felt rushed into making a decision because of the 14 day process? No congressman. I think he is a very experienced inspector general and is used to dealing with the 14-day process. and when you're working under a schedule like that, he worked with his staff and I think he did his best because he was following the statute as he believed it was written, so I think any prudent attorney would like to have more time to be able to gather the facts and do other things, but Michael Atkinson was under the 14-day schedule and did his best to meet it.

Did he feel pressured in any way, sir? I didn't thank him. I give up. Thank you, Congressman, Miss Beer. Thank my Lord. President and thank you Director Maguire for his extraordinarily long service to our country. At any time during this process did you personally threaten to resign if the complaint was notWas it delivered to the committee? No congressman. I didn't and I know that story has seemed quite a bit and yesterday I issued a statement okay thank you when you read the complaint were you surprised by what you read? Congressman speaker women excuse me they said I had a life experience.

I joined the Navy. I understand your history. Could you tell me what I said? I know I realized the importance of the impeachment and I also have to tell a congresswoman when I saw that I anticipated having to sit in front of some committee for some time to discuss it. Well, the complaint relates. to what happened after the July 25 conversation between the president of Ukraine and the president of the United States and White House lawyers ordered other staff to move the transcript from its typical repository to a more secure location to lock it and that was the term used in the complaint, all records of the phone call you made, that reaction to the transcript seems to you like an acknowledgment within the White House that the call was completely inappropriate, Congressman, I have no firsthand knowledge of That, all I have knowledge of is that the The complainant alleges in his allegation the complainant's complaint.

I don't know if that's true or not. My only knowledge and understanding of the situation comes from the complainant's letter, so I know that the complainant appeared to be credible based on the Inspector's assessment. General and knowing that that effort was made by the White House to cover it up, why then, as the first action outside the intelligence community, would it properly go to the White House, to the same entity that was being examined and that complained in the complaint? Why would you go there to ask them for advice on what you should do, Congressman? The accusation made by the complainant is second-hand information that he or she does not know first-hand, except for Mr.

McGuire, he was determined to be credible, there was an investigation by the Inspector General, let me move on to another topic, a President Trump tweeted over the weekend, it appears that an American spy in one of our intelligence agencies may have been spying on our own president. Do you believe that the whistleblower was spying on one of our intelligence agencies or spying on the President, as I have said several times so far this morning? I believe the whistleblower complied with the law and did everything he thought was responsible under the intelligence community protects whistleblowers, but she did not speak up to protect the whistleblower, do you, Congressman, yes, sir, no, sir?

I did it, yes I did it within my own workforce. I thought there were enough things that appeared in the press that were wrong. absolutely incorrect and I didn't think I needed to respond to every single statement that was out there that was incorrect, so what I did was my ideas to my workforce. I appreciate that the president also said on Monday who this alleged whistleblower is. Who knows the correct facts? Is he on the side of our country? Do you believe that the complainant is on the side of our country? I believe that the whistleblower and all employees who come forward to the IC IG to raise concerns about fraud, waste and abuse are doing what they perceive to be the right thing, so working on behalf of our country, are you aware of the fact that whistleblowers within the federal government have identified more than $59 billion in fraud and abuse that has had the effect of benefiting taxpayers and keeping our country safe as well?

Congresswoman I'm not familiar with the dollar value, but having been in government service for nearly four decades, I am well aware of the value of being grateful for our program. Let me ask you one last question. Did the President of the United States ask you to find out the identity of the whistleblower, although I would not normally discuss my conversations with the President. I can tiresomely tell you that no one else inside the White House or the Justice Department has asked me, "You know, Congressman, thank you." Welcome then mr. Mr. Sir. McGuire, thank you for being here today.

I want you to know that the good

news

is that I will not treat you like a child and I will give you the opportunity to answer your questions if I ask you something. I want to thank you for your service and I would like you to remind me that you said it before. How many years of military service do you have? I have 36 years of service in the United States Navy, 34 of them as a Navy SEAL. Okay, that's great. 36 years. 34 years as a Navy SEAL. I had just 14 years as an Air Force pilot. I wear these Air Force wings with pride.

These are actually. In my father's Air Force wings, he served in the military and also had five of his children, and for someone who hasn't served in the military, I don't think he realizes how deeply offensive it is for him to question his honor and his integrity. in this committee have done exactly that, they have accused him of violating the law and I am going to read only a part of many that I could from the President, this raises serious concerns that his office, along with the Department of Justice and possibly the White House will has engaged in an illegal effort to protect the president and there are others that I was able to read because they have sought to destroy his character, so I will give you the opportunity to answer very clearly: are you motivated by politics in your work? or her professional behavior if she were Mr.

Copas. Is she motivated by politics in her work or her professional behavior? not a congressman okay I'll just leave it I'm not I'm not a politician I'm NOT a partisan and I did He doesn't seem to be sitting here as Acting Director of National Intelligence. I thought maybe there were other people who would be better and more qualified to do it, but the president asked me to do it and it was an honor for me to step forward and for the Well, for a long time I'm doing it to lead and support to the intelligence community.

Okay thanks. Do you believe you have followed laws, policies and precedents in the way you have handled this complaint? I know, I know. I have you. in some way I sought to protect the President or any other person from any crime. What I have done is not strive to follow the law. Thank you. Do you believe you had a legal responsibility to follow the Office of Legal Counsel's guidelines? The opinion. of the Office of Legal Counsel is binding on the executive branch. Thank you. There's been a big deal about the fact that this is the first whistleblower complaint that's been withheld in Congress, but it's also true, isn't it? who is the first complainant.

The complaint that potentially falls under executive privilege and is also the first time that it includes information that was potentially outside the authority of the DNI is true, as far as I know, Congressman, that's correct, that's fine and I will tell my colleagues that sitting here I think he's crazy if he thinks he's going to convince the American people that the causes of him just attacking this man and impugning his character when it's clear he felt there was a discrepancy in the possible deficiency of the law in which he was. trying to do the right thing, he felt obligated by the law to do exactly what he did, and yet the tone here is that somehow you're a political puppet who's done nothing but try to protect the president.

I just think that's crazy and anyone watching this hearing will surely come away with the clear impression that you are a man of integrity who did what you thought was right regardless of the questions and insinuations of some of my colleagues sitting here today. I liked one more thing before. I give up my time. I think we can agree that leaks are illegal and that leaks are harmful and for goodness sake we've seen a lot of that in the last three years and there is a long list of leaks that have had clear implications for our security national. significant implications for our national security I want to know if you know who is providing information to the press about this case and if you have made any referrals to the Department of Justice for illegal disclosures.

Yes sir, you know? Do you know who is providing information on this case? case no, okay, I don't think, do you think it would be appropriate to make a referral to the Department of Justice to try to determine that I think anyone who witnesses or sees any wrongdoing should refer any wrongdoing or complaint to the Department? of Justice for an investigation, including an investigation into leaks that are called classified information, yes, congressman, any irregularity, okay, I don't know what time it is because our clock is not working. I guess I ran out of time, but I would conclude by emphasizing once.

Again, good luck convincing the American people that this is a dishonorable man sitting here. Good luck convincing the American people that he has done anything but what he believes is right and if you think that gives political points to his friends who have wanted to impeach this president. the day he was elected then continue on that path. Thank you, congressman, I would just say director, no one has accused you of being a political stooge or dishonorable, no one has said that, no one has suggested that you believe it is correct, it is certainly ours. A strong opinion and we hope it is shared by the minority that when Congress says something should be done, it will be done and when that involves bad actions by the president it is not an exception to the requirement of the statute and the fact that this whistleblower has been abandoned for weeks has been attacked by the president it should concern all of us, Democrats and Republicans, that this was ever allowed to happen, that such serious and urgent accusations were withheld as long as they were from this committee that should concern us all but no one is suggesting There is a disgrace here but in any case we are going to insist that the law be respected, sir. president, could mr.

Quigley thanks to mr. president, thank you sir for your service and for being here, as you know, those in public life who work and deal with other countries, ambassadors, secretaries of state, many in the intelligence field, are vetted, they go for approval before the Senate, they have to get authorization. and you understand the political reasons for that right, yes, congressman, do you have a problem with civilians without approval, without investigation, without authorization, assuming those roles? Yes I do congressman and why would you have those concerns to be fair to be able to handle sensitive information whether diplomatic or certainly intelligence information one must be vetted this is the important part of preventive measures to protect security national and so we can't bring people in and automatically wave a magic wand to put holy olive water on them to give them a security clearance it's a matter of investigation for me to return to government the FBI went back for 15 years and my background They examined all my financial records to make sure that I was in fact worthy of having an intelligence clearance and we do the same with the intelligence community everyone who is subject or everyone who has privileges has access to intelligence information it is a sacred trust the American people expect us to keep them safe as I said before in order to do that we need to make sure that anyone who has access to this confidential information of the United States has been thoroughly vetted to ensure that they can handle it and it's not just about the issues of Intel, but also of national policy issues that people have an official role that they play on behalf of the United States and we know what their correct role is.

Yes, congressman. What is your understanding at this point of what mr. Giuliani's role is that of mr. Congressman Congressman Quigley I respectfully just referred to the White House to comment on the president's personal attorney. Well, so far what I have stated, you see, she is his personal attorney, we read in the complaint that we read in this modified transcript, she mentions it five times. his reaction to the fact that this civilian without any of these investigations has played this role, no sir, all I'm saying is that I know what the accusations are. I am not saying that the allegations are true and that is where the committee does not.

I do not think there is any doubt about the credibility of the complaint because in the transcript the president mentions and speaks highly of mr. Giuliani a very respected man was the mayor of New Yorker Graber I would like you to call him I will ask you to call him along with the Attorney General his plainclothes reaction to these in the complaint speaks to our national security that the The generals of the command spectrum They talk about this as the highest responsibility among those that the DNI has and obviously Mr. As far as you know, Giuliani is playing this role.

Does he have security clearance? I don't know congressman quickly. I don't know or not if mr. Giuliani has a security clearance before all of this happened. Were you aware of his role or did you understand what his role was? Doing what he does, Congressman Quigley, my only knowledge of what Mr. Giuliani, I have to be honest with you. I receive information from television and the media. I'm not aware of what actuallydoes for the president. Are you aware of any communication from Mr. Giuliani and his office about how he should proceed with this paper, given the classified nature, the national security implications that are in the complaint, that are in the transcript of the paper which is performing well.

I have read the transcripts just as you have. My knowledge of his activity there is limited simply to the conversation that the President had with the President of Ukraine, so we respect his role and, although we have differences of opinion, we continue to respect his integrity and his honor, but we have this large number. of experience he has and we need to understand how that juxtaposes with the complaint I'm reading: An OMB official informed departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. His reaction to that congressman is fine.

I quickly believe that everything that has to do with the president's lawyer on these issues should be referred to the White House and the president for that I have just read the complaint that I lead and support the intelligence community and the 17 different departments and agencies Under my leadership, I do not direct the president and I have no authority or responsibility over the White House, but you are aware, with all your experience, of the fact that we have this relationship with Ukraine that they depend on. us and that this complaint does not concern him, he cannot say that publicly that it concerns him, there are many things that concern me, I am the Director of National Intelligence and he is here, although I only have to give in to him.

The conversation that the President had is his conversation about how the president wants to carry out diplomacy is his business and it is not whether I approve or not, that is the president's business on how he wants to carry out that, sir, the issue is if he commits a crime and that bothers him. The sir's time is up. The director can complete his response if he wishes. Excuse me, sir. If you would like to respond, you can, I'm not fine. Thank you, president, sir. Fogg Thank you sir. McGuire, thank you for being here, we appreciate your life of public service.

My question relates to, before the transmission of the 26th from the IG to the DNI, was there any conversation you had with the IG before August 26th related to this matter, congressman. There have been many things that have happened. in the last few weeks as far as the timeline goes. I think I would like to take that and come back to you and give you a complete chronology, if possible, on the actual timeline of events that would occur. very helpful to this committee in terms of whether there were preliminary conversations about what was discussed and whether any action was taken as a result of those conversations.

I want to move on to the complaint itself, which is being made public to the American public. please read and let me start by saying that I very much appreciate your statement that you believe the whistleblower is operating in good faith. I think it's very important for Americans to hear it, but on page one, and I'm not going to improvise for parody purposes like the chairman of this committee, I'm going to quote it directly on page one, the complaint says quote, I was not a direct witness. From most of the events described, this seems like a very important line to investigate and I think the American public will have questions in particular about that line, so my question to you is for the record: did the IG thoroughly investigate the allegations of this complaint at this time?

The general did an exhaustive investigation within the 14-day period he had and, within that period, to the best of his ability, he determined that it was credible and urgent. I have no reason to doubt that Michael Atkinson did anything other than his work. So when you talk about a full investigation that looked into the veracity of the allegations in the complaint, there were a lot of references to White House officials. Do you know if the IG spoke to those White House officials? Do you know if he investigated the veracity of these again? evaluations or was it a preliminary investigation congressman would have to defer to the IG answer you about that but everyone I don't know although I don't know the identity of the complainant I do know that Michael Atkinson actually had you I know I discussed this with the complainant and found that his complaint was credible as to who else he spoke to.

I'm not aware of what happened in Michael Atkinson's investigation into this matter, so as of today he is the only person we know the IG spoke to. esauthentication is the complainant is the author and the complainant is the congresswoman what I'm saying I don't know who else Michael åkesson could have spoken to. I'm just not familiar with your investigation process and everyone you spoke to in this regard, thank you for the response officially again for the American public, you will have many questions as you read this complaint today and because on the page One says without direct knowledge, I think it is very important that we have answers to the questions of people who do have direct knowledge and with that I thank you, Congressman, Mr. swallow Thank you mr.

McGuire, do you agree that the definition of a cover-up is an attempt to prevent people from discovering a crime? Let's say it's close. I mean, I'm sure there are others, but I don't disagree with that, sir, and in the whistleblowers' complaint, the whistleblower alleges that immediately after the president's call with the president of Ukraine on July 25, the White House lawyers acted quickly to order White House officials to move the electronic transcripts from a computer system where they were normally stored to a secret classified information system, that's right, Congressman Laxmi sir. I apologize to Congress is that what was a legend in Lord's post congressman complains yes or no, oh sure, all I know is that they are the accusations that they would be asking me, that is what is alleged, that is the indictment and you read that indictment and the The first people you go to after reading that indictment are the White House lawyers who tell the White House officials that they see this transcript and move it into a compartmentalized secret system.

The first people you go to, well, let's say a couple of things. yes or no yes but well then I am going to continue here so that you receive this complaint inspector general says urgent credible you have no room for maneuver not to go to Congress and instead you send your concern to the issue of the complained to the White House, That's what the White House told you after you sent your concern about privilege, did they tell you to go to the Department of Justice? We, my team, my attorney, in consultation with the intelligence community, the Inspector General went to the legal affairs office. advice like that and then we were not told to do that, we and mr.

McGuire, you said this did not involve ongoing intelligence activities; However, the whistleblower says this is not the first time the president's transcripts with foreign leaders were improperly moved to an intelligence community codeword system. It's just that part of the allegation, I think, is in the letter and I'll let the letter speak for itself, sir, well, what can also speak for itself is that if a transcript of the foreign leader is incorrectly moved into a system classification of the intelligence community that would actually imply its responsibilities, it is true, it is not necessarily so. No, it is not under my authority and responsibility and, again, this is an allegation that has been made, it does not necessarily mean that it is a true statement and that the allegation was determined to be urgent by the inspector general.

Incredible, it's true, yes, it was. You would also like to know, considering that you are the Director of National Intelligence and the transcripts are being moved to a secret intelligence system, if other transcripts perhaps could be the president's phone calls with Vladimir Putin with MBS of Saudi Arabia or Air Dewan from Turkey. or kim jeong-hoon, would you like to know if those were also moved improperly because the president is trying to cover something up, congressman, how the White House, the executive office of the president and then the National Security Council conduct their affairs? Well, it's actually your business to protect America's secrets.

True, it's all ours, but so is this committee and if there are cover-up activities because the president is inappropriately working with a foreign government that could compromise American secrets. Is that right, Congressman? an allegation of a cover-up, I'm sure it's an investigation and before this committee it could lend credence or just prove that, but right now all we have is an allegation, an allegation of second-hand information from a whistleblower. I am Donora's knowledge or yes or no. that is true an accurate statement the opinion of the Department of Justice that you relied on said that you are not responsible for preventing foreign interference in elections you have that right that was the opinion that the general counsel's office made had more than 11 pages not the opinion that defines and explains addressed your official for not complying with urgent are you responsible for preventing electoral interference?

His priority, although yes, is fine, so this complaint also alleges extortion with a foreign government by the president of the United States involving a dishonest actor, Mr. Quigley noted that he has no authorization or authority under the United States and a White House effort to move the transcript of this call to a secret system is that right, at least that's what congressman supposedly. I believe election security is my most fundamental priority. However, this complaint focused on a conversation between the president and another foreign leader, not on election security, thank you again, thank you Congressman, and if that conversation involved the president requesting help in the form of intervention in our election, it is not a issue of interference in our election president, once again, this was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

You know, I get it, but you're not suggesting that the president is somehow immune to laws that exclude the US person from seeking foreign help in an American election. What I'm saying is that no one, none of us are above the law in this country? Herdin, thank you President Almirante, it is a pleasure to be here with you. I tell all my friends all the time that I've received more surveillance as a member of Congress and as an undercover CIA officer, and I think you've gotten more arrows shot at you, you know, since you've been DNI than in your almost four years. decades on the battlefield.

A specific question. The letter that is contained in the whistleblower packet is actually dated August 12 and I recognize that this may be a better question. I will ask the IC IG that letter is dated August 12 and is for the chairman of this and the Select Committee on Intelligence from him and the chairman of this committee. Do you know if the whistleblower provided that letter to those two presidents at the same time as the IC IG I? Congressman, as I said before, I believe the whistleblower and the IC IG acted in good faith and followed the law every step of the way.

Well, well, good copy, we've talked about what the law is about the whistleblower status. will share if it is decided that it is an urgent concern; However, best practice has always been to share, regardless of whether that urgent concern sees any reason for a negative impact on the intelligence community if that legislation were changed to say that all whistleblower complaints must be shared with the committee, that's correct and in addition to that congressman, I mean, let's say the allegation was made against a member of this committee. I know that the members of this committee, even though you are on the Intelligence Committee, are not members of the intelligence community and as DNI I have no authority or responsibility over this committee, but my question is: do you think that if all the complaints that were presented to the Inspector General's intelligence community were always shared with this committee, would that have any impact on intelligence actions? because I don't know why when those statutes were written they didn't say that everything should be shared instead of just urgent concerns and my question to you, as the head of the intelligence community, do you think if we changed that law, that would have been the case? impact on intelligence actions.

I don't think you can change a law to cover all the things that can happen. I think we have a good law. I think it is well written. However, as I said, Congressman, this is unprecedented and a unique situation. Why that is, that's why we're sitting here this morning, for sure, and I hope we're not in this position again. However, if we find ourselves in this position again, I want to ensure that there is no uncertainty about when the information should be provided. As far as I'm concerned personally, Congressman, no, I'm not aware of that and I don't know if anyone within the odni is aware that I just don't know the answer to that at any point and I apologize for a lot of these legal questions that may Better to go to someone else, but I feel like you have a perspective on when the OLC office operates. advisorylegislative legal legal advice excuse a guide that nullifies the laws passed by Congress the legal counsel office does not nullify the laws passed by Congress what it does is approve a legal opinion for those of us who are in the executive branch and the office of legal advice The lawyer's legal opinion is binding on everyone within the executive branch.

Good copy. I have two final questions and I'll ask them together to give you time to answer them. What is your assessment of what intelligence operations will be like in general? shocked by this latest episode and when I talk about the episode I am referring to the media circus, the political circus, the technical issues related to this revelation by the whistleblower. You alluded to it in some of your previous questions, but I would like to get your assessment on how this may affect intelligence operations in the future and I think this is the first time that you have testified before Congress in your correct position and, in the end , I would appreciate it.

I know this is a little off topic, what do you think are our biggest challenges and threats? to this country as Director of National Intelligence, well, let me answer the last part. I think the biggest challenge we face is not necessarily, you know, the kinetic attack or with Russia, China, Iran or North Korea, I think the biggest. The challenge we have is to ensure that we maintain the integrity of our electoral system. We know it right now. You know that there are foreign powers that are trying to make us question the validity of whether our law is valid or not.

First of all, I believe that protecting the sanctity of our election within the United States, whether national, city, state, local, is perhaps the most important job we have with the intelligence community, other than that, we face significant threats, I would say number one. it's not necessarily kinetic but cyber, this is a cyber world that we talk about if the great competition is going on with Russia and China and we know that we are building ships and weapons to do it, but in my opinion the great competition with these countries is is taking place right now and is doing that in the cyber animal, my time is, I think, outside of the broader implications on intelligence operations of this current whistleblowing situation, well, I'll tell you in the light Of this, I clearly have a lot of work as a leader of this community to reassure Mike to assure the intelligence community that, in fact, they know that we are fully committed to the whistleblowing program and I am absolutely committed to protecting the anonymity of this individual, as well as making sure that Michael Atkinson, who is our IC IG, continues to be able to do his job without restrictions, but I think with that I certainly have to be proactive in my communications with my team, Mr.

President I return to you the time that mr. may not have. Castro Thank you president Thank you director Maguire for your testimony today. I also want to thank the complainant for having the courage and bravery to come forward on behalf of the nation. Thanks to mr. Atkinson also to the Inspector General for his bravery and when appearing before Congress you mentioned that you believe the whistleblowers' report is credible that the whistleblower is credible that the whistleblower acted in good faith he has had an opportunity now like we have and I believe The The American people have had the opportunity to review both the whistleblower's complaint and the published transcript of the phone call between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine.

Have you already read both documents? It is not like this? Yes, the congressman would do it. you say that the whistleblowers' complaint is remarkably consistent with the transcript that was released. I would say that the complainants could complain and it is aligned with what the other president published yesterday. Well, I want to read you a quick section of both to highlight exactly how. accurate and consistent, this complaint is on page 2 of the whistleblowers' complaint, the whistleblower says, according to White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call in which the president pressured mr. szalinski and then there are a few points, the first says to start or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son Hunter Biden and the third point, meet or speak with two people that the president explicitly named as his personal envoys about these matters mr.

Giuliani and the attorney general, whom the president referred to several times together in the transcript that was posted on page four of the first paragraph of what appears to be the third sentence. President Trump says the former US ambassador, the woman was bad news and the people he was dealing with in the Ukraine was bad news, so I just want to let you know the other thing is there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to know about that, so anything they can do is what the Attorney General would do.

Be cool, Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, etc., do you have reason to doubt what the whistleblower presented? Returning to Michael Atkinson some determination as to whether it was credible or urgent, as the DNI is not for me to ensure. that is credible that is the work of IC IGS as an inspector has determined that it is credible my only problem was that it is actually someone who is not in the intelligence community or in an organization under which I have authority and responsibilities outside of the Director McGuire, you agree that these were intelligence matters, this was a matter of election interference, this was an investigation of American persons, including a former vice president, if you were aware or the CIA was aware that A government was going to investigate or promote an investigation against a former vice president.

That would not be a class that would not qualify as an intelligence matter. Would that qualify as an intelligence matter, yes or no? Well, I don't need to say that it's a hypothetical question, sir, and I don't think it's... well, that's exactly what's in the transcript, that's what you're asking for, what is the complaint that they complained about, but that's what the president is asking the president of Ukraine to do, he's asking the president of the United Kingdom for a tow truck to investigate a former vice president of the United States. qualify as an intelligence matter that the CIA would want to know that the conversation was between the president and the president of Ukraine, as you know and it is mr.

McGuire, I understand, but that cannot be that cannot be a definitive shield against transparency it cannot be a definitive shield against accountability the president is not above the law one thing he has not told us is whether his office or if the Inspector General cannot investigate then who can investigate a Congressman Castro, again, as I mentioned several times so far, although it did not reach the committee, the complaint was forwarded to the Judicial Department for a criminal investigation , this was not swept away? the rug I have I have one more question for you, why did your office think it should appeal the IG's determination of urgent concern, quote unquote, to the Department of Justice which has never been done before?

It's never been done before. This is unprecedented in the sense that in the past there has never been a matter that the Inspector General has investigated that did not involve a member of the intelligence community or an organization that the National Director would like to make one last point regarding. you keep saying the president is not part of the intelligence community I think he is the president. Does he agree that he has the ability to declassify any intelligence document? Do you agree that it is true? The president has original classification authority. So how is that person outside the intelligence community?

Excuse me, he's the president of the intelligence community. United States above all the executive branch thank you thank you congressman mr. Radcliffe, thanks to the President Admiral, it's a pleasure to see you again, sir, you served in the Navy for 36 years, you commanded SEAL Team 2 and you retired as a Vice Admiral of the Navy, right, that's right, Congressman, and despite that after that service you became acting DNI 23 days after Trump Solinsky's call and four days after the whistleblower made his complaint you were summoned before this committee after being publicly accused of committing a correct crime yes congressman President Chef wrote a letter on September 13 accusing you of being part of an illegal cover-up appointment and then the Speaker of the House went one step further, appearing on national television and saying not once but twice that you broke the law, who committed a crime, said the Acting Director of National Intelligence blocked refers to IC IG not disclosing the whistleblower's complaint this is a violation of the law you were publicly accused of committing a crime you are also falsely accused of committing a crime already that he has told it so precisely that he was required to follow not just an opinion what the law is but the opinion of the Department of Justice, an 11-page opinion on whether or not the law required him to report the complaint from the correct complainant, that is correct, congressman and that and that opinion says that the question is whether said complaint falls within the legal definition of urgent concern that the law requires the DNI to send to the Intelligence Committee we conclude that they do not read it accurately yes, it would be better if you're right that's an opinion not of Bill Barr that's an opinion of the department of justice ethics lawyers not political appointees but career officials serving Republicans and Democrats ethics lawyers at the Department of Justice who determined that you were in compliance the law, for which he was publicly accused, he was also falsely accused, and yet here today I have heard nothing resembling an apology.

For that welcome to the House of Representatives with the Democrats in charge, let me move on to the point that we are here to talk a lot about this whistleblower complaint. The question is at this point, given what we have, why is all the attention focused on this whistleblower. The best evidence of what President Trump said to President Szalinski is a transcript of what President Trump said to President Szalinski. I'm not slandering the good faith of the complainants or their intentions, but a second-hand account of something someone didn't hear is not as good as the best evidence of what was actually said and to that extent, despite the good faith , the whistleblower is wrong in numerous aspects and I know that not everyone will have time to read the whistleblower's complaint, but the whistleblower says that I am deeply concerned about the president speaking that there was a serious or egregious problem of abuse or violation of the law, the complainant then goes on to say that I was not a direct witness to the events described, however, I found my colleagues' accounts of this to be credible and then I discuss those accounts on which this complainant's complaint is based on the complainant telling us. says that the officials that I spoke to told me that and they told me that and I learned that from several US officials and White House officials told me that and I also learned that from several US officials that in other words this is all secondhand information none of this is firsthand information the whistleblower then cites additional sources in addition to that secondhand information those sources include the mainstream media the sources the whistleblower relies on include the Washington Post The New York Times Politico the hill Bloomberg ABC News and others In other words, much like the steel dossier, the allegations in the whistleblower complaints are based on third-hand media sources rather than first-hand information.

The whistleblower also appears to allege crimes not only against the president but says regarding this plan to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election that he quotes the president's personal attorney, mr. Rudolph Giuliani is a central figure in this effort and the attorney general appears to be involved as well, but buried in a footnote a couple of pages later, a couple of pages later, the whistleblower admits that I don't know to what extent. Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts in Ukraine with the attorney general, but the attorney general knows this because he issued a statement yesterday saying there was no involvement.

What I mean by all of this is, again, that the transcript is the best evidence of what we have and that the American people are very clear that what relates to that transcript are legal communications in which the United States can request help of my foreign government in an ongoing criminal investigation, which is exactly what President Trump did in that conversation, so if the Democrats intend to impeach the president for lawful conduct then be my guest. I give up. Thank you Congressman Radcliffe mr. damn thanks mr. president director thank you for being here attended thank you very much for your service I want to take a stepback a little bit and put it in perspective I think what's at stake here obviously yesterday the White House released the transcript of that July 25 conversation between President Trump and President Szalinski and now we know that this phone call was in fact part of the complainant's complaint yesterday.

The president in a press conference characterized the president's conversation and that call as an extortion of the Ukrainian leader, he was not suggesting it was an extortion. whether it was to obtain information or money, but it was an extortion to obtain help to win the presidential election that will be held next year, so let's quickly rewind to May 7 of this year, when FBI Director Christopher Rea, testified before the United States Senate that and I. m, quoting now, any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to the FBI any conversations with foreign actors regarding influence or interference with our election.

Director Ray is, of course, the top cop in the United States of America. You agree with the director. Ray, isn't that right, Mr. Congressman? Heck, I don't disagree with director ray and it's the same as you agree with him sir, yes, okay, let me pass the word that he was referred to the FBI, let me move on, this was it. forwarded to the FBI by the press who actually participated in the conversation, the note did not allow me to move forward until June 13, when that is five weeks before that, when the chairman of the Federal Election Commission made the following statement, follow me, Please let me do something. 100% clear to the American public that anyone running for public office it is illegal for anyone to agree to solicit or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with the US election this is not a new concept intervention electoral by foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginning of our nation do you agree with the FEC chairman, the wine tribe, mr. director, I agree that our elections are sacred and any interference from an outside source is simply not what we wanted to request or accept, it is illegal, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer sir, that's not my intention Be evasive, but no I can.

Do you think it is okay for a public official to request or can it be okay? You don't know the law in this regard. You think it may be okay for a candidate or elected official to call for foreign interference in our election I can't believe you're saying you're not actually saying that, are you? I'm not saying Congress is Ben Heck at all, so we should keep in mind that the FEC chairman was asked to say this because it was literally the day. Before that, the President of the United States sat resolutely at the desk in the most iconic room in the United States, the Oval Office, and said that FBI Director Ray was wrong, you obviously don't agree with that , also said he would do it.

Consider accepting foreign help, and sure enough, yesterday we learned that the president did, in fact, do exactly what he asked for that help. Director, whether it's this president or any president, do you think it's okay for the president of the United States to pressure a foreign country? to help you win a congressional election heck I believe no one is above the law and we have discussed what we believe the law applies so it is illegal to request no I can't answer I have two children sir. I can't reconcile his two statements. Is it okay for a president to pressure any president to pressure a foreign government to help him win an election? it is not justified it is not welcome it is bad for the nation to have outside interference and a penny tour and by extension, it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well.

I mean, all I know is that I have transcripts like you do. I have the whistleblower's complaint like you have and I was not referring to the whistleblower's complaint, but if any president does this and I accept his response. I think he is more than just an unacceptable director. Yes sir. I think it's wrong and I think we all know it. I think we were taught this at a very young age and there is a voice inside most of us. Unfortunately, obviously not all. of us that suggests that it is wrong, it is illegal and it is wrong and I thank you sir and with that I yield, but congressman, if I may ask for an answer one more time, my time is out, sir, no, you have my answers Thank you director director, go ahead and feel free to respond one more time.

It was referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not by the president, not by this office and by the law office and by the IC i. Director Ray said any candidate or elected official should report it immediately. He didn't say that the director of Oh, and I should report it, although you should and did. Thank you, but the person involved did not do what Director Spray said. Spot. Thank you, congressman. Thank my Lord. Welch Thank you Director I want to thank you, there is no one in this room who can claim to have served their country longer and more bravely than you and I heard in your opening remarks that your family before you has made a commitment to this country and I say thank you, secondly, I appreciated your candor when in your opening statement you acknowledged that the complainant acted in good faith, and thirdly, I appreciated your recognition that the Inspector General also acted in good faith and in accordance with your view of the law, and I want to say this. when you said you were in a unique position, that's an understatement, you received a complaint involving the President of the United States and also the Attorney General of the United States.

I don't agree with some of the decisions you made, but I have no doubt that the same sense of duty that you applied in your long and illustrious career guided you in making these decisions, so thank you for that, but I want to ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that caught his attention. The DNI has jurisdiction over foreign interference. in our elections correct, that is correct and of course you are aware, as we all are, of the Muller report and its accusations against 12 Russian foreign nationals who actively interfered in our elections. correct. I have read the report, yes, yes, so it is a big responsibility. that your agency is right in this case because of the two things you mentioned: that the president is the only person who is above the intelligence community in its sense of executive privilege, you did not fall, you did not send us the complaint, right, I didn't vote yes, Congressman Welsh because I was still working with the White House, no, I understand that and you've been very clear about that, but let me ask you for a hypothetical plate to show the dilemma you were in, let's say a U.S. senator who is well-connected or a very well-connected private citizen had access and had a conversation as a result of that with a foreigner, the leader of a foreign country and asked that person for a favor, the U.S. senator the US, say, of providing dirt on a political matter. opponent is that something that you would see should be sent to this congressional committee.

I don't want to be disrespectful but it is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions. I'm not sure I understand correctly. I won't make it hypothetical, let's say instead. From being a conversation between the president and the president of Ukraine, it was an American conversation. Senator let's say he was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee and he was asking about the foreign leader. I understand, so could you send it to our committee? Sir, that wouldn't be one more time. I think I mentioned it a little bit at the beginning of our conversation. The United States Senator is not a member of the intelligence community and the Director of National Intelligence that you know has no authority or responsibility over the United States Senate, so any prolonged irregularities in that regard should be referred to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation.

I respectfully disagree with you because obviously that would be a request from the United States. senator for interference in our elections and that's in your jurisdiction right, well election interference is a date yeah congressman well sure okay but again congressman though you are when it comes to liability legal to do under intelligence reform. Protection Law does not allow it, this statute does not allow that to be done well. I don't agree with that, sir, but here is the dilemma that you were in and we were in, but now we will be able to follow up because the executive privilege if it existed, it was waived according to your approach, as you saw it, it means that no one would be investigating the underlying conduct because in this case executive privilege applies or can apply and secondly, the president who had the conversation is above the law, so it's a dilemma for One Democracy, right?

The complaint was sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation completely disregarding any concerns for a curative privilege, as I understand it, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation never did a follow-up investigation, right? I think they have completed the investigation. I am not sure besides being involved with this matter here I also have other urgent matters and director I apologize at the Department of Justice led by Mr. Barr, who is the subject of the complaint, is the department that provided the opinion that no action should be taken. I believe the Attorney General was mentioned in the complaint.

It is not correct, the sullen subject of the complaint, sir, yes, well, he was me, it was mentioned, sir. Very well, I yield. Thank you Congressman Welch, thank you sir. Thank my Lord. Maloney Principal McGuire, what was your first day on the job? My first day on the job was Friday, August 16, and I think I set a new management record for being summoned before any first week, right? It's not much to me, sir, the complaint is dated August 12, anything else you've done well in your career, sir, your timing is, it's got to be something you're concerned about, Congressman, I think code timing Dan's is. better than mine, sir, look, there's been a lot of talk here today, but the process.

I just want to summarize a couple of things. Okay, so you're in your first days on the job, sir. I received this complaint and it says that the president of the United States pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and that political opponents are, in fact, that president asked the foreign leader to work with a citizen Private, Mr. Giuliani and the U.S. Attorney General banned that plan: the president at the time did not dispute that he was withholding $391 million in assistance by holding that over the head of the Ukrainian president that the Ukrainian president raises in the conversation how U.S. military assistance launches defensive weapons. you have russian troops in your country the wolf is at the door the president asked for a favor you complain that ukrainian reciprocity doesn't get enough from you that's what reciprocity is right we have to get something from you if we give you something he names the political opponents by name the Ukrainian president of Biden says he will do it they will do the investigation that is what hits you and you are looking at that complaint that in the second paragraph alleges serious irregularities on the part of the president of the United States and the first thing that What he does is go to the president's men and women in the White House and say, should I turn it over to Congress? and in the second paragraph of that complaint, sir, you also suggest that the Attorney General might be involved and the second thing you do is you go to the Attorney General's people at the Department of Justice and ask them if you should turn it over to Congress, sir.

I have no doubts about his character. I have read his biography. I have some questions about his decision and the judgment in those decisions. Stage conflicts. Here, Congressman Maloney, I have a lot of leadership experience and, as you said, I realized this very early on, the fact that I was just the acting DNI and I was still using Garmin to start work, so this came along. my focus involves the President of the United States and the important issue of this in the past, as I said before, I have always worked with legal counsel due to the magnitude of the decision to appoint the service that I have just considered as a naval officer for years , I just thought It would be wise, sir, if I may, my life would have been much simpler without becoming the most famous man in the United States, don't hesitate at all, sir, my question, sir, is when you were considering prudence, did you think?

It was prudent to give veto power over whether Congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the two people involved in it. It is so prudent that I have to work with the situation, since it is Congressman Maloney, only the White House can determine or waive executive privilege. There is no one else to turn to and as far as a second opinion, my only avenue was to go to the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice and you understand, sir, that if your own Inspector General does not question his decision, that prudence would haveprevented these serious accusations from reaching Congress quick question in response to mr.

Himes, I think you left the door open that you spoke to the President of the United States about this whistleblower complaint, sir, did you personally speak to the President of the United States at any point about this complaint, Congressman once again, I'm the The president's intelligence officer, who did he speak to? The president, I can't say which director, I know that you talk a lot with the president, it's a simple question, sir, did you talk to him about this whistleblower complaint? yes or no Congressman Maloney my conversation with the president of the United States is privileged so do not deny that you spoke with the president I am not asking for the military content I want the content why you spoke or did not speak with the president about this whistleblower complaint I speak with the president about many things and anything the President of the United States tells you in any form you have the privilege of not asking about the content.

Are you denying that you spoke to the president? I'm just saying it one more time. I speak to the president and everything I say to the president is confidential. Thank my Lord. I'm sorry. That's how I understand it, thank you, and director, you understand that we are not asking you about your conversations with the president about national security, about foreign policy, about the National Counterterrorism Center, we just want to know if you discussed this topic with the president. You can imagine the deep conflict of interests that would be to discuss the issue of this whistleblowing plane with the president.

You can say I didn't discuss it with him if that's the answer that doesn't betray any privilege, and you can say I did discuss it. with them but I am not going to go into the content of those conversations that question can you answer the one about the president chef once again you know my conversation no matter what the topic is with the President of the United States it is a privileged conversation between the Director of Intelligence National and the president Miss Demings thank you very much mr. President and Director McGuire, thank you for being here with us today, thank you for your service.

I know he said he took the first Earth from him in 1974. That's a long time, but a long time to be proud of the service. I took my first Earth in 1974. 1984 when I was sworn in as a law enforcement officer and I thank you very much for saying that public service is a sacred duty because regardless of the circumstances or who is involved, public service is a sacred duty. I've had a chance as a law enforcement officer. Officer, I am now a member of Congress, but to investigate internal cases involving other personnel, I have had the opportunity to investigate many other cases, criminal cases and I have never, just for Records Director McGuire, gone to the suspect or the accused of the director in those cases to ask them what I should do in the case.

There has been a lot of talk this morning, the whole discussion, the reason we are here, senator focuses on the US relationship with Ukraine. I think you would agree that Ukraine is very dependent on the United States in terms of assistance and defending. Could you, based on your many years of experience in the military and now in your new position, talk a little about that relationship? and how important it is for the United States to help Ukraine if they are ever going to be able to defend themselves. Yes, Congressman, I think the United States has been very supportive of Ukraine.

I would say that they trust us there as they depend on other people in Europe and I would also say that the United States is probably paying more than the others for Europe's support for Ukraine, the threats are real for the Ukrainian people and what is at stake It is freedom and democracy. Also, even though it is in Ukraine, it is also largely based on the fact that you would say that Ukraine could probably never get there without the support and assistance of the United States or the United States of America. I would say that if others were willing to step up and support, they might be able to get there, but they're not, we're, we're, we're there, so I think you've said it would be difficult for Ukraine to reach that. goal of defending themselves without our support. right, I would say it would be a challenge as a congressman this complaint describes a plan by the president of the United States and I'm not quite sure what to call Rudy Giuliani these days what his role may be that he is the new fixer.

I'm not sure, but either way this is a plan to coerce Ukraine, this country that you say is so dependent on the United States to defend itself, coerce Ukraine, and help the president's re-election efforts in 2020, according to the report of its Inspector General. The memo sent to him says that on July 18 the Office of Management and Budget official informed departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had instructed to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. , neither OMB nor NSC staff knew why this was. The instruction had been issued during the inter-institutional meetings on July 23 and July 26.

OMB officials again explicitly stated that the instruction to suspend this assistant had come directly from the president, but they were not, but they were still unaware of a political justification, so On the 23rd, 26th, on the 18th, this topic arose by first time when the president was sitting rescinding or suspending that assistance that you said Ukraine is so desperately dependent on Director McGraw, we dealt with what is reasonable here and I think your Inspector General included that in the report. Because this whole matter has to do with Ukraine's doctors' relationship with the United States, there is dependence on the United States and the president's efforts to coerce Ukraine and engage in illegal and inappropriate research.

Do you think that's why your inspector general added that about the suspension? his support for Ukraine I think Michael åkesson found it credible and felt it was a matter of urgent concern to refer it to this committee. Do you think it is reasonable for the American people and for this committee on both sides to believe that there is a correlation or a nexus between the president's suspension of aid and the conversation that took place in Congress with a follow-up conversation yes congressmen that is the accusation that was made and I did not have access to the transcripts, the only information was the cover letter from the IC IG and the accusations of the complainant, the other information that came to light yesterday as published by the president big changes, things In a different light, sir.

President, I just asked one more question, very quickly, one more quickly. I understand that the prosecutor, the inspector general, is a career intelligence person, has worked in the Department of Justice, has received numerous awards for his exemplary and outstanding performance, did he have any reason to deny it or I do not believe that his conclusions in every area of ​​this report in which he was directly involved, Congresswoman Michael Atkinson is a valued and trusted colleague, affect him tremendously, the question came down to time and time again we urgently care and whether the intelligence The Whistleblower Protection Act of the community, as written, allow me to send it to this committee, that's where I got stuck ma'am, and I'm sorry, thank you, yes, sure.

Thank you, Congressman, sir. Krishna Murthy Sr. McGuire, thank you very much for your service to our country and thank you for your patriotism. I want to ask you a couple of questions about the timing surrounding July 25th to the time he took office as DNI, as you know the phone call between President Trump. and the Ukrainian president happened on July 25 of this year right, I think July 25. I think sir, at least one of them happened on July 25th at that time, the DNI was Dan Coats and his deputy was sued by Gordon, as you know, the whistleblower complaint was filed. on August 12 of this year and then took office on August 16 four days later yes sir before taking your new job or since did you discuss the July 25 call or the whistleblower's complaint with DNI coats?

I wouldn't have taken the job if I didn't, sir, and how about we sue Gordon? Not at all. I don't believe in the best of my abilities. I don't think either Director Coats or our top deputy, Sue Gordon, have any sense about this whistleblower complaint or that Michael Atkinson did prior to his current position, did he discuss Ukraine with President Trump? No, Congressman, I have not discussed, yes, you have not discussed Ukraine with anyone, let me put it to you that way, you have not discussed Ukraine with anyone in your current role as the acting DNI, as well as our intelligence reports, you You know we have about 190 countries there, so whatever the president's daily briefing is and the issues related to that, but as far as intelligence actions in that region right now, this just hasn't been something. that has caught my attention in the six weeks that I have been serving as ADN.

Now I turn to the whistleblower and the inspector general. You do not know the identity of the complainant. Right-wing congressman. I don't know and I have achieved it. It's my responsibility to make sure that I'm right and you don't know his political affiliation, obviously I don't know, I don't know, or his political affiliation and of course you believe that the whistleblower was operating in good faith. . I know it and without prejudice. I don't know anything about that I don't know anything about that I believe that, but you have no reason to believe that he or she was acting with bias.

Correct. I simply believed that the complainant was acting in good faith, but you have no reason to do so. I think the person was biased. You wouldn't know if you are biased or not, or I just don't know, and of course you will do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempt to retaliate against him or her. Right, I won't allow it. that the complainant is subject to retaliation or adverse consequences for going to the IG. I'm absolutely committed to it and unlike the whistleblower, you know the inspector general obviously and I hold him in high regard and like the whistleblower, he was also operating at the top.

Faith is right, I believe that through collaboration it consumes yes and, interestingly, mr. Atkinson was actually appointed by President Donald Trump, true, yes he was, he is a presidential appointee, but what gives real credibility to the whistleblowers' complaint is the fact that Mr. Atkinson, a presidential appointee, would file a complaint against his boss, and that's a particularly brave thing to do. What I want to hear from you is that you will also do everything possible to protect mr. Atkinson of possible retaliation congressman absolutely fine now that the White House released a telephone conversation memorandum of the call on July 25, 2019.

I believe that was what was broadcast yesterday morning, sir, and they call it a telcon in the jargon of these memos, that's right. I'm familiar, this is the first time I've seen the transcript of a presidential conversation with the foreign leader. Okay, have you been to Mal Town? It would be short for telephone conversation exactly and you have been part of a conversation between the president and a foreign leader on a telephone call when I am in the office to provide the intelligence report to the president some foreign head of state could call the president can ask us to let's leave or just stay there for a short call every once in a while yes Lord, and there are note takers who actually scribble furiously what is said on this call.

If they were note takers, they wouldn't be in Roewe's Oval Office with us, they could be listening or somewhere else or like from the Situation Room and at this point. where I don't know, but somewhere inside the White House, yes, and within this particular situation, maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call, that's not the accusation, yeah, and they were all taking notes, presumably if they are good people. servants, yes Congressman, we are here too and if I was ever part of a call where the notes you took were given to someone in the White House for safe keeping, I have never been part of any call that is not mine, I would accept own notes at my level or as Director of National Intelligence counterintelligence dance I was there and he felt comfortable enough to leave me for a brief conversation, but it's not something that I would be in that office particularly for that reason, thank you.

For his service. Thank you very much, Congressman. Thank you so much. I would like to acknowledge the ranking member for any final questions he might have. Thank you, mr. chair mr. McGuire, I just want to thank you for coming here today, congratulations on surviving the legal challenge of today's raid. I suspect I hope to see it behind closed doors, as it is supposed to be done, and simply urge my colleagues on the other side. from the hallway if they want to impeach the president they need to go to the floor of the chamber and call a vote the intelligence committee is not an appropriate place to judge the articles of impeachment so there is a process in the Constitution that I would advise everyone to In the meantime, follow Director McGuire.

I want to apologize to you for being accused of crimes you have not committed. It is totally inappropriate behavior for anyone to accuse someone who served for decadeslike you. I hope they don't have to leave. Continue doing this for longer and with that I give back the rest of my time. Thank you, Ranking Member. I thank the story director. I have a few more questions to follow up because I thought I heard you say a moment ago that he had no communication with you. President, on the Ukraine issue, did I understand you when you said that I have not had any particular conversation with anyone on the Ukraine issue that has not addressed the issue we have now regarding the whistleblower complaint, so not particularly? with the legal counsel's office in terms of mentioning Ukraine or in terms of the Department of Justice, all I did was send the documents, the accusations are there and I just let the documents speak for themselves, so what you are saying that I did not have any conversation on the subject that you may have that does not involve this complaint, that is correct sir, I mean, I have been in the DNI in office for six weeks, there I am just trying to understand why that suggests that you did have a conversation about the complaint with the president no, no, that's not what I said, she's fine, director, you mentioned at the beginning when we were on the topic of what the Inspector General could investigate or not investigate if the president is within the intelligence community or subject of the intelligence community and, by the way, the statute does not require that the subject of the complaint be within the intelligence community, it requires that the complainant be an employee or detail, it does not require that the subject of the complaining is an employee of the intelligence community, but you have adopted an interpretation of the Department of Justice that essentially says that the president is above the director.

Your prayer there for the president is not subject to the director's jurisdiction, therefore it does not meet the definition of urgent concern. therefore, the inspector general ended jerem The chancellor general can no longer investigate that is the inspector general's reading of the department's opinion that he is no longer allowed to investigate this is that his reading is also president, not necessarily the president, but the accusation has to be related to the administration of funds is an operation of an intelligence activity with the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence. I'm just trying to find out if the president is somehow beyond the reach of the law.

Yes, sir, no person in this country is beyond the reach of the law. Well, that's how it should be, but I'm trying to figure out if that's how a practical fact is, the Inspector General believes that based on the opinion that you requested from the Department of Justice, you're no longer allowed to look. on this because it does not meet the definition of an urgent concern because it involves the president is that you understand that the department's opinion is also that the Inspector General no longer has jurisdiction to investigate this. I understand that both the Inspector General As we listen to Acting DNI Joseph McGuire answer the last questions from this panel, we want to show you the image on the right side of your screen that shows President Trump exiting Marine One about to board Air Force One for the trip back to Washington he is on.

JFK Airport, of course, has been in New York for the opening session of the United Nations General Assembly, obviously he won't take any questions here as he boards the plane, but he's probably very aware of what's going on right now in Washington in this audience with the acting actor. The DNI chief defending his handling of a whistleblower complaint that became public today. Amid complaints that President Trump is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country, our chief foreign affairs correspondent, Andrea Mitchell, is here with me. also give us the vector Joe, the most important takeaways from the last two and a half hours of testimony, most of this was not about the complaint that was published, along with the Inspector General's cover letter, which is quite long, it was It was about yes or no. should have turned it over as required by law, according to committee Democrats, which automatically within seven days once the Inspector General said the whistleblowers' complaint was of urgent concern and was a credible license plate, instead, he who recognizes now he did and this is new today he consulted the White House, he went to the White House first, which could refer to the White House counsel and any other White House official, as well as the Department of Justice, We did know that and to the office of the legal advisor of Justice.

The Department was misled into thinking that there is an issue of executive privilege here that is therefore not an urgent concern and why the Inspector General does not have the authority to properly deliver it, but what we also learned in this complaint of whistleblower is that the conception that it potentially involves does not implicate any of the presidents except Attorney General William, so the question is: do they give that material to the people who are the subject of the complaint? That's exactly what Chairman Adam Schiff and all the other Democrats are saying and what they seem to be focusing on is what they see as obstruction or a cover-up and that, of course, could potentially lead to an article of impeachment.

There are now many details in the whistleblower's complaint involving the allegation that White House officials were concerned that members of the White House staff, Azulene's National Security Council staff, had taken the transcript or the notes theorem from that Szalinski Trump phone call and they had placed it on a highly secret keyword classified computer that could not be obtained from, and they appropriately placed it in a place reserved for covert action for most of the most classified secrets as a matter of covering up a politically sensitive conversation rather than something involving such a covert operation and we should keep in mind that these are just the last questions here.

I think so, I think they were listening to the last few questions. of this hearing let me go to Chuck Todd right now moderator of Meet the Press Chuck, we have I think from the questions we know where the Republicans are coming out of this, that this is second and third hand information, that makes it less important. bomb, however, I don't think that's the case, I think you know, I think you felt like some of the Democratic questioning today was based almost entirely on the assumption that they weren't, we still weren't going to have the actual report from the whistleblowers in our hands to read, so I think I was sometimes surprised that they missed opportunities.

I thought some took advantage of opportunities for some of the details to emerge again in this hearing. There was a lot of focus at times and understandably it seems like if Adam Schiff and the Democrats believed there was a cover up going on that's where they focused on what took them so long, why he went to the White House, but you could argue that the decision to put this on national television was certainly an opportunity to get more out of the royal complaint front and center and I was surprised at how many details of the complaint itself we didn't hear about Joaquín Castro, one of the exceptions which actually sometimes he read from the call itself and read from there, so in that sense it seems that it's almost as if their game plan for how they were going to interrogate mr.

McGuire was relying on the assumption that we wouldn't have had the whistleblower, okay Chuck, let's dive back into the hearing for a moment and you've told us that you have no reason to believe that otherwise, am I right? ? There is no reason to doubt a career attorney general inspector's determination as to whether it was credible or not, it is something for Michael to determine and and let me ask you this, the whistleblowing officer says that in the last four months more than half a dozen U.S. officials Please inform me of various facts related to this effort to seek foreign interference.

You would agree that we should talk to those half-dozen American officials. No? I think it has all the material that the committee needs and I think it depends on the committee. How do you think they should pursue? I ask your opinion, as the head of our intelligence agencies might think that we should talk to those other people and find out if the whistleblower is right. My responsibility is to get the complaint to you. a letter the complaint to the other information published I have fulfilled my responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the legislative branch and this committee well let me ask you this director the whistleblower also says that I am also concerned that these actions represent risks to the national security of the United States .US and undermine the US government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in US policies. elections you would agree if there is a credible allegation to that effect that we should investigate it I agree that if there was election interference the complaint is not about election interference but about a classified confidential diplomatic conversation involving election interference by the president sought by the president, which does not take him out of the realm of seeking assistance, makes it even more pernicious, don't you think?

I guess I said I don't disagree with the IG Icees assessment that it was a credible issue. The whistleblower further says that the president sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take steps to help the president's re-election campaign in 2020. You would agree that that should be investigated, not necessarily, sir. I mean, to the extent that it was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, no, it was. If not, the Department of Justice concluded that this would not violate election laws. Now no one, no one can understand how they could come to that conclusion after the two years we've been through, but still not authorize the FBI to investigate.

You would agree that someone should look into this, right? I forwarded it if I hadn't. He would not have referred it to the Department of Justice or the FBI. Well, then I'm glad we agree. The whistleblower says he told me there was already an ongoing discussion with Lace House attorneys about how to handle the call because of the likelihood that officials would retell that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain. You would agree that this should have been investigated, right? What I know is that that is the correct allegation and it is credible and therefore it should be properly investigated again it is second hand hearsay information it should come to this committee for further investigation thank you and I mean you have it you have the documents that I just wanted to confirm that we agree that you believe the committee should investigate him.

The whistleblower also says that Donald Trump expressed his belief that the new Ukrainian government will be able to quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of the corruption cases that have stopped cooperation between Ukraine and the United States, this is the whistleblower who cites the Ukrainian reading, they would agree that if the Ukrainian reading, when they talk about cases of corruption, talks about investigating Biden and his son and that this is withheld, it is maintains non-compliance. the cooperation between our two countries goes backwards that must be investigated true that it is of a national dimension I do not agree with any of that what I did not agree that it should be investigated what I said was that I complied with my request of sending the documents to you by your committee and that it is up to the chair, a ranking member and the members of this committee to decide what to do with that information.

I'm not in a position to, well, tell the president or the committee to do an investigation. I'm not investing. I'm fine, I find it remarkable that the Director of National Intelligence does not find allegations of someone seeking foreign aid in an American country credible. The election should be investigated, let me ask you this, the whistleblower further says that in the days following the phone call I learned from several US officials that senior White House officials had intervened to block all records of the phone call. Do you have any reason to believe? that the complainants' accusation is incorrect.

I have no idea if it's right or wrong, sir. Someone should find out. Although it is true. Sorry, someone should find out if this is correct. Should not. Should not. I don't know if it's wrong. impeachment I mean, I just don't know again that that is the job that is the business of the executive branch of the White House in the White House office corruption is not the business or should not be the business of the White House or anyone in my house decides to do with its privileged communications and information. I think it's a matter for the White House.

Do you think that's true even if that communication involves crime or fraud? I am sure you are aware that there is an exception to any claim of privilege the privilege cannot be used to conceal crimes or fraud before any crime or fraud or cases ofirregularities should be referred to the Department of Justice for investigation, as I did. The whistleblower further alleges that White House officials told the whistleblower that they were targeted. by White House counsel to remove the electronic electronic transcript of the call from the computer system in which such transcripts are normally stored and instead upload it to a separate electronic system otherwise used to store and manage classified information of a particularly sensitive nature. nature, a senior White House official described this act as an abuse of the electronic system.

I don't know if similar steps were taken to restrict access to other records of the call, such as contemporaneous handwritten notes taken by listeners, and we should find out. We, Chairman Schiff, when I received a letter from Michael Atkinson on August 26, at the same time sent a letter to the White House Counsel's office asking them to monitor and preserve any information related to that phone call on the 25th. a long letter, Michael could address it better, but I think I know that the IC IG has sent a letter to the White House counsel requesting that they retain all that information, but you would agree that if there is a credible letter alleging this whistleblower that white people are out fishing for these records in a system that was not designed for that purpose in an effort to essentially cover up possible misconduct that should be investigated, you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

As far as I know, when this allegation, this whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12, I have no idea what the timeline was as to whether the White House, the National Security Council, anyone involved in that conversation, what they did with the transcripts. where they were put I simply have absolutely no knowledge nor the timeline of that German is not something that would be under my authority or responsibility the complainant makes a series of accusations involving mr. Giuliani sites informing the New York Times about his planned trip to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian government to conduct investigations that would help the president in his 2020 re-election bid, you would agree that if the president were ordering to his personal attorney to again seek foreign aid in the US presidential election that that would be inappropriate.

I believe Muller described such efforts to seek foreign aid as unethical, unpatriotic and quite possibly criminal. Would you agree with Director Muller that seeking foreign assistance in this manner would be unethical, unpatriotic, and quite possibly a violation of the law? He believes that Mr. Giuliani is the president's personal attorney and any conversation the president has with his personal attorney, I would imagine, would be a privilege for the client's attorney. I am not in a position to criticize the President of the United States on how he wants to conduct that and I have no idea what Mr.

Giuliani may or may not allow me to ask him about the whistleblower's last two accusations. I learned from U.S. officials that on or about May 14 the president briefed Vice President Pence on Cancellous' plan to travel to Crane to attend President Zelinsky's inauguration on May 20. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry led the delegation. According to these officials, it was also made clear to them that the president did not want to meet with Mr. Solinsky until he saw how Szalinski (quoted) decided to act quote-unquote in office. I do not know how this guidance was communicated nor by whom, nor do I know if this action was related to the broader understanding described in the unclassified letter that a meeting or phone call with the president and president solinsky would depend on whether szalinski showed a willingness to cooperate, do you know if mr.

Pence vice president Pence's trip was canceled due to an effort to first find out if Ukraine was willing to participate in the presidency. No, no, I am not aware of any of that until I received this information from the IC IG. I have absolutely no situation. knowledge or lack of knowledge of any of those facts, would you agree that if the vice president's trip was canceled to put more pressure on Ukraine to fabricate junk information about mr. Biden that that would be unethical, unpatriotic and potentially a crime. I don't know why the vice president that the United States didn't do that.

I know what the allegation was within the complainant's complaint and I don't know if that allegation is accurate or not sir. The president finally, the whistleblower says that on July 18 and an official from the Office of Management and Budget informed the departments and agencies that the president that earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all security assistance from the United States to Ukraine, neither OMB nor NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. Senator McConnell said the other day that he spoke with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State and that he did not know why the instruction had been given.

Doesn't it seem suspicious to the director that no one in the national security staff, no one in the senior leadership apparently of the party here in Congress that had shown the help understood why the president was suspending a president, doesn't it seem a little suspicious? suspicious? I just don't know, be honest with you, how those decisions are made and Again, I'm just not aware of the situation of what happened with the only funding for me as a military member if this military aid was withheld from an ally that is fighting against Putin's Russia and was made to be used as leverage to get dirt on a u.s. political campaign, don't you think that should be investigated?

I have no reason to believe. I don't understand. I am not aware of the situation if that was withheld or why it was withheld sir. president well, I can tell you that we are going to find out director, I want to thank you for his tennis today. I want to thank you again for your service, as my colleague, mr. Welch and I completely share his sentiment. No one has any doubt about his devotion to the country. No one has any doubt about his acting in good faith. I want to make it very clear. I think he is a good and honorable man like my colleagues.

I don't agree with the decisions he made. I agree with the Inspector General's view of the law and am deeply concerned about the message this sends to other complainants about whether this system really works, whether the guy you have a complaint about can stop it. complaint reaches Congress, then the most serious complaints may never reach here and I want to thank the complainant for his bravery, they did not have to step forward. In fact, we know from the whistleblower's complaint that there are several others who have knowledge of many of the same events and I would just like to say to those others who have knowledge of those events that I hope that they too show the same type of courage and patriotism as this whistleblower has shown that we depend on people of good faith to come forward when they see evidence of wrongdoing, the system will not work otherwise and I have to tell our friends in Ukraine who may be watching how distressing it is that while their country fight to free themselves from Russian oppression and fight to eradicate corruption in their own country that what the president of the United States would treat them with would be the highest form of corruption in this country that the president of the United States would be instead of a defender of democracy and human rights and that the rule of law would be reinforcing a message with you the new Ukrainian president who was elected to eradicate corruption that instead of that president's messageIt would be that you can use your Department of Justice, just call Bill Bar, you can use our Department of Justice to make up dirt on an opponent, that's what democracy is, you can use foreign assistance, military systems, life support as leverage to get another country to do something unethical.

The idea that a fellow democratic is fighting against democracy would listen to those messages from the President of the United States. I just want to save the people of Ukraine. We support you in your fight with Russia. We support you in your fight for democracy. We support you in your fight. efforts to eradicate corruption and what you are witnessing and what you are seeing in the actions of this president is not democracy, it is the very denial of democracy, this is democracy, what you saw in this committee is a democracy as ugly as it gets be. personal as it can be as infuriating as it can be this is democracy this is democracy thank you director we have adjourned the meeting thank you very much sir. president presidency concluding that session of about two and a half hours long maybe a few more questions for Joseph McGuire the acting DNI your DNI there is a lot to digest here it started a few hours ago with the publication event the complainant cannot complain that I don't even know the gender of the complainant, but the information contained in the report is compelling and has raised many questions.

Among the findings are some complaints that the president used the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country that doesn't exist. It was an effort by the White House to block the conversation with the Ukrainian president to block the transcript of the July phone call. The plaintiffs said Trump's actions represent a risk to national security; some of the complaints are there and they point out that a lot of this came third hand, the complainant's hearing from other staff members who have this information, so let's go over it a little bit. I'm Andrea Mitchell here, Chuck Todd, let me talk to you first, this is different from the Muller case and the information has come very quickly to our Democrats sitting in a place right now who are saying, we've got it, we've got the case, I think they believe that they have, I think they have, they feel that they have some crumbs to build a However, I want to follow up on the case and something that I said when we intervened just before the end of the hearing and I made an observation that they seem to spend more time on the process of how this whistleblower complaint was handled rather than what was in the whistleblower complaint and obviously Congressman Schiff wasn't listening to us at the time, but some of you who heard that criticism or read similar criticisms about this may have felt that way. because I thought it was fascinating that the last 20 minutes he kind of used his presidential prerogative there and brought to light part of the whistleblower report knowing that mr.

McGuire couldn't really say anything beyond what he said, but explaining that frankly explains why they are there in the first place, if you will, the main accusation. Now this is what I talked about about breadcrumbs. I mean, look, I think the person. In the hottest of all waters today, also, as far as a government official is concerned, it's the Attorney General because that's where I think there's the most skepticism, okay, they went to the Department of Justice, they were referred to the Department of Justice. Department of Justice for a possible criminal violation, the Department of Justice then determined that no crime had been committed and then we found out, well, wait a minute, the president appointed the Attorney General, he dropped it quite a bit in this phone call, so what I think. that this is going to invite more scrutiny from Congress on the role that the Barr bill played and I think they will see this as an opportunity to basically say that no investigations have been done for two weeks by an IG is not an investigation, all of that is just This is an attempt to make sure they're not making it up, so he could see for over two weeks that the allegation was credible and worthy of further investigation here, but I'll tell you this: I think the oddities of I think the role of the Department of Justice in all of this and the role of the Attorney General in all of this provides the path that Democrats I think will follow and, frankly, might find to be the most fruitful.

Okay, let me go to Hallie Jackson. right now who's back at the White House the president en route to the White House too Hallie what's the buzz right now around the White House okay so a couple of things Lester let's just set the stage here because the president if the flight quick As you know, from New York to Washington, we will hear directly from him what his first reaction might be to what we have seen in these last three hours or so, if the president decides to stop here at the White House and answer questions from reporters , as he often makes rumors.

Lester. I can tell you whether the guidance so far seems to sync up with what we've heard in the line of questioning from some of those Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee who are trying to acknowledge or portray this. essentially like a witch hunt, in the president's words, an essentially unfair attack on President Trump. I can tell you what we have heard now, one fish away from the people here in the White House, and that is that there is nothing thatsee in this whistleblower complaint. essentially calling it a narrative cobbled together from third-hand accounts and other news sources, let me say this, although there are pieces that have been revealed and you heard Congressman Schiff come up with some of them and that last question that has not been previously reported, such Even more troubling to some of the president's critics, the idea that other phone calls besides this one between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zalenski had been moved to this other electronic system intended essentially for extremely sensitive national security calls that is at the heart of what Democrats have been alleging is a cover-up by the White House and President Trump, but it appears that based on this whistleblower complaint, the allegation is that it's not just about this call, but there are also other people involved, which I think will be one of the talking points or one of the key questions that people will be asking here over the next few days that won't go away anytime soon Lester, do you have any sense of tiredness in the White House staff in general about the fact that here we are again?

Well, the defense, you know it's interesting, Lester, because they spent two years on the defense regarding the special counsel's investigation, but the facts of this matter are different and the president recognizes that and now we have a summary of the phone call with president zalenski, we have the president acknowledging that this came up in a conversation somehow the underlying facts of what happened are not in dispute that president

trump

the democrats can agree that they are looking at black and white at the same time time, it's a function of how they interpret it, actually, when you talk to some people behind the scenes privately, allies of the president, people in the president's orbit, there's a little bit of trepidation here because this is different than the last two years in which the president does not want to be impeached.

There is some bluster that will sometimes be seen publicly on the part of the president and his team, but he does not want this and there is some concern that I think is building privately, not publicly, about what this could mean for President Trump and his political perspectives. Hallie if we see him, if he steps in front of the cameras he will certainly change his path, let me bring back Andrea Mitchell, although Andrea, let's talk about what we mentioned, there are already tentacles growing from this since yesterday, yes and Chuck absolutely mentioned that William clearly prohibits the Department of Justice and prohibits its leadership and its decisions in this case, as well as being mentioned even if he says that he did nothing regarding the president's promises to zalenski or the suggestion to zolensky that ban and Giuliani will be in touch about this alleged conspiracy, even if Barr didn't do anything he already mentioned on that call and, according to Democrats on this committee, should not have been involved at all in making a decision about whether this complaint went ahead or not. involved Pompey is involved the Secretary of State is apparently addressing this now at a press conference but the ambassador the United States ambassador to Ukraine was forced from his position in April in May of last year removed from his position and then basically removed from his position after apparently opposing Rudy Giuliani is involved in all of this, where was Leon?

Now he was a name that's floating around about this, but Secretary of State Mike Pence didn't go to Zelanski's inauguration, and when all this was going on, he was kicked out. of the official inaugural delegation and it was said that Rick Perry, the energy secretary, was sent in his place, so Mike Mike Pence was clearly involved in the decisions that were made in the White House to get him out of this, many senior officials They're involved, okay, Andrew? We said a lot to digest and that concludes our coverage for now. Stay tuned for continuing developments on MSNBC and NBC News dot com and of course I'll be back with a full recap tonight on NBC Nightly News or as events get closer. on the air for now I'm Lester Holt NBC News New York one day y'all