
English: 
I THINK THE THING TO WATCH TODAY
WILL BE WHAT WILL REPUBLICANS, 
REPUBLICANS ON THE SENATE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IN 
PARTICULAR, HAVE TO SAY NOW THAT
THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, 
THE REDACTED VERSION OF IT, IS 
NOW OUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
AND WE WILL -- AT THAT POINT 
LATER THIS AFTERNOON THE MEMBERS
OF THAT COMMITTEE WILL HAVE HAD 
A CHANCE TO ASK ALL OF THEIR 
QUESTIONS TO THESE TWO MEN 
PRIVATELY.
ALREADY WE'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE 
LIKE MITT ROMNEY WHO HAS TALKED 
ABOUT THE ALLEGATIONS BEING 
TROUBLING IN THE EXTREME IS THE 
QUOTE HE USED.
PAT TOOMEY ANOTHER REPUBLICAN 
SAYING IT'S INAPPROPRIATE, THE 
PRESIDENT'S BEHAVIOR, LEANING ON
A FOREIGN LEADER TO, IN EFFECT, 
DO THE DIRTY WORK OF HIS 
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, SAVANNAH.
>> ALL RIGHT, GEOFF, THANK YOU 
SO MUCH AND WE SEE ADAM SCHIFF 
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE WHO HAS NOW SAT DOWN 
WITH THE WITNESSES IN PLACE.
IN A MOMENT WE EXPECT TO HEAR 
OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE 
CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER.
LET'S LISTEN IN.

English: 
>>> THE PRESIDENTIAL OATH OF 
OFFICE REQUIRES THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DO TWO 
THINGS.
FAITHFULLY EXECUTE HIS OR HER 
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 
JEOPARDIZED, IF OUR COUNTRY IS 
LEFT UNDEFENDED, THE NECESSITY 
TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE
BECOMES MOOT.
WHERE THERE IS NO COUNTRY, THERE
IS NO OFFICE TO EXECUTE.
AND SO THE DUTY TO DEFEND THE 
NATION IS FOUNDATIONAL TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES.
BUT WHAT OF THE SECOND 
RESPONSIBILITY, TO DEFEND THE 
CONSTITUTION.
WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?
THE FOUNDERS WERE NOT SPEAKING, 
OF COURSE, OF A PIECE OF 
PARCHMENT.
THEY WERE EXPRESSING THE 
OBLIGATION OF THE PRESIDENT TO 
DEFEND THE INSTITUTIONS OF OUR 
DEMOCRACY, TO DEFEND OUR SYSTEM 
OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT THE 
CONSTITUTION ENSHRINES, TO 

English: 
DEFEND THE RULE OF LAW, A 
PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH THE IDEA OF
AMERICA WAS BORN, THAT WE'RE A 
NATION OF LAWS, NOT 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
A MOST GRAPHIC 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.
FOR 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 BENEFIT.
TO UNDERSTAND HOW HE DID SO WE 
MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND JUST HOW 

English: 
OVERWHELMINGLY DEPENDENT UKRAINE
IS ON THE UNITED STATES, 
MILITARILY, FINANCIALLY, 
DIPLOMATICALLY, AND IN EVERY 
OTHER WAY.
AND NOT JUST ON THE UNITED 
STATES BUT ON THE PERSON OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
UKRAINE WAS INVADED BY ITS 
NEIGHBOR, BY OUR COMMON 
ADVERSARY, BY VLADIMIR PUTIN'S 
RUSSIA.
IT REMAINS OCCUPIED BY RUSSIAN 
IRREGULAR FORCES IN A LONG 
SIMMERING WAR.
UKRAINE DESPERATELY NEEDS OUR 
HELP AND FOR YEARS WE HAVE GIVEN
IT AND ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
THAT IS UNTIL TWO MONTHS AGO 
WHEN IT WAS HELD UP INEXPLICABLY
BY PRESIDENT TRUMP.
IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT, AFTER A 
BRIEF CONGRATULATORY CALL FROM 
PRESIDENT TRUMP TO PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY ON AUGUST 21st, AFTER 
RUDY GIULIANI MADE IT CLEAR TO 
OFFICIALS FOR SEVERAL MONTHS 
THAT THE PRESIDENT WANTED DIRT 

English: 
ON HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT IT'S 
IN THIS CONTEXT THAT THE NEW 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE WOULD SPEAK
TO DONALD TRUMP OVER THE PHONE 
ON JULY 25th.
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY EAGER TO 
ESTABLISH HIMSELF AT HOME AS A 
FRIEND OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH 
HAD AT LEAST TWO OBJECTIVES, GET
A MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT AND
GET MORE MILITARY HELP.
AND SO WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT 
CALL?
HE BEGINS BY INGRATIATES 
HIMSELF, EXPRESSING HIS INTEREST
IN MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT 
AND SAYS HIS COUNTRY WANTS TO 
ACQUIRE MORE WEAPONS FROM US TO 
DEFEND ITSELF.
AND WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S 
RESPONSE?
WELL, IT READS LIKE A CLASSIC 
ORGANIZED CRIME SHAKEDOWN.

English: 
RAMBLING CHARACTER, AND IN NOT 
SO MANY WORDS, THIS IS THE 
ESSENCE OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT 
COMMUNICATES.
WE'VE BEEN VERY GOOD TO YOUR 
COUNTRY.
VERY GOOD.
NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS DONE AS 
MUCH AS WE HAVE.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T SEE 
MUCH RECIPROCITY HERE.
I HEAR WHAT YOU WANT.
I HAVE A FAVOR I WANT FROM YOU 
THOUGH.
AND I'M GOING TO SAY THIS ONLY 
SEVEN TIMES SO YOU BETTER LISTEN
GOOD.
I WANT YOU TO MAKE UP DIRT ON MY
POLITICAL OPPONENT, UNDERSTAND, 
LOTS OF IT, ON THIS, AND ON 
THAT, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN 
TOUCH WITH PEOPLE, NOT JUST ANY 
PEOPLE, I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN 
TOUCH WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
OF THE UNITED STATES, MY 
ATTORNEY GENERAL, BILL BARR.
HE'S GOT THE WHOLE WEIGHT OF THE
AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT BEHIND 
HIM AND I'M GOING TO PUT YOU IN 
TOUCH WITH RUDY, YOU'RE GOING TO
LOVE HIM, TRUST ME.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING.
SO I'M ONLY GOING TO SAY THIS A 
FEW MORE TIMES, IN A FEW MORE 
WAYS.
AND BY THE WAY, DON'T CALL ME 
AGAIN.

English: 
I'LL CALL YOU WHEN YOU'VE DONE 
WHAT I ASKED.
THIS IS, IN SUM AND CHARACTER, 
WHAT THE PRESIDENT WAS TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE WITH THE PRESIDENT 
OF UKRAINE.
IT WOULD BE FUNNY IF IT WASN'T 
SUCH A GRAPHIC BETRAYAL OF THE 
PRESIDENT'S OATH OF OFFICE.
BUT AS IT DOES REPRESENT A REAL 
BETRAYAL THERE'S NOTHING THE 
PRESIDENT SAYS HERE THAT IS IN 
AMERICA'S INTEREST AFTER ALL.
IT IS, INSTEAD, THE MOST 
CONSEQUENTIAL FORM OF TRAGEDY, 
FOR IT FORCES US TO CONFRONT THE
REMEDY THE FOUNDERS PROVIDED FOR
SUCH A FLAGRANT ABUSE OF OFFICE,
IMPEACHMENT.
NOW, THIS MATTER WOULD NOT HAVE 
COME TO THE ATTENTION OF OUR 
COMMITTEE, OR THE NATION'S 
ATTENTION, WITHOUT THE COURAGE 
OF A SINGLE PERSON, THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
AS YOU KNOW DIRECTOR MAGUIRE 
MORE SO THAN PERHAPS ANY OTHER 
AREA OF GOVERNMENT SINCE WE DEAL
WITH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS 
DEPENDENT ON WHISTLE-BLOWERS TO 
REVEAL WRONGDOING WHEN IT 

English: 
OCCURS, WHEN THE AGENCIES DO NOT
SELF-REPORT.
BECAUSE OUTSIDE PARTIES ARE NOT 
ALLOWED TO SCRUTINIZE YOUR WORK,
AND TO GUIDE US.
IF THAT SYSTEM IS ALLOWED TO 
BREAK DOWN AS IT DID HERE, IF 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS COME TO 
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WILL NOT BE
PROTECTED, ONE OF TWO THINGS 
HAPPEN, SERIOUS WRONGDOING GOES 
UNREPORTED OR WHISTLE-BLOWERS 
TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN 
HANDS AND DIVULGE CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION TO THE PRESS IN 
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
AND PLACING OUR NATIONAL 
SECURITY AT RISK.
THIS IS WHY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
SYSTEM IS SO VITAL TO US.
AND WHY YOUR HANDLING OF THIS 
URGENT COMPLAINT IS ALSO SO 
TROUBLING.
TODAY WE CAN SAY FOR THE FIRST 
TIME SINCE WE HAVE RELEASED THIS
MORNING THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT THAT YOU HAVE MARKED 
UNCLASSIFIED THAT THE SUBSTANCE 
OF THIS CALL IS A CORE ISSUE, 
ALTHOUGH BY MEANS -- NO MEANS 
THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S COMPLAINT, 

English: 
WHICH WAS SHARED WITH THE 
COMMITTEE FOR THE FIRST TIME 
ONLY LATE YESTERDAY.
BY LAW THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT, WHICH BROUGHT THIS 
GROSS MISCONDUCT TO LIGHT, 
SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE WEEKS AGO, AND BY
YOU, MR. DIRECTOR, UNDER THE 
CLEAR LETTER OF THE LAW.
AND YET IT WASN'T.
DIRECTOR MAGUIRE I WAS VERY 
PLEASED WHEN YOU WERE NAMED 
ACTING DIRECTOR.
IF SUE GORDON WAS NOT GOING TO 
REMAIN I WAS GRATEFUL A MAN OF 
YOUR SUPERB MILITARY BACKGROUND 
WAS CHOSEN, A NAVY SEAL FOR 36 
YEARS AND DIRECTOR OF THE 
NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER
SINCE DECEMBER 2018.
YOUR CREDENTIALS ARE IMPRESSIVE.
AND IN LIMITED INTERACTIONS 
WE'VE HAD YOU HAVE STRUCK ME AS 
A GOOD AND DECENT MAN.
WHICH MAKES YOUR ACTIONS OVER 
THE LAST MONTH ALL THE MORE 
BEWILDERING.

English: 
WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO PROVIDE THE
COMPLAINT TO THIS COMMITTEE AS 
REQUIRED BY LAW, WHY YOU CHOSE 
TO SEEK A SECOND OPINION ON 
WHETHER SHALL REALLY MEANS SHALL
UNDER THE STATUTE.
WHY YOU CHOSE TO GO TO A 
DEPARTMENT LED BY A MAN BILL 
BARR WHO HIMSELF IS IMPLICATED 
IN THE COMPLAINT, AND BELIEVES 
THAT HE EXISTS TO SERVE THE 
INTERESTS OF THE PRESIDENT, NOT 
THE OFFICE ITSELF, MIND YOU, OR 
THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BUT THE 
INTEREST OF THE PERSON OF DONALD
TRUMP.
WHY YOU CHOSE TO ALLOW THE 
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT TO PLAY
A ROLE IN DECIDING WHETHER 
CONGRESS WOULD EVER SEE THE 
COMPLAINT.
WHY YOU STOOD SILENT WHEN 
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONAL UNDER 
YOUR CARE AND PROTECTION WAS 
RIDICULED BY THE PRESIDENT, WAS 
ACCUSED OF POTENTIALLY BETRAYING
HIS OR HER COUNTRY, WHEN THAT 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, BY THEIR VERY 
ACT OF COMING FORWARD, HAS SHOWN
MORE DEDICATION TO COUNTRY, MANY
MORE OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE 

English: 
PRESIDENT'S OATH OF OFFICE, THAN
THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR 
EXPLANATION.
RANKING MEMBER NUNES. 
>> THANK THE GENTLEMAN.
I WANT TO CONGRATULATE THE 
DEMOCRATS ON THE ROLLOUT OF 
THEIR LATEST INFORMATION WARFARE
OPERATION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT 
AND THEIR EXTRAORDINARY ABILITY 
TO ONCE AGAIN ENLIST THE 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA IN THEIR 
CAMPAIGN.
THIS OPERATION BEGAN WITH MEDIA 
REPORTS FROM THE PRIME 
INSTIGATORS OF THE RUSSIA 
COLLUSION HOAX, THAT A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS CLAIMING 
PRESIDENT TRUMP MADE A NEFARIOUS
PROMISE TO A FOREIGN LEADER.
THE RELEASED TRANSCRIPT OF THAT 
CALL HAS ALREADY DEBUNKED THAT 
CENTRAL ASSERTION.
BUT THAT DIDN'T MATTER.
THE DEMOCRATS SIMPLY MOVED THE 
GOAL POST AND BEGAN CLAIMING 
THAT THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A 
QUID PRO QUO FOR THIS 
CONVERSATION TO SERVE AS THE 
BASIS FOR IMPEACHING THE 
PRESIDENT.
SPEAKER PELOSI WENT FURTHER WHEN
ASKED EARLIER IF SHE WOULD PUT 

English: 
BRAKES ON IMPEACHMENT, IF THE 
TRANSCRIPT TURNED OUT TO BE 
BENIGN.
SHE RESPONDED "SO THERE YOU GO, 
IF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER OPERATION 
DOESN'T WORK OUT THE 
DEMOCRATS --," QUOTE, WE HAVE 
MANY CANDIDATES FOR IMPEACHABLE 
OFFENSES.
THAT WAS HER QUOTE.
SO THERE YOU GO.
IF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER OPERATION 
DOESN'T WORK OUT THE DEMOCRATS 
AND THEIR MEDIA ASSETS CAN 
ALWAYS DRUM UP SOMETHING ELSE.
AND WHAT OTHER INFORMATION HAS 
COME TO LIGHT SINCE THE ORIGINAL
FALSE REPORT OF A PROMISE BEING 
MADE?
WE'VE LEARNED THE FOLLOWING.
THE COMPLAINT RELIED ON HEARSAY 
EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DID NOT 
KNOW THE CONTENTS OF THE PHONE 
CALL AT ISSUE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER DISPLAYED 
ARGUABLE, POLITICAL BIAS AGAINST
TRUMP.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
INVESTIGATED THE COMPLAINT AND 
DETERMINED NO ACTION WAS 
WARRANTED.
THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT DENIES 
BEING PRESSURED BY PRESIDENT 

English: 
TRUMP.
SO ONCE AGAIN THIS SUPPOSED 
SCANDAL ENDS UP BEING NOTHING 
LIKE WHAT WE WERE TOLD, AND ONCE
AGAIN THE DEMOCRATS, THEIR MEDIA
MOUTHPIECES, AND LEAKERS ARE 
GINNING UP A FAKE STORY WITH NO 
REGARD TO THE MONUMENTAL DAMAGE 
THEY'RE CAUSING TO OUR PUBLIC 
INSTITUTIONS AND TO TRUST IN 
GOVERNMENT.
AND WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING ALL 
THE FALSE STORIES THEY 
PROPAGATED IN THE PAST, 
INCLUDING COUNTLESS ALLEGATIONS 
THAT TRUMP CAMPAIGNED, COLLUDED 
WITH RUSSIA TO HACK THE 2016 
ELECTION.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FORGET ABOUT 
ALL THOSE STORIES.
BUT BELIEVE THIS ONE.
IN SHORT WHAT WE HAVE WITH THIS 
STORY LINE IS ANOTHER STEELE 
DOSSIER.
I'LL NOTE HERE THAT IN THE 
DEMOCRATS' MANIA TO OVERTURN THE
2016 ELECTIONS EVERYTHING THEY 
TOUCH GETS HOPELESSLY 
POLITICIZED.
WITH THE RUSSIA HOAX IT WAS OUR 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES WHICH WERE

English: 
TURNED INTO A POLITICAL WEAPON 
TO ATTACK THE PRESIDENT.
AND NOW TODAY THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
PROCESS IS THE CASUALTY.
UNTIL ABOUT A WEEK AGO THE NEED 
TO PROTECT THAT PROCESS WAS A 
PRIMARY BIPARTISAN CONCERN OF 
THIS COMMITTEE.
BUT IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE REALLY
CONCERNED WITH DEFENDING THAT 
PROCESS THEY WOULD HAVE PURSUED 
THIS MATTER WITH A QUIET, SOBER 
INQUIRY AS WE DO FOR ALL 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS.
BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN USELESS
FOR THEM.
THEY DON'T WANT ANSWERS.
THEY WANT A PUBLIC SPECTACLE.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN TREATED TO AN 
UNENDING PARADE OF PRESS 
RELEASES, PRESS CONFERENCES, AND
FAKE NEWS STORIES.
THIS HEARING ITSELF IS ANOTHER 
EXAMPLE, WHISTLE-BLOWER 
INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE HELD IN 
PUBLIC AT ALL.
AS OUR SENATE COUNTERPARTS, BOTH
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS, 
OBVIOUSLY UNDERSTAND THEIR 
HEARING WITH MR. MAGUIRE IS 
BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
AGAIN, THAT ONLY MAKES SENSE 

English: 
WHEN YOUR GOAL IS TO GET 
INFORMATION, NOT TO CREATE A 
MEDIA FRENZY.
THE CURRENT HYSTERIA HAS 
SOMETHING ELSE IN COMMON WITH 
THE RUSSIA HOAX.
BACK THEN THEY ACCUSED THE TRUMP
CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH 
RUSSIANS WHEN THE DEMOCRATS 
THEMSELVES WERE COLLUDING WITH 
RUSSIANS IN PREPARING THE STEELE
DOSSIER.
TODAY THEY ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT
OF PRESSURING UKRAINIANS TO TAKE
ACTIONS THAT WOULD HELP HIMSELF 
OR HURT HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS.
YET THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES 
OF DEMOCRATS DOING THE EXACT 
SAME THING.
JOE BIDEN BRAGGED THAT HE 
EXTORTED THE UKRAINIANS INTO 
FIRING A PROSECUTOR WHO HAPPENED
TO BE INVESTIGATING BIDEN'S OWN 
SON.

English: 
THREE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WROTE 
A LETTER TO REOPEN THE 
INVESTIGATION INTO FORMER TRUMP 
CAMPAIGN OFFICIALS.
ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR WENT 
TO UKRAINE AND PRESSURED THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT NOT TO 
INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION 
ALLEGATIONS ON INVOLVING JOE 
BIDEN'S SON.
ACCORDING TO UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS
THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL 
COMMITTEE CONTRACTOR ALEXANDRA 
CHALUPA TRIED TO GET UKRAINIAN 
OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE DIRT ON 
TRUMP ASSOCIATES AND TRIED TO 
GET THE FORMER UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT TO COMMENT PUBLICLY ON
ALLEGED TIES TO RUSSIA.
UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL LESHENKO WAS 
A SOURCE FOR NELLIE ORR AS SHE 
WORKED ON THE ANTI-TRUMP 
OPERATION CONDUCTED BY FUSION 
GPS AND FUNDED BY THE DEMOCRATS.
AND, OF COURSE, DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS VERY COMMITTEE NEGOTIATED 

English: 
WITH PEOPLE WHO THEY THOUGHT 
WERE UKRAINIANS IN ORDER TO 
OBTAIN NUDE PICTURES OF TRUMP.
PEOPLE CAN REASONABLY ASK WHY 
THE DEMOCRATS ARE SO DETERMINED 
TO IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT WHEN 
IN JUST A YEAR THEY'LL HAVE A 
CHANCE.
IN FACT, ONE DEMOCRATIC 
CONGRESSMAN, ONE OF THE FIRST TO
CALL FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT, 
GAVE US THE ANSWER WHEN HE SAID 
"I'M CONCERNED THAT IF WE DON'T 
IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT HE WILL 
GET REELECTED."
WINNING ELECTIONS IS HARD, AND 
WHEN YOU COMPETE YOU HAVE NO 
GUARANTEE YOU'LL WIN.
BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO HAVE 
A SAY IN THIS.
AND THEY MADE THEIR VOICES HEARD
IN THE LAST PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.
THIS LATEST GAMUT BY THE 
DEMOCRATS TO OVERTURN THIS 
MANDATE IS UNHINGED IS 
DANGEROUS.
THEY SHOULD END THE ENTIRE 
DISHONEST, GROTESQUE SPECTACLE 
AND GET BACK TO WORK TO SOLVING 
PROBLEMS, WHICH IS WHAT EVERY 

English: 
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS 
SENT HERE TO DO.
JUDGING BY TODAY'S CHARADE THE 
CHANCES OF THAT HAPPENING 
ANYTIME SOON ARE ZERO TO NONE.
I YIELD BACK. 
>> I THANK THE GENTLEMAN, 
DIRECTOR, WOULD YOU RISE FOR THE
OATH AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND?
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM 
THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE
TODAY SHALL BE THE TRUTH, THE 
WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE 
TRUTH SO HELP YOU GOD?
THANK YOU, YOU MAY BE SEATED.
THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT THE
WITNESS HAS BEEN DULY SWORN.
DIRECTOR MAGUIRE, WOULD YOU 
AGREE THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT ALLEGES SERIOUS 
WRONGDOING BY THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, THE 

English: 
WHISTLE-BLOWER -- 
>> ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE.
DIRECTOR, LET ME RECOGNIZE YOU 
FOR YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, AND 
YOU MAY TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS YOU
NEED. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, RANKING MEMBER 
NUNES AND MEMBERS OF THE 
COMMITTEE, GOOD MORNING.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY THANKING 
THE CHAIRMAN 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 REGARDING HOW TO 
ACCOMMODATE THE COMMITTEE'S 
REQUEST.
MR. CHAIRMAN I'VE TOLD YOU THIS 
ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, I WOULD 
LIKE TO SAY THIS PUBLICLY.
I RESPECT YOU.
I RESPECT THIS COMMITTEE.
AND I WELCOME AND TAKE SERIOUSLY
THE COMMITTEE'S OVERSIGHT ROLE.
DURING MY CONFIRMATION PROCESS 
TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER
I TOLD THE SENATE SELECT 
COMMITTEE AND INTELLIGENCE THAT 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES IS 

English: 
CRITICAL AND ESSENTIAL TO 
SUCCESSFUL OPERATIONS WITH THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
HAVING SERVED AS THE DIRECTOR 
FOR EIGHT MONTHS AND ACTING 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE FOR THE PAST SIX 
WEEKS I CONTINUE TO BELIEVE 
STRONGLY THAT THE ROLE OF 
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.
AS I PLEDGED TO THE SENATE I 
PLEDGE TO YOU TODAY THAT I WILL 
CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH 
CONGRESS WHILE I'M SERVING 
EITHER IN THIS CAPACITY AS 
ACTING DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
COUNTERTERRORISM OR WHEN I 
RETURN TO THE NATIONAL 
COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER TO 
ENSURE YOU ARE FULLY AND 
CURRENTLY INFORMED OF 
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES TO 
FACILITATE YOUR ABILITY TO 
PERFORM YOUR OVERSIGHT OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT US TO
KEEP THEM SAFE.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT THIS 
COMMITTEE'S SUPPORT.
BEFORE I TURN TO THE MATTER AT 
HAND THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I 

English: 
WOULD LIKE TO SAY.
I AM NOT PARTISAN AND I AM NOT 
POLITICAL.
I BELIEVE IN A LIFE OF SERVICE, 
AND I'M HONORED TO BE A PUBLIC 
SERVANT.
I SERVED UNDER EIGHT PRESIDENTS 
WHILE I WAS IN UNIFORM.
I HAVE TAKEN THE OATH TO THE 
CONSTITUTION 11 TIMES.
THE FIRST TIME WHEN I WAS SWORN 
IN TO THE UNITED STATES NAVY IN 
1974, AND NINE TIMES THROUGH MY 
SUBSEQUENT PROMOTIONS IN THE 
UNITED STATES NAVY.
MOST RECENTLY FORMER DIRECTOR 
DAN COATS ADMINISTERED THE OATH 
OF OFFICE LAST DECEMBER WHEN I 
BECAME THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM 
CENTER.
I AGREE WITH YOU.
THE OATH IS SACRED.
IT'S A FOUNDATION OF OUR 
CONSTITUTION.
THE OATH, TO ME, MEANS NOT ONLY 
THAT I SWEAR TRUE FAITH AND 
ALLEGIANCE TO THAT SACRED 
DOCUMENT BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY I 
VIEW IT AS A COVENANT I HAVE 
WITH MY WORKFORCE, THAT I LEAD, 
AND EVERY AMERICAN, THAT I WILL 
WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE 
THE DUTIES OF MY OFFICE.

English: 
I COME FROM A LONG LINE OF 
PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO HAVE STEPPED
FORWARD EVEN IN THE MOST 
DIFFICULT TIMES, IN AUSTERE 
TIMES, TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND OUR
COUNTRY.
WHEN I TOOK MY UNIFORM OFF IN 
JULY OF 2010 IT WAS THE FIRST 
TIME IN 70 YEARS THAT AN 
IMMEDIATE MEMBER OF MY FAMILY 
WAS NOT WEARING THE CLOTH OF THE
NATION.
AS AN ABLE SPECIAL WARFARE 
OFFICER I HAD THE HONOR OF 
COMMANDING AT EVERY LEVEL IN THE
SEAL COMMUNITY.
IT WAS AT TIMES VERY DEMANDING.
BUT THE REWARDS OF SERVING IN 
AMERICA'S SPECIAL OPERATIONS 
COMMUNITY MORE THAN MAKE UP FOR 
THE DEMANDS.
AFTER MY RETIREMENT I WAS 
FORTUNATE TO WORK FOR A GREAT 
PRIVATE SECTOR FIRM.
I LEFT THE BUSINESS WORLD AFTER 
THREE YEARS TO LEAD A NONPROFIT 
CHARITY.
SOME QUESTIONED WHY I WOULD 
LEAVE A PROMISING BUSINESS 
CAREER TO RUN A CHARITY.
THE ANSWER WAS QUITE SIMPLE.
IT WAS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO 
SERVE.

English: 
I LED A FOUNDATION DEDICATED TO 
HONORING THE SACRIFICE OF 
SPECIAL OPERATORS.
IT ENABLED HUNDREDS OF CHILDREN 
OF OUR FALLEN TO ATTEND COLLEGE.
IT WAS EXTREMELY MEANINGFUL AND 
REWARDING.
IN THE WINTER OF 2018 I WAS 
ASKED BY FORMER DIRECTOR DAN 
COATS TO LEAVE SERVICE TO LEAD 
THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM 
CENTER.
IT WAS UNEXPECTED AND NOT A 
POSITION I SOUGHT BUT THEN AGAIN
IT WAS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO 
SERVE MY COUNTRY.
IN PARTICULAR, I KNEW THAT MANY 
OF THE YOUNG SAILORS AND JUNIOR 
OFFICERS I HAD TRAINED 20 YEARS 
EARLIER WERE NOW SENIOR COMBAT 
VETERANS DEPLOYING AND STILL 
SACRIFICING.
I DECIDED THAT THEY COULD 
CONTINUE TO SERVE, RETURNING TO 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE WAS THE VERY 
LEAST I COULD DO.
AND NOW HERE I AM, SITTING 
BEFORE YOU AS THE ACTING 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
WITH LAST MONTH'S DEPARTURE OF 

English: 
DAN COATS AND SUE GORDON, TWO 
EXCEPTIONAL LEADERS AND FRIENDS 
I WAS ASKED TO STEP INTO THEIR 
VERY BIG SHOES AND LEAD 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 A DEEP AND PROFOUND 
RESPECT FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN OF
OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
THE MISSION WE EXECUTE EVERY DAY
ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE.
THROUGHOUT MY CAREER I HAVE 
SERVED AND LED THROUGH TURBULENT
TIMES.
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 AWAY.
IF EVERY ACTION MEETS THOSE 
CRITERIA YOU WILL ALWAYS BE A 
PERSON OF INTEGRITY.
IN MY NEARLY FOUR DECADES OF 
PUBLIC SERVICE MY INTEGRITY HAS 
NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED UNTIL NOW.
I'M HERE TODAY TO UNEQUIVOCALLY 
STATE THAT AS ACTING DNI I WILL 
CONTINUE THE SAME FAITHFUL AND 

English: 
NONPARTISAN SUPPORT IN A MATTER 
THAT ADHERES TO THE CONSTITUTION
AND THE LAWS OF THIS GREAT 
COUNTRY AS LONG AS I SERVE IN 
THIS POSITION FOR WHATEVER 
PERIOD OF TIME THAT MAY BE.
I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I 
HAVE UPHELD MY RESPONSIBILITY TO
FOLLOW THE LAW EVERY STEP OF THE
WAY IN THE MATTER THAT IS BEFORE
US TODAY.
I WANT TO ALSO STATE MY SUPPORT 
FOR THE WHISTLE-BLOWER AND THE 
RIGHTS AND THE LAWS.
WHISTLE BLOWING HAS A LONG 
HISTORY IN OUR COUNTRY, DATING 
BACK TO THE CONTINENTAL 
CONGRESS.
THIS IS NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE 
AS A NATION WE DESIRE FOR GOOD 
GOVERNMENT.
THEREFORE WE MUST PROTECT THOSE 
WHO DEMONSTRATE COURAGE TO 
REPORT ALLEGED WRONGDOING, 
WHETHER ON THE BATTLEFIELD, OR 
IN THE WORKPLACE.
INDEED, AT THE START OF ETHICS 
TRAINING IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH
EACH YEAR WE ARE REMINDED THAT 
PUBLIC SERVICE IS A PUBLIC TRUST
AND AS PUBLIC SERVANTS WE HAVE A
SOLEMN RESPONSIBILITY TO DO 
WHAT'S RIGHT WHICH INCLUDES 

English: 
REPORTING CONCERNS OF WASTE, 
FRAUD AND ABUSE AND BRINGING 
SUCH MATTERS TO THE ATTENTION OF
CONGRESS UNDER THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY WHISTLE-BLOWER 
PROTECTION ACT.
I APPLAUD ALL EMPLOYEES WHO COME
FORWARD UNDER THIS ACT.
I AM COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT 
ALL WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINTS 
ARE HANDLED APPROPRIATELY AND TO
PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF 
WHISTLE-BLOWERS.
IN THIS CASE THE COMPLAINANT 
RAISED A MATTER WITH THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY INSPECTOR
GENERAL.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IS 
PROPERLY PROTECTING THE 
COMPLAINANT'S IDENTITY AND WILL 
NOT PERMIT THE COMPLAINANT TO BE
SUBJECT TO ANY RETALIATION OR 
ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES FOR 
COMMUNICATING THE COMPLAINT TO 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
UPHOLDING THE INTEGRITY OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THE 
WORKFORCE IS MY NUMBER ONE 
PRIORITY.
THROUGHOUT MY CAREER I RELIED ON
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.
I WOULD NOW LIKE TO TURN TO THE 
COMPLAINT AND PROVIDE A GENERAL 

English: 
BACKGROUND ON HOW WE GOT TO 
WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
ON AUGUST 26th THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL FORWARDED THE COMPLAINT 
TO ME FROM AN EMPLOYEE IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATED 
THAT THE COMPLAINT RAISED AN 
URGENT CONCERN, A LEGALLY 
DEFINED TERM UNDER 
WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION ACT, 
THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT 
LENGTH IN OUR LETTERS TO THE 
COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 16 AND 
17.
BEFORE I TURN TO THE DISCUSSION 
ABOUT WHETHER THE COMPLAINT 
MEETS THE DEFINITION OF URGENT 
CONCERN OUR FIRST ONE TO TALK 
ABOUT AN EVEN MORE FUNDAMENTAL 
ISSUE.
UPON 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 TYPICALLY SUBJECT
TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
AS A RESULT WE CONSULTED WITH 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL'S OFFICE
AND WERE ADVISED THAT MUCH OF 
THE INFORMATION IN THE COMPLAINT
WAS, IN FACT, SUBJECT TO 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, A PRIVILEGE

English: 
THAT I DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY
TO WAIVE.
BECAUSE OF THAT WE WERE UNABLE 
TO IMMEDIATELY SHARE THE DETAILS
OF THE COMPLAINT WITH THIS 
COMMITTEE.
BUT CONTINUED TO CONSULT WITH 
THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSELS IN AN 
EFFORT TO DO SO.
YESTERDAY THE PRESIDENT RELEASED
THE TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CALL IN 
QUESTION AND THEREFORE WE ARE 
NOW ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE DETAILS
OF BOTH COMPLAINT AND THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S LETTER 
TRANSMITTING 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.
LET ME ALSO DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF
URGENT CONCERN.
WHEN TRANSMITTING A COMPLAINT TO
ME THE INSPECTOR GENERAL TOOK 
THE LEGAL POSITION THAT BECAUSE 
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES MATTERS OF
URGENT CONCERN AND BECAUSE HE 
FOUND THE ALLEGATIONS TO BE 
CREDIBLE I WAS REQUIRED UNDER 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION ACT TO
FORWARD THE COMPLAINT TO OUR 
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES WITHIN 

English: 
SEVEN DAYS OF RECEIVING IT.
AS WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY EXPLAINED 
IN OUR LETTERS URGENT CONCERN IS
A STATUTORILY DEFINED TERM.
TO BE AN URGENT CONCERN THE 
ALLEGATIONS MUST, IN ADDITION TO
BEING CLASSIFIED, ASSERT A 
FLAGRANT, SERIOUS PROBLEM, ABUSE
OR VIOLATION OF LAW.
AND RELATE TO THE FUNDING, 
ADMINISTRATION OR OPERATION OF 
AN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY WITHIN 
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
HOWEVER, THIS COMPLAINT CONCERNS
CONDUCT BY SOMEONE OUTSIDE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, 
UNRELATED TO FUNDING, 
ADMINISTRATION OR OPERATION OF 
AN INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY UNDER 
MY SUPERVISION.
BECAUSE THE ALLEGATION ON THE 
FACE DID NOT APPEAR TO FALL IN 
THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK, MY 
OFFICE CONSULTED WITH THE UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND 
INCLUDED -- WE INCLUDED THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL IN THOSE 

English: 
CONSULTATIONS.
AFTER REVIEWING THE COMPLAINT, 
AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
TRANSMITTAL LETTER THE OFFICE OF
LEGAL COUNSEL DETERMINED IT DOES
NOT MEET THE STATUTORY 
REQUIREMENT, LEGAL DEFINITION OF
URGENT CONCERN AND FOUND I WAS 
NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO TRANSMIT
TO THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE UNDER
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER PROTECTION 
ACT.
AND A CLASSIFIED VERSION OF THAT
MEMO WAS PUBLICLY RELEASED.
AS YOU KNOW FOR THOSE OF US IN 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL OPINIONS ARE 
BINDING ON ALL OF US.
IN PARTICULAR THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL OPINION STATES 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A 
MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNICATION 
WITH A FOREIGN LEADER INVOLVED 
NO INTELLIGENCE OPERATION OR 
ACTIVITY AIMED AT COLLECTING OR 
ANALYZING FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE.
WHILE WILL OLC OPINION DID NOT 
REQUIRE TRANSMISSION OF THE 
COMPLAINT TO THE COMMITTEES IT 
DID LEAVE ME WITH THE DISCRETION

English: 
TO FORWARD THE COMPLAINT TO THE 
COMMITTEE.
HOWEVER, GIVEN THE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ISSUES I DISCUSSED, 
NEITHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
NOR I WERE ABLE TO SHARE THE 
DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT AT THE 
TIME.
WHEN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
INFORMED ME THAT HE STILL 
INTENDED TO NOTIFY THE 
COMMITTEES OF THE EXISTENCE OF 
THE COMPLAINT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I 
SUPPORTED THAT DECISION.
TO ENSURE THE COMMITTEES WERE 
KEPT AS INFORMED AS POSSIBLE OF 
THIS PROCESS MOVING FORWARD.
I WANT TO RAISE A FEW OTHER 
POINTS ABOUT THE SITUATION WE 
FIND OURSELVES IN.
FIRST, I WANT TO STRESS THAT I 
BELIEVE THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAVE 
ACTED IN GOOD FAITH THROUGHOUT.
I HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE 
THAT THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING 
BY THE BOOK AND FOLLOWED THE 
LAW.
RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGED NATURE
OF THE INFORMATION AND PATIENTLY
WAITING WHILE THE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ISSUES WERE RESOLVED.
WHEREVER POSSIBLE WE HAVE WORKED
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE 

English: 
INSPECTOR GENERAL ON THIS 
MATTER.
WHILE WE HAVE DIFFERENCE OF 
OPINIONS ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER
OR NOT IT'S URGENT CONCERN I 
STRONGLY BELIEVE IN THE ROLE OF 
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL.
I GREATLY VALUE THE INDEPENDENCE
HE BRINGS AND HIS DEDICATION AND
HIS ROLE IN KEEPING ME AND THE 
COMMITTEES INFORMED OF MATTERS 
WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE.
SECOND, ALTHOUGH EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE PREVENTED US FROM 
SHARING THE DETAILS OF THE 
COMPLAINT WITH THE COMMITTEES 
UNTIL RECENTLY THIS DOES NOT 
MEAN THAT THE COMPLAINT WAS 
IGNORED.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IN 
CONSULTATION WITH MY OFFICE 
REFERRED THIS MATTER TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 
INVESTIGATION.
FINALLY I APPRECIATE THAT IN THE
PAST WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINTS 
MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO 
CONGRESS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER 
THEY WERE DEEMED CREDIBLE OR 
SATISFIED THE URGENT CONCERN 
REQUIREMENT.
HOWEVER, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH 
ANY PRIOR INSTANCES WHERE A 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT TOUCHED

English: 
ON SUCH COMPLICATED AND 
SENSITIVE ISSUES, INCLUDING 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS MATTER IS 
UNPRECEDENTED.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT I HANDLED 
THIS MATTER IN FULL COMPLIANCE 
WITH THE LAW AT ALL TIMES.
AND I AM COMMITTED TO DOING SO, 
SIR.
I APPRECIATE THE COMMITTEE 
PROVIDING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO
DISCUSS THIS MATTER, THE ONGOING
COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE 
CONGRESS ON YOUR IMPORTANT 
OVERSIGHT ROLE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. 
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT ALLEGES
SERIOUS WRONGDOING BY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
>> THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
INVOLVED THE ALLEGATION OF THAT.
BUT IT IS NOT FOR ME IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO DECIDE
HOW THE PRESIDENT CONDUCTS HIS 
FOREIGN POLICY OR HIS 
INTERACTION WITH LEADERS OF 
OTHER COUNTRIES, SIR. 

English: 
>> WELL, I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO 
OPINE ON HOW THE PRESIDENT 
CONDUCTS FOREIGN POLICY.
I'M ASKING YOU WHETHER, AS THE 
STATUTE REQUIRES, THIS COMPLAINT
INVOLVED 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 THAT NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS 
COMPLAINT?
>> THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE 
ALLEGATION OF THE COMPLAINT.
AND TWO THINGS, MR. CHAIRMAN -- 
>> AND LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT 
THAT.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND THAT
SERIOUS ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT
BY THE PRESIDENT CREDIBLE.
DID YOU ALSO FIND THAT CREDIBLE?
>> I DID NOT CRITICIZE THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S DECISION ON 
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CREDIBLE.
MY QUESTION WAS WHETHER IT 
NOT -- IT MEETS THE URGENT 
CONCERN IN THE SEVEN-DAY TIME 

English: 
FRAME THAT WOULD FOLLOW -- I 
HAVE NO QUESTION IN HIS JUDGMENT
THAT HE CONSIDERS IT A SERIOUS 
MATTER.
THE ISSUE THAT I DEALT WITH -- 
>> AND YOU WOULD CONCUR, WOULD 
YOU NOT, DIRECTOR, THAT THIS 
COMPLAINT ALLEGING SERIOUS 
WRONGDOING BY THE PRESIDENT WAS 
CREDIBLE?
>> IT'S NOT FOR ME TO JUDGE, 
SIR.
WHAT MY -- 
>> IT IS FOR YOU TO JUDGE, 
APPARENTLY.
I AGREE IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO 
JUDGE, YOU SHALL PROVIDE IT TO 
CONGRESS.
BUT INDEED YOU DID JUDGE WHETHER
THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD BE 
PROVIDED TO CONGRESS.
CAN WE AT LEAST AGREE THAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL MADE A SOUND 
CONCLUSION THAT THIS 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT WAS 
CREDIBLE?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, THAT IS IN 
THE COVER LETTER THAT'S BEEN 
PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE.
I BELIEVE THAT'S ALSO MADE 
PUBLIC, THE DECISION AND THE 
RECOMMENDATION BY THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL THAT, IN FACT, THE 
ALLEGATION WAS CREDIBLE. 
>> CAN WE ALSO AGREE THAT IT WAS
URGENT, THAT IF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE UNITED STATES WAS 
WITHHOLDING MILITARY AID TO AN 

English: 
ALLY, EVEN AS YOU RECEIVED THE 
COMPLAINT, AND WAS DOING SO FOR 
A NEFARIOUS REASON, TO EXERCISE 
LEVERAGE OVER THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE TO DIG UP MANUFACTURED 
DIRT ON HIS OPPONENT, CAN WE 
AGREE THAT IT WAS URGENT WHILE 
THAT AID WAS BEING WITHHELD?
>> THERE'S TWO THINGS -- 
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LAY -- 
THE COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT
URGENT MEANS.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SAID THIS 
WAS URGENT, NOT ONLY IN THE 
STATUTORY MEANING, THIS WAS 
URGENT AS EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS 
THAT TERM.
CAN WE AGREE THAT IT WAS URGENT?
>> IT WAS URGENT AND IMPORTANT.
BUT MY JOB AS THE DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WAS TO 
COMPLY WITH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
PROTECTION ACT AND ADHERE TO THE
DEFINITION OF URGENT CONCERN, 
WHICH IS A LEGAL TERM. 
>> AND TO ADHERE TO THE MEANING 
OF THE TERM SHALL?
>> YES, SIR. 
>> IN THIS CASE YOU SOUGHT A 
SECOND OPINION ON WHETHER SHALL 
REALLY MEANS SHALL, BY GOING TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE. 

English: 
>> NO, SIR.
THERE WERE TWO THINGS.
AS I SAID IN MY STATEMENT, ONE, 
IT APPEARED THAT IT ALSO HAD 
MATTERS OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
I AM NOT AUTHORIZED AS THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE TO WAIVE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE. 
>> AND AT ANY TIME OVER THE LAST
MONTH THAT YOU HELD THIS 
COMPLAINT DID THE WHITE HOUSE 
ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE 
ENDEAVORED TO -- 
>> I THINK THAT'S A YES OR NO 
QUESTION.
DID THEY EVER ASSERT EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE?
>> THEY WERE WORKING THROUGH THE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE PROCEDURES 
IN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO 
ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. 
>> THEY NEVER ASSERTED EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE.
IS THAT THE ANSWER?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF THEY DID, WE
WOULD NOT HAVE RELEASED THE 
LETTERS YESTERDAY AND ALL THE 
INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN 
FORTHCOMING. 
>> NOW, THE FIRST PLACE YOU WENT
WAS TO THE WHITE HOUSE.
AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM 

English: 
YOUR OPENING STATEMENT, IT 
WASN'T TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE, THE FIRST PLACE YOU 
WENT FOR A SECOND OPINION WAS TO
THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> I DID NOT GO FOR A SECOND 
OPINION.
THE QUESTION WAS, IS THE 
INFORMATION CONTAINED HERE 
SUBJECT TO EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?
NOT WHETHER IT NOT IT MEANT 
URGENT CONCERN. 
>> AND SO THE FIRST PLACE YOU 
WENT FOR ADVICE AS TO WHETHER 
YOU SHOULD PROVIDE THE COMPLAINT
AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES TO 
CONGRESS WAS THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> I AM NOT AUTHORIZED, AS THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE, TO PROVIDE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGED 
INFORMATION.
I THINK IT IS PRUDENT, AS A 
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, 
TO CHECK TO ENSURE THAT, IN 
FACT, IT DOES NOT. 
>> I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE 
SEQUENCING HERE.
DID YOU FIRST GO TO THE WHITE 
HOUSE TO DETERMINE WHETHER YOU 
SHOULD PROVIDE A COMPLAINT TO 
CONGRESS?
>> NO, SIR.
THAT WAS NOT THE QUESTION.
THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT 
IT HAS EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, NOT 
WHETHER OR NOT I SHOULD SEND IT 
ON TO CONGRESS. 

English: 
>> OKAY.
IS THE FIRST PARTY YOU WENT TO 
OUTSIDE OF YOUR OFFICE TO SEEK 
ADVICE, COUNSEL, DIRECTION THE 
WHITE HOUSE?
>> I HAVE CONSULTED WITH THE 
WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL.
AND EVENTUALLY WE ALSO CONSULTED
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL. 
>> AND MY QUESTION IS, DID YOU 
GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST?
>> I WENT TO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL FOR ADVICE, YES, SIR. 
>> THAT -- WELL, I'M ASKING 
WHICH YOU WENT TO FIRST, DID YOU
GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FIRST OR
DID YOU GO TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
FIRST?
>> I WENT TO THE OFFICE -- 
EXCUSE ME.
MY TEAM, MY OFFICE, WENT TO THE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FIRST TO
RECEIVE WHETHER OR NOT THE 
MATTER IN THE LETTER AND IN THE 
COMPLAINT MIGHT MEET THE 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THEY VIEWED IT AND SAID WE'VE 
DETERMINED THAT IT APPEARS TO BE
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, AND UNTIL 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IS 
DETERMINED AND CLEARED I DID NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BE ABLE TO
SEND THAT FORWARD TO THE 
COMMITTEE.
I WORKED WITH THE OFFICE OF 

English: 
LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PAST 
SEVERAL WEEKS TO GET RESOLUTION 
ON THIS.
IT'S A VERY DELIBERATE PROCESS. 
>> WELL, DIRECTOR, I'M TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE CHRONOLOGY.
YOU FIRST WENT TO THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WENT 
TO WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?
>> WE WENT -- EXCUSE ME, AND 
THEN TO THE -- REPEAT THAT, 
PLEASE, SIR. 
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE 
CHRONOLOGY.
YOU FIRST WENT TO THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL AND THEN YOU WENT 
TO THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL?
>> NO, NO, NO, SIR, NO, SIR, NO,
WE WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE FIRST
TO DETERMINE TO ASK THE 
QUESTION -- 
>> THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS 
THE CHRONOLOGY.
YOU WENT TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
FIRST.
SO YOU WENT TO THE SUBJECT OF 
THE COMPLAINT FOR ADVICE FIRST 
ABOUT WHETHER YOU SHOULD PROVIDE
THE COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS?
>> THERE WERE ISSUES WITHIN 
THIS, A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE, IT DID APPEAR THAT IT HAS 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
IF IT DOES HAVE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IT IS THE WHITE HOUSE 
THAT DETERMINES THAT.
I CANNOT DETERMINE THAT AS THE 

English: 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE. 
>> BUT IN THIS CASE THE WHITE 
HOUSE, THE PRESIDENT, IS THE 
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT.
HE'S THE SUBJECT OF THE 
WRONGDOING.
WERE YOU AWARE WHEN YOU WENT TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE FOR ADVICE ABOUT
WHETHER EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING 
BY THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD BE 
PROVIDED TO THE CONGRESS, WERE 
YOU AWARE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL HAS TAKEN THE 
UNPRECEDENTED POSITION THAT THE 
PRIVILEGE APPLIES TO 
COMMUNICATIONS INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT, WHEN HE WAS 
PRESIDENT, INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT WHEN HE WASN'T 
PRESIDENT, INVOLVING PEOPLE WHO 
NEVER SERVED IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION, INVOLVING PEOPLE
WHO NEVER SERVED IN THE 
ADMINISTRATION EVEN WHEN THEY'RE
NOT EVEN TALKING TO THE 
PRESIDENT WERE YOU AWARE THAT 
WAS UNPRECEDENTED POSITION OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE, THE WHITE HOUSE
YOU WENT TO FOR ADVICE ABOUT 
WHETHER YOU SHOULD TURN OVER A 
COMPLAINT INVOLVING THE WHITE 
HOUSE?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AS I SAID IN MY
OPENING STATEMENT, I BELIEVE 
THAT EVERYTHING HERE IN THIS 
MATTER IS TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED.
AND THAT IS WHY MY FORMER 
DIRECTORS OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE FORWARDED THEM TO 
YOU WHETHER OR NOT IT MEANT 
URGENT CONCERN OR WHETHER IT WAS
SERIOUS.

English: 
THIS WAS DIFFERENT.
AND TO ME IT JUST SEEMED PRUDENT
TO BE ABLE TO CHECK AND ENSURE, 
AS A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH, BEFORE I SENT IT 
FORWARD. 
>> I HAVE A COUPLE MORE 
QUESTIONS AND I'LL TURN OVER TO 
THE RANKING MEMBER AND HE MACON 
 -- MAY CONSUME AS MUCH TIME AS 
I DID.
THE SECOND PLACE YOU WENT TO WAS
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
AND YOU WENT TO THAT DEPARTMENT 
HEADED BY A MAN BILL BARR WHO 
WAS ALSO IMPLICATED IN THE 
COMPLAINT.
AND YOU KNEW THAT WHEN YOU WENT 
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR
AN OPINION, CORRECT, THAT BILL 
BARR WAS MENTIONED IN THE 
COMPLAINT?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WENT TO THE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL IN 
CONSULTATION WITH THE ICIG.
HE WAS A PART OF THAT, TO 
RECEIVE WHETHER OR NOT THIS MET 
THE CRITERIA -- 
>> BUT THAT ICIG VEHEMENTLY 
DISAGREED WITH THE OPINION OF 
THE BILL BARR JUSTICE 

English: 
DEPARTMENT, DID HE NOT?
>> HE STILL CONSIDERED IT A 
MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN.
HOWEVER, AS YOU KNOW, OPINIONS 
FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL ARE 
BINDING ON ALL OF US IN THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
DO YOU THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE 
THAT YOU GO TO A DEPARTMENT RUN 
BY SOMEONE WHO'S THE SUBJECT OF 
THE COMPLAINT TO GET ADVICE, OR 
WHO IS A SUBJECT OF THE 
COMPLAINT, OR IMPLICATED IN THE 
COMPLAINT, FOR ADVICE AS TO 
WHETHER YOU SHOULD PROVIDE THAT 
COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS, DID THAT 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONCERN 
YOU?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHEN I SAW THIS
REPORT AND COMPLAINT IMMEDIATELY
I KNEW THAT THIS WAS A SERIOUS 
MATTER.
IT CAME TO ME, AND I JUST 
THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO 
ENSURE -- 
>> I'M JUST ASKING IF THE 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CONCERNED 
YOU, THAT -- 
>> WELL, SIR, I HAVE TO WORK 
WITH WHAT I'VE GOT AND THAT IS 

English: 
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. 
>> YOU ALSO HAD A STATUTE THAT 
SAYS SHALL AND EVEN THEN YOU 
SAID YOU HAD THE DISCRETION TO 
PROVIDE IT BUT DID NOT. 
>> BECAUSE IT DID NOT MEET THE 
MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN THAT 
TOOK AWAY THE SEVEN-DAY TIME 
LINE I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO WORK 
WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
IN ORDER TO GET THE MATERIAL TO 
YOU, WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO 
YOU YESTERDAY.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, CHAIRMAN, IT
IS NOT PERHAPS AT THE TIMELINE 
THAT I WOULD HAVE DESIRED, OR 
YOU, BUT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL HAS TO MAKE SURE THEY 
MAKE PRUDENT DECISIONS.
AND YESTERDAY WHEN THE PRESIDENT
RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS 
CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UKRAINE THEN THEY COULD NO 
LONGER -- EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE NO
LONGER APPLIED AND THAT IS WHEN 
I WAS FREE TO BE ABLE TO SEND 
THE COMPLAINT TO THE COMMITTEE. 
>> DIRECTOR YOU DON'T BELIEVE 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER IS A 
POLITICAL HACK, DO YOU?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS, MR. CHAIRMAN,

English: 
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'VE DONE
MY UTMOST TO MAKE SURE I PROTECT
HIS ANONYMITY. 
>> THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A 
DEFENSE OF THE WHISTLE-BLOWER.
YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER IS A HACK, DO 
YOU, DIRECTOR?
>> I BELIEVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
IS OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH. 
>> THEN -- 
>> OF THE LAW -- 
>> THEY COULDN'T BE IN GOOD 
FAITH IF THEY WERE ACTING AS A 
POLITICAL HACK, COULD THEY?
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, 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 DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO 
ACCUSE THEM OF DISLOYALTY TO OUR
COUNTRY OR SUGGEST THEY'RE 
BE-HOLDEN TO SOME OTHER COUNTRY,
DO YOU?
>> SIR, ABSOLUTELY NOT.
I BELIEVE THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
FOLLOWED THE STEPS EVERY STEP OF
THE WAY.
HOWEVER, THE STATUTE WAS ONE, IN
THIS SITUATION, INVOLVING THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
WHO IS NOT IN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, OR MATTERS UNDERNEATH
MY SUPERVISION DID NOT MEET THE 
CRITERIA FOR URGENT CONCERN. 

English: 
>> I'M JUST ASKING ABOUT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER RIGHT NOW. 
>> I THINK THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
DID THE RIGHT THING, I THINK HE 
FOLLOWED THE LAW EVERY STEP OF 
THE WAY. 
>> THEN WHY, DIRECTOR, WHEN THE 
PRESIDENT CALLED THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER A POLITICAL HACK 
AND SUGGESTED THAT HE OR SHE 
MIGHT BE DISLOYAL TO THE COUNTRY
WHY DID YOU REMAIN SILENT?
>> I DID NOT REMAIN SILENT, MR. 
CHAIRMAN, I ISSUED A STATEMENT 
TO MY WORKFORCE TELLING THEM MY 
COMMITMENT TO THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
PROTECTION AND ENSURING THAT I 
WOULD PROVIDE PROTECTION TO 
ANYBODY WITHIN THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY WHO COMES FORWARD.
BUT THE WAY THIS THING WAS 
BLOWING OUT I DIDN'T THINK IT 
WAS APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO BE 
MAKING A PRESS STATEMENT SO THAT
WE COUNTER EACH OTHER EVERY STEP
OF THE WAY. 
>> I THINK IT WAS NOT ONLY 
APPROPRIATE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING
THAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN MORE 
CONFIDENCE TO THE WORKFORCE THAN
HEARING YOU PUBLICLY SAY NO ONE 
SHOULD BE CALLING THIS 
PROFESSIONAL, WHO DID THE RIGHT 
THING A HACK OR A TRAITOR OR 
ANYTHING ELSE.

English: 
I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT A 
GREAT DEAL TO THE WORKFORCE.
MR. NUNES, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED.
>>> WELCOME, MR. DIRECTOR.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU 
HERE.
AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE PART OF A
CHARADE OF LEGAL WORD GAMES.
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET YOU 
TO SAY SOMETHING THAT CAN BE 
REPEATED BY THE MEDIA THAT IS 
HERE THAT WANTS TO REPORT THIS 
STORY.
YOU -- I JUST WANT TO GET ONE 
THING STRAIGHT BECAUSE ONE OF 
THE QUOTES THEY'RE GOING TO USE 
FROM YOU IS YOU SAYING THAT THIS
WAS A CREDIBLE COMPLAINT.
THAT WILL BE USED AND SPUN AS 
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT WAS TRUE.
AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO -- YOU DO NOT -- 
YOU HAVE NOT INVESTIGATED THE 
VORACITY OR THE TRUTHFULNESS OF 
THIS COMPLAINT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, RANKING 
MEMBER.
THE DETERMINATION ON CREDIBLE 
WAS MADE BY THE IC INSPECTOR 
GENERAL.
HE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT 

English: 
IT IS CREDIBLE.
AND HE ALSO MADE THE 
DETERMINATION OF URGENT CONCERN.
MY QUESTION WAS NOT -- I DID NOT
QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT THERE.
THE QUESTION I HAD WAS DOES, IN 
FACT, THIS ALLEGATION OF 
WRONGDOING MEET THE CRITERIA, 
THE STATUTORY CRITERIA OF URGENT
CONCERN?
AND THE OTHER ISSUE, AS I SAID, 
COMPLICATED THINGS, DID IT, IN 
FACT, THE ALLEGATIONS WITHIN 
THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT, 
INVOLVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE?
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING 
THAT.
HAVE YOU EVER -- YOU MENTIONED 
IT A LITTLE BIT IN YOUR 
TESTIMONY.
BUT HAVE YOU EVER, OR ARE YOU 
AWARE OF ANY FORMER DNIs WHO 
HAVE TESTIFIED ABOUT 
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINTS IN THE
PUBLIC?
>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, RANKING 
MEMBER, I DO NOT KNOW. 
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY CASES 
LIKE THIS THAT WERE PUT INTO THE
SPOTLIGHT, WOULD THIS BE THE WAY
TO HANDLE IT OUT IN THE PUBLIC 
LIKE THIS?
>> I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY, BUT I 

Spanish: 
.
ORGANIZACIONESDEL DE N Y SU 
RESPONSABILIDAD ESTO NO BIEN 
ESTA FORMA PORQUE TIENE 
INVOLUCRADOS MIEMBROS QUE NO SON
MIEMBROS DE LA COMUNIDAD DE 
INTELIGENCIA O DE ORGANIZACIONÍO

English: 
WANT TO SAY ONCE AGAIN I BELIEVE
THAT THE SITUATION WE HAVE AND 
WHY WE'RE HERE THIS MORNING IS 
BECAUSE THIS CASE IS UNIQUE AND 
UNPRECEDENTED.
>> SO WHY ARE CASES NORMALLY NOT
HANDLED OUT IN THE PUBLIC? THE ?
>> ALL THE OTHER CASES THAT CAME
BEFORE EITHER THIS COMMITTEE OR 
THE SENATE COMMITTEE, WHETHER OR
NOT THEY MET THE CRITERIA OF 
URGENT CONCERN WERE FORWARDED 
BECAUSE THEY INVOLVED MEMBERS OF
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WHO 
ARE ORGANIZATIONS UNDER THE 
DNI'S AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY.
THIS ONE DID NOT COME THAT WAY 
BECAUSE IT INVOLVED A MEMBER -- 
AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT A 
MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE OR AN ORGANIZATION 
UNDERNEATH THE AUTHORITY OF THE 
DNI.
SO THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT FROM 
ALL OTHERS IN THE PAST THAT I'M 
AWARE OF.
>> SO I WANT TO GET INTO HOW 
THIS ALL GOT OUT IN THE PUBLIC.
THIS HAS BEEN ORCHESTRATED IFRT 

Spanish: 
LO QUE YA MOVISTAR PASADO
>>> ASÍ QUE ESTO BÁSICAMENTE HA 
SIDO ORQUESTADO HACE DOS SE
SEMANAS, PRIMERO SE NOS DIJO 
HACE UNA SEMANA Y MEDIA, MUY 
ESPECÍFICAMENTE QUE EL 
INFORMANTE NO QUERÍA 
INVOLUCRARSE MÁS CON ESTA 
INFORMACIÓN. SÓLO HAY UN PEQUEÑO
GRUPO POTENCIAL QUE SE PODRÍA 
QUEJAR, LAS PERSONAS DENTRO DE 
LA OFICINA DE INSPECCIÓN GENERAL

English: 
EFFORT OVER TWO WEEKS.
IF YOU -- WE WERE FIRST TOLD 
ABOUT IT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO 
AND WE WERE TOLD VERY 
SPECIFICALLY THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER DID NOT WANT TO 
GET ANY OF THIS INFORMATION OUT,
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO LEAK OUT.
SO THERE WERE ONLY A FEW 
POTENTIAL GROUPS OF PEOPLE THAT 
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 GAVE 
THIS INFORMATION TO.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN 
IS, HOW WOULD IT RUN IN ALL THE 
MAINSTREAM MEDIA OUTLETS?
EVEN THOUGH THEY GOT A LOT OF IT
WRONG, BUT THEY HAD THE BASICS 
OF IT THAT IT INVOLVED THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

English: 
TALKING TO A FOREIGN LEADER.
SO DID ANYBODY -- YOU OR ANYBODY
IN YOUR OFFICE LEAK THIS TO THE 
"WASHINGTON POST" OR NBC NEWS?
>> RANKING MEMBER, I LEAD THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
WE KNOW HOW TO KEEP A SECRET.
AS FAR AS HOW THAT GOT INTO THE 
PRESS, I REALLY DO NOT KNOW.
W
BUT AS YOU SAID, IT HAS BEEN 
REPORTED BY DIFFERENT MEDIA.
WHERE THEY GET THEIR INFORMATION
FROM, I DON'T KNOW.
>> SO THAT -- 
>> IT WAS NOT FROM THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FROM ME 
OR FROM MY OFFICE.
>> THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
SO THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME 
THIS HAS HAPPENED TO THIS 
PRESIDENT.
IT HAPPENED WITH A CALL BETWEEN 
THE MEXICAN PRESIDENT, THE 
AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER.
SO IT HAS HAPPENED TWICE BEFORE,
PIECES OF TRANSCRIPTS LEAKED 
OUT.
AND OF COURSE THIS TIME IT WAS 

Spanish: 
O Y EL INFORMANTE QUE LES DIO 
ESTA INFORMACIÓN LO QUE QUIERO 
DECIR ES ES COMO EL PRESIENTE 
ESTÁ HABLANDO CON LÍDER 
EXTRANJERO ?
>>> RECUERDO TODA LA COMUNIDAD 
INTELIGENCIA NO ESTAMOS 
GUARDANDO UN SECRETOS COMO ESTÁ 
LLEGÓ A LA PRENSA, NO TENGO IDEA
FUE INFORMADO POR DIFERENTES 
MEDIO DURANTE VARIAS SEMANAS Y 
NO SÉ CÓMO PASÓ, NO FUE DE DE MI
OFICINA NI DESDE MI.
>>> ESTAS NO ES LA PRIMERA VEZ 
QUE SUCEDE, SUCEDIÓ ENTRE UNA 
LLAMADA ENTRE UN PRESIDENTE 
MEXICANO Y EL PRIMER MINISTRO 

Spanish: 
AUSTRALIA HA PASADO DOS VECES 
ANTES Y SE HA TRANSCRITO, Y ESTA
VEZ SUCEDIÓ CON OTRO PRESIDENTE,
NO OBSTANTE LA ACCIÓN DE ESTA 
SITUACIÓN NO TIENE PRESENTE, ES 
NORMAL PARA EL PRESIENTE DONALD 
TRUMP TENER ESTE TIPO DE 
CONVERSACIONES ES LA TERCERA VEZ
>>> PARA MI, EL PRESIDENTE DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS CONVERSACIONES 
SON CONVERSIONES PRIVADAS
>>> CLARAMENTE ESAS 
CONVERSACIONES SON CAPTURADAS 
POR LAS ORGANIZACIONES DE IN
INTELIGENCIA

English: 
LIKE LEAKED OUT DEPEND AND THE 
PRESIDENT THANKFULLY HE WAS ABLE
TO PUT THIS OUT BECAUSE OF THE 
ACTIONS OF THIS SITUATION AS YOU
SAID IS UNPRECEDENTED.
IS IT NORMAL FOR THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES TO HAVE 
THEIR CONVERSATIONS LEAK OUT?
I MEAN THIS IS THE THIRD TIME.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THAT TO
THE WHITE HOUSE TO RESPOND TO 
THAT, BUT TO ME, THE PRESIDENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, 
CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OTHER 
HEAD OF STATE, I WOULD CONSIDER 
PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION.
>> CLEARLY THOSE CONVERSATIONS 
ARE BEING CAPTURED BY THE 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SO -- 
>> NOT NECESSARILY, SIR.
I MEAN, IF THE PRESIDENT -- 
>> I SHOULD SAY THEY ARE 
CAPTURED AND THEN DISSEMINATED 
TO THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES.
>> I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IN THIS 
OPEN HEARING ABOUT HOW I RESPOND
TO THAT.

English: 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY 
OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THEY 
COLLECT THINGS TO PROTECT -- 
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE 
BECAUSE ARE WE JUST GOING 
TO -- FOREIGN LEADERS, EITHER 
HAVE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES NOT TALK TO FOREIGN 
LEADERS OR JUST PUBLISH ALL THE 
TRANSCRIPTS.
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS 
HAPPENING HERE.
>> RANKING MEMBER -- 
>> SOMEBODY IS LEAKING THIS AND 
IT IS LIKELY COMING FROM THE 
AGENCIES THAT YOU OVERSEE.
>> RANKING MEMBER, NO, SIR -- 
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT -- YOU 
DON'T KNOW, BUT WE HAD THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEXICAN 
PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN PRIME 
MINISTER AND NOW THE CAUSE WITH 
THE UKRANIAN PRESIDENT LEAK OUT.
>> THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT THERE
WERE ABOUT 12 PEOPLE LISTENED 
IN.
MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL AND OTHERS.
AND OTHERS WERE BRIEFED FROM 
STATE DEPARTMENT AS WELL OF THE 
TRANSCRIPTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN
AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY AND A 
REGION RESPONSIBILITY AND THEN 
THEY WOULD BE INFORMED ON THE 
INTERACTION.

Spanish: 
>>> NO NECESARIAMENTE,
>>> O CAPTURADAS Y PUBLICADAS
>>> QUIERO TENER CUIDADO CON 
ESTA AUDIENCIA ABIERTA, 
OBVIAMENTE LAS ORGANIZACIONES DE
SEGURIDAD QUE EN PROTEGER
>>> EL PRESIENTE DIJO QUE NO 
HABLABA CON LÍDERES EXTRANJEROS,
ESTO LO QUE ESTÁ SUCEDIENDO SE 
ESTABA FILTRANDO INFORMACIÓN, NO
ESTOY DICIENDO QUE TÚ NO SEPAS, 
CON RESPECTO A LO QUE SUCEDIÓ 
CON LOS PRESIDENTES DE MÉXICO Y 
AUSTRALIA
>>> CON RESPECTO A LOS ALEGATOS 

English: 
SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BELIEVED ON
THE CALL, THIS WOULD NOT BE 
SOMETHING THAT -- 
>> I'M QUITE SURE OF THIS.
THE WHITE HOUSE PROBABLY DIDN'T 
LEAK THIS OUT.
>> I WOULDN'T SAY THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
BUT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN
THE WHITE HOUSE THAT MAY OR MAY 
NOT.
I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT WOULD NOT BE FROM AN 
INTELLIGENCE INTERCEPT, I WILL 
SAY THAT.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THE 
DISSEMINATION OF THESE CALLS IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE SACRED, RIGHT?
AND IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE 
STATE DEPARTMENT AND APPROPRIATE
AGENCIES TO GET -- I'M NOT 
SAYING IT IS ALL THE 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.
BUT WHEN A PRESIDENT TALKS TO A 
FOREIGN LEADER, IT IS 
CONFIDENTIAL, THERE COULD BE 
SOME FACTS OF THAT CONVERSATION 
THAT YOU DO WANT TO GET TO THE 
APPROPRIATE AGENCIES, NOT JUST 
THE IC.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
BUT THIS IS NOW THE THIRD TIME.

Spanish: 
DEL INFORMANTE MIEMBROS DE LA 
SEGURIDAD DEL CONSEJO NACIONAL Y
OTROS, LOS QUE HAN TRANSCRITO 
ESTO TIENE LA RESPONSABILIDAD Y 
SERÁN INFORMADOS CON RESPECTO LA
INTERACCIÓN ASÍ UNA GRAN 
CANTIDAD PERSONAS DE LA CASA 
BLANCA
>>> ESTOY SEGURO DE QUE LA CASA 
BLANCA NO FILTRÓ ESTO
>>> IDOS EN LA CASA BLANCA 
PODRÍAN O PODRÍAN HABERLO HECHO,
PERO ESTO NO FUE HECHO POR 
ALGUIEN DE INTELIGENCIA
>>> LA DISCRIMINACIÓN ESTÁ 
LLAMADA SUPUESTAMENTE DEBERÍA 
SER SECRETA, SÓLO DEBÍAN SABERLO
LAS AGENCIAS APROPIADAS, CUANDO 
EL PRESIDENTE HABLA CON UN LÍDER
EXTRANJERO DEBE SER CONF

Spanish: 
CONFIDENCIAL, SÓLO DEBEN 
ENTERARSE LAS AGENCIAS 
APROPIADAS, NO ESTABA CONSCIENTE
DE QUE ESTO HUBIERA PASADO ANTES
>>> REALMENTE NO LO SÉ PARECER A
MI PARECER NO TIENE PRESENTE, 
QUE SE HAYA PUBLICADO ESTA 
CONVERSACIÓN PROBABLEMENTE NO 
TIENE PRESENTE
>>> AGRADEZCO SU COLABORACIÓN Y 
TENGA CUIDADO CON LO QUE DICE 
PORQUE PUEDE DEVOLVÉRSELE
>>> QUIERO ESTAR AQUÍ
>>> APRECIO LO QUE ESTÁ HACIENDO
POR NUESTRO PAÍS, ESPERO QUE LAS
COSAS SE SIGAN MANTENIENDO 
PRIVADAS

English: 
I'M NOT A WAY OF THIS EVER 
HAPPENING BEFORE.
OF KEPT DEPARTMENTS -- CONTENT 
GETTING OUT.
>> IT IS UNPRECEDENTED AND I 
WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THAT THE 
DECISION BY THE PRESIDENT 
YESTERDAY TO RELEASE THE 
TRANSCRIPTS OF HIS CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UKRAINE IS PROBABLY 
UNPRECEDENTED AS WELL.
>> WELL, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING
HERE AND HAVE FUN -- BE CAREFUL 
WHAT YOU SAY BECAUSE THEY WILL 
USE THESE WORDS AGAINST YOU.
>> I TELL YOU WHAT, RANKING 
MEMBER, EITHER WAY I'M HONORED 
TO BE HERE AND HONORED TO BE 
LEADING THE -- 
>> AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE
TO THIS COUNTRY FOR A LONG TIME 
AND I'M SURE WE'LL BE TALKING 
AGAIN SOON.
HOPEFULLY NOT IN THE PUBLIC, 
HOPEFULLY BEHIND CLOSED DOORS 
LIKE THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE 
DONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> MR. HIMES.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROFOUND 
SERVICE AND SERVICE OF YOUR 
FAMILY TO THIS COUNTRY.
DIRECTOR, WHAT I FIND 

English: 
BEWILDERING ABOUT THIS WHOLE 
CONVERSATION IS THAT WE ARE NOT 
SITTING HERE TODAY AND THE 
AMERICAN PUBLIC IS NOT AWARE OF 
THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PRESIDENT
ASKING FOR A FAVOR OFFEN A 
INVESTIGATION INTO HIS POLITICAL
OPPONENT, MR. GIULIANI'S 
APPARENT ESTABLISHMENT OF A 
PERSONAL STATE DEPARTMENT, WE 
ARE NOT AWARE OF A POSSIBLE 
RETALIATION AGAINST A U.S. 
AMBASSADOR, NONE OF THIS HAPPENS
BUT FOR THE DECISION OF YOUR 
INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL 
ATKINSON, A MAN WHO WAS 
APPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP AND
CONFIRMED BY A REPUBLICAN 
SENATE, TO COME TO THIS 
COMMITTEE SEVEN DAYS AFTER THE 
COMPLAINT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW TO
BE TRANSMITTED TO US.
IT WAS HIS DECISION, PERSONAL 
DECISION, NOT THE KALEIDOSCOPE 
OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES THE 
RANKING MEMBER THINKS IS 
HAPPENING HERE, BUT IT WAS THE 

Spanish: 
>>> GRACIAS SEÑOR MAGUIRE POR
ESTAR AQUÍ Y GRACIAS POR SU 
PROFUNDO SERVICIOS DE PAÍS, 
DIRECTOR, CUANDO ESTUVIMOS 
CONSCIENTE DE SU CON SI NO FUERA
ESTAMOS CONSCIENTES SU LLAMADA 
NO ESTARÍAMOS SENTADA AQUÍ, 
HABLANDO EL PRESIENTE PIDIENDO 
UN FAVOR NO TAMO NO ESTARÍAMOS 
CONSCIENTE DE LO QUE PASÓ CON EL
SEÑOR GIULIANI EN EL 
DEPARTAMENTO ESTADO NO 
ESTARÍAMOS CONSCIENTE TRES DE 
TODO ESTO QUE HA SUCEDIDO NO 
OBSTANTE PERO POR LA DECISIÓN DE
SU INSPECTOR GENERAL UN NOMBRE 
QUE FUE NOMBRADO POR EL P
PRESIDENTE POR UN SENADOR 
REPUBLICANO ES QUE HEMOS ESTADO 
SIETE DÍAS LUEGO DE ESTA QUEJA 

Spanish: 
QUE DEBE SER TAN NÍTIDA NOSOTRAS
FUE SU DECISIÓN, NO DE UNA 
TEORÍA CONSPIRAR VIVA QUE 
SUPUESTAMENTE UNO PIENSA QUE 
SUCEDE, PERO FUE LA DECISIÓN DE 
EL INFORMANTE, SIGUIENDO SU 
PROPIA CONCIENCIA, SIN ESA 
DECISIÓN NADA TODO HUBIERA 
SUCEDIDO NO ?
>>> LE COMENTÉ A MIKE CON EL 
ESTÁ HABLANDO EL ESTÁS ACTUANDO 
EN BUENA FE,
>>> ESTA NO ES LA PREGUNTA, SIN 
ESTA DECISIÓN NADA ESTO HABRÍA 
SUCEDIDO ?

English: 
DECISION OF MICHAEL ATKINSON, AN
APPOINTEE OF THIS PRESIDENT, TO 
COME TO THIS COMMITTEE FOLLOWING
NOT ADVICE FROM YOU OR ANY LAW, 
BUT FOLLOWING HIS OWN 
CONSCIENCE.
WITHOUT HIS DECISION DO THIS, 
NONE OF THIS IS HAPPENING, 
CORRECT?
>> I APPLAUD MICHAEL, THE WAY HE
HAS DONE THIS.
HE HAS ACTED IN GOOD FAITH.
HE HAS FOLLOWED THE LAW EVERY 
STEP OF THE WAY.
THE QUESTION IS, CONGRESSMAN, 
DID IT OR DID IT NOT MEET THE 
LEGAL DEFINITION -- 
>> NO, I ASKED A VERY DIFFERENT 
QUESTION.
WHICH WAS WITHOUT HIS 
DECISION -- IT IS SIMPLE.
WITHOUT HIS DECISION, NONE OF 
THIS IS HAPPENING, IS THAT 
CORRECT?
>> WE HAVE TO BACK UP TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AS WELL.
>> AND I SHOULD HAVE NOTED THAT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ALSO DESERVES 
THE SAME ACCOLADES THAT MR. 
ATKINSON DOES.
WERE YOU EVER ADVISED BY THE 
WHITE HOUSE NOT TO PROVIDE THIS 
COMPLAINT TO CONGRESS FOR ANY 
REASON?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.

Spanish: 
>>> DIRECTOR ALGUNA VEZ LA CASA 
BLANCA LA CONSEJO NO OTORGAR 
ESTA CONVERSACIÓN POR UNA RAZÓN
>>> NO
>>> ENTIENDO QUE LA OPINIÓN NO O
FUE OBLIGADA A PESAR DE LO QUE 
DICE LA LEY. LA DECISIÓN FUE 
TOMADA EL Y QUIEN DECIR QUE EL 
QUE LO ESCRIBIÓ ?
>>> LES PARECE UNA PREGUNTA 
SIMPLE ALGUIEN DIJO Y AL DE LO 

English: 
>> AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE 
OPINION WAS THAT YOU WERE NOT 
OBLIGATED TO CONVEY -- DESPITE 
THE VERY CLEAR WORDING OF THE 
LAW -- TO CONVEY THE COMPLAINT 
TO CONGRESS.
SO THE DECISION WAS TAKEN TO 
DEFY A SUBPOENA OF THIS 
CONGRESS, THE SUBPOENA OF 
SEPTEMBER 17th, TO DONE OVER 
E
THE -- TO TURN OVER THE 
COMPLAINT.
WHO MADE THAT DECISION?
CONGRESS. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, URGENT -- 
>> I'M ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION.
WHO MADE THE DECISION TO DEFY 
THE CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA.
SOMEBODY SAID WE WILL NOT ABIDE 
BY THIS SUBPOENA AND I'D LIKE TO
KNOW WHO THAT SOMEBODY WAS.
>> CONGRESSMAN, NOBODY DID.
I ENDEAVORED ONCE WE KNOW LONGER
URGENT CONCERN WITH THE SEVEN 
DAYTIME LIME TO WORK TO GET THE 
INFORMATION TO THE COMMITTEE.
WHAT I NEEDED TO DO WAS TO WORK 
THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
HURDLES WITH THE OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
ALTHOUGH THIS WAS THE MOST 
IMPORTANT ISSUE TO ME, YOU KNOW,
THE WHITE HOUSE HAS QUITE GOT A 

English: 
FEW OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY WERE 
DEALT WITH.
I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD 
AS I SAID PERHAPS THIS MOVED A 
LITTLE FASTER THAN IT DID, BUT 
THIS IS A VERY DELIBERATE 
PROCESS AND FINALLY THIS CAME TO
A HEAD YESTERDAY.
SO WHEN I RECEIVED THE 
INFORMATION ON THE 26th OF 
AUGUST, WE HAD SEVEN DAYS BASED 
ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION 
ACT.
ALL WE DID WAS LOSE THOSE SEVEN 
DAYS.
IT MAY HAVE TAKEN LONGER THAN 
YOU WOULD HAVE LIKED, BUT YOU 
HAVE THE INFORMATION.
>> AND JUST SO I'M FOCUSED ON 
THE SUBPOENA.
THE SUBPOENA IS ON YOUR DESK TO 
SUBPOENA TO THE CONGRESS OF THE 
UNITED STATES, IT IS PRETTY 
CLEAR IN WHAT IT ASKED FOR.
YOU'RE SAYING A DECISION WAS 
NEVER TAKEN NOT TO COMPLY WITH 
THAT SUBPOENA AND YET SOMEHOW IT
WASN'T COMPLIED WITH.
AGAIN, I'M LOOKING FOR THE 
DECISION MAKING PROGRESS TO 
IGNORE A LEGAL CONGRESSIONAL 
SUBPOENA.
>> I DID NOT IGNORE.
I DEALT WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF 
THIS COMMITTEE AND ASKED TO HAVE
ONE MORE WEEK TO BE ABLE TO DO 
WHAT I NEEDED TO DO TO GET THIS 
INFORMATION RELEASED.
IT WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH AND THIS 
COMMITTEE ALSO WAS VERY 

Spanish: 
DECIDIDO
>>> NADIE LO HIZO, LO QUE N
NECESITO ES UN PRIVILEGIO 
EJECUTIVO ES A LO QUE NECESITABA
EN LA CASA BLANCA A PESAR DE 
TODO ESO LAS UN TESTERO ASUNTO 
MÁS IMPORTANTE PARA MÍ, TAL VEZ 
ESTE MOVIMIENTO FUE UN POCO 
RÁPIDO PERO ESTE ES UN PROCESO 
IMPORTANTE ASÍ QUE CUANDO YO 
RECIBÍ LA INFORMACIÓN TUVE QUE 
REALIZAR EL PROCESO DE 
PROTECCIÓN INFORMANTE,
>>> ESTOY INFORME MAN ESTÁ 
INFORMÁNDOSE Y Y FOCALIZÁNDOME 
LA CONVERSACIÓN ESTÁ DICIENDO 
QUE EN LA DECISIÓN FUE NO Q
QUEJARSE, ESTOY TRATANDO DE 

Spanish: 
BUSCAR LA DECISIÓN
>>> SE ME PIDIÓ UNA SEMANA MÁS 
PARA HACER LO QUE DEBÍA SER PARA
QUE ÉSTA CONVERSACIÓN SE 
PUBLICARA, NO FUE ALGO QUE YO 
ESTABA LISTO PARA HACER PERO 
TENÍA QUE REALIZARLO,
>>> DIRECTOR USTED O SU OFICINA 
ALGUNA VEZ HABLARON SOBRE ESTA 
CONVERSACIÓN Y SOBRE LA QUEJA ?
>>> HABLE CON EL SERVICIO 
INTELIGENCIA
>>> REPITO MI PREGUNTA HABLÓ 
ALGUNA VEZ CON EL PRESIDENTE ?
>>> NI CONVERSACIÓN NO FUE CON 
EL PRESIENTE !, FUE CON EL 
DIRECTOR INTELIGENCIA

English: 
SUPPORTIVE.
IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT IT WAS 
READY TO GO, BUT I WAS COMMITTED
FULLY COMMITTETO THIS 
COMMITTEE AND TO THE CHAIRMAN TO
GET THAT INFORMATION.
AND I FINALLY BECAUSE ABLE TO 
PROVIDE THAT YESTERDAY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
DIRECTOR, DID YOU OR YOUR OFFICE
EVER SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES ABOUT THIS 
COMPLAINT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, I'M THE 
PRESIDENT'S INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICER.
I SPEAK WITH HIM SEVERAL TIMES 
THROUGHOUT THE WEEK.
>> LET ME REPEAT MY QUESTION.
DID YOU EVER SPEAK TO THE 
PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS COMPLAINT?
>> MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT BECAUSE I'M THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE ARE PRIVILEGED AND 
IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ME
BECAUSE IT WOULD DESTROY MY 
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PRESIDENT 
IN INTELLIGENCE MATTERS TO 
DIVULGE ANY OF MY CONVERSATIONS 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
>> JUST SO WE CAN BE CLEAR FOR 
THE RECORD, YOU ARE NOT DENYING 
THAT YOU SPOKE TO THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT THIS COMPLAINT?
>> WHAT I'M SAYING, CONGRESSMAN,

Spanish: 
>>> SOLAMENTE PARA ACLARARLO 
USTED NO ESTÁ NEGANDO QUE HABLÓ 
CON EL PRESIENTE SOBRE ESTAS 
QUEJAS
>>> MIENTRAS LA LA CAJA LA CASA 
BLANCA LE PIDIÓ QUE REALIZASTE 
LEGIO ?
>>> SÓLO MANTUVE LA DESCRIPCIÓN 
PROTEGÍ LA CONVERSACIÓN DE 
PRESIENTE
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS
>>> BUENAS TARDE Y QUIERO A
AGRADECER POR ESTAR AQUÍ TIENE 
ABOGADOS EN SU GRUPO ?
>>> SI
>>> Y SUS ABOGADOS LE HAN 

English: 
IS THAT I WILL NOT DIVULGE 
PRIVILEGED CONVERSATIONS THAT I 
HAVE AS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE WITH THE PRESIDENT.
>> HAS THE WHITE HOUSE 
INSTRUCTED YOU TO ASSERT THAT 
PRIVILEGE?
>> NO, AS A MEMBER OF THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND IN
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND 
HOMELAND COMMITTEE, I HAVE TO 
MAINTAIN DISCRETION AND PROTECT 
THE CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
>> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT 
ANSWER.
 I WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE 
OF MY TIME.
>> MR. CONAWAY.
>> THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
YOU AND I ARE AT A COMPETITIVE 
DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE NEITHER ONE
OF US ARE LAWYERS.
AND THAT MAY BE A BADGE OF HONOR
FOR SOME OF US.
YOU HAVE LAWYERS ON YOUR STAFF, 
SIR?
>> I DO, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND YOUR LAWYERS HAVE LOOKED 
AT THIS DEFINITION THOROUGHLY 
AND HAVE GIVEN YOU ADVICE?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> IF THE BLACKLER LAW WAS SO 
CLEAR, HOW IS IT THAT WE'VE GOT 

English: 
DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS GIVING YOU 
AND I DIFFERENT OPINIONS?
THAT IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION 
WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE.
JUST TO CLARIFY, MIKE ATKINSON 
WAS IN FRONT OF US LAST WEEK, 
DID A VERY GOOD JOB OF TELLING 
US WHAT HE DID, WHAT HE DIDN'T 
DO.
WE NOW KNOW FOR SURE WHAT IT IS 
THAT HE WAS ABLE TO DO.
AS PART OF HIS INVESTIGATION, HE
DID NOT REQUEST RECORDS OF THE 
CALL FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE 
REASON IS HE DECIDED THE 
DIFFICULTY OF WORKING THROUGH 
ALL OF THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE 
MEANT THAT HE COULDN'T COMPLY 
WITH THE 14 DAYTIME FRAME.
SO EVEN HE DID NOT TRY TO 
OVERRUN THE WHITE HOUSE OVER THE
CONVERSATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
HE ALSO SAID IN HIS LETTER, I 
ALSO DETERMINED, QUOTING 
MICHAEL, IDETERMINED THERE WERE
REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE 
THAT INFORMATION RELATING TO THE
YOU ARE URGENT CONCERN APPEARED 

Spanish: 
ACONSEJADO
>>> SI
>>> ESTÁ CLARO SOBRE ESTO ?
>>> PARA HACER MÁS CLARO LA 
SEMANA PASADA HIZO MUY BUEN 
TRABAJO NO ESTAMOS SEGUROS LO 
QUE USTED SERÁ CAPAZ DE HACER 
APARTE ESTÁ INVESTIGACIÓN DE LA 
CUAL NO TIENE PRECEDENTE, ES 
DIFÍCIL TRABAJAR CON ESTO,  
TAMBIÉN SE DIJO EN SU CARTA QUE 
ESTABA TERMINADO A CREER QUE LA 

Spanish: 
INFORMACIÓN RELACIONADA CON LAS 
PREOCUPACIONES URGENTES ERAN 
CREÍBLES Y ESTA ES UNA DIFERENTE
DECLARACIÓN, HAY ALGÚN ABOGADO 
QUE LE HAYA ACONSEJADO BAJO LA 
DETERMINACIÓN DE LA PREOCUPACIÓN
?
>>> NO NUNCA SE ME ACONSEJÓ
>>> SE DIJO QUE LA FÍA ESTÁ NO 
ESTÁ PREOCUPADO ESTE ASUNTO
>>> ESTE ES UN TÉRMINO LEGAL

English: 
CREDIBLE.
NOW, THAT IS A DIFFERENT 
STATEMENT THAN FLAT OUT IT IS 
CREDIBLE.
AGAIN RHETORICAL.
ANYTHING IN STATUTE THAT SAYS 
THAT THE DETERMINATION OF URGENT
CONCERN LIES SOLELY WITH THE 
ICIG?
>> NO, SIR, I WAS NEVER ADVISED 
BY LEGAL COUNSEL TO THAT EFFECT.
>> TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE HAS THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EVER WEIGHED 
INTO SAY THAT THE FACT THAT DNI 
CAN'T MAKE A SEPARATE DECISION 
WITH RESPECT TO THAT 7 DAY 
PROCESS, THAT THE MATTER IS NOT 
OF URGENT CONCERN AS YOUR TEAM 
DECIDED?
>> THE MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN 
IS A LEGALLY DEFINING TERM.
IT PRETTY MUCH IS EITHER YES OR 
NO.
>> APPARENTLY THAT IS NOT THE 
CASE BECAUSE IG SAID IT WAS AND 
YOU'RE SAYING IT IS NOT UNDER 
THAT LEGAL DEFINITION BECAUSE IT
INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT.
LAST TIME I CHECKED, HE'S NOT IN
YOUR CHAIN OF COMMAND, YOU ARE 
IN HIS.
SO IT DOESN'T MEET THE STATUTE 

English: 
ORALLY URGENT CONCERN WITH 
RESPECT TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
PROTECTIONS OF THE IG AND YOUR 
TEAM MADE THAT CALL.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MADE A 
DIFFERENT CALL.
>> NO, SIR.
MY TEAM WAS -- IT WAS THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL THAT MADE THE 
DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS URGENT
CONCERN.
ALL WE WANTED TO DO WAS JUST 
CHECK AND SEE AND TO ME IT 
SEEMED PRUDENT WITH THE MATTER 
AT HAND RIGHT NOW TO BE ABLE TO 
JUST MAKE SURE THAT IN FACT IT 
DID.
AND I WANT TO SAY ONCE AGAIN I 
ENDEAVORED TO GET THAT 
INFORMATION TO THIS COMMITTEE. 
>> AND JUST TO CLARIFY THE ROLE 
THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAD 
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT
HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE 
CONVERSATIONS ALLOWED TO MAKE 
HIS CASE, BUT ALSO SAID THAT YOU
GIVE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THE 
LETTER.
WHAT WAS HIS EXACT INVOLVEMENT 
IN MAKING HIS CASE TO THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO HIS 

Spanish: 
>>> DIJO QUE NO ERA UNA 
DEFINICIÓN LEGAL DEBIDO QUE EL 
PRESIENTE LO TIENES QUE LO VI, 
HAY UNA RAZÓN MUY DEFINITIVA CON
RESPECTO A LA DÉBIL DEFINICIÓN 
DE TURGENCIA Y LA PROTECCIÓN DEL
INFORMANTE,
>>> NO
>>> EL DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA 
TENÍA CONSEJEROS QUE REALIZAR LA
DETERMINACIÓN QUE NO ERA 
CARÁCTER DE URGENCIA, LO QUE 
NOSOTROS HICIMOS FUE EVALUAR Y 
VER, Y HICIMOS LO QUE DEBÍAMOS 
HACER CON ESTA INFORMACIÓN

English: 
DECISION?
WAS HE THERE PRESENT PHYSICALLY 
OR HIS LAWYERS?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, 
THE ICIG'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER AS
WELL AS THE COMPLAINT FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WERE FORWARDED TO 
THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL FOR 
THEIR DETERMINATION.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS WHAT THEY
BASED THEIR OPINION ON.
>> OKAY.
SO YOU DON'T THINK -- 
>> GOOD I'M INCORRECT, I WILL 
COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND 
CORRECT THAT.
>> APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU'RE IN A TOUGH SPOT.
APPRECIATE YOU LONG STORY YOUR D
HISTORY.
I APOLOGIZE IF YOUR INTEGRITY 
WAS INSULTED.
THAT HAPPENS A LOT IN THIS 
ARENA, MOST OF THE TIME JUST ARE
FILED, MOST NOT.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE 
DIFFERENCES OF OPINION WHEN WE 
START LOSING THOSE DIFFERENCES 
OF OPINION, WE START TO ATTACK 
EACH OTHER, CALL EACH OTHER 
NAMES AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.
SO MY EXPERIENCE IS WHEN YOU 
HAVE A LEGAL MATTER, I'VE GOT 
LAWYERS THAT I PAY, YOU GOT 
LAWYERS YOU PAY.

Spanish: 
>>> EL ROL ERA RESPETAR EL 
DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA, SE DIJO 
QUE LA CARTA FUE ENTREGADA 
DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA
>>> SEGÚN MI CONOCIMIENTO DE LAS
AGENCIAS TRANSMITÍAN LA CARTA Y 
FUERON SEGUIDOS POR LA 
DETERMINACIÓN DE UN CONSEJO
>>> SI NO ESTÉ CORRECTO VOLVERÉ 
A LA AGENCIA A CORREGIR ESTA 
INFORMACIÓN
>>> ADRI AGRADEZCO SU HISTORIA, 
A VECES LOS INSULTOS SON 
JUSTIFICADOS Y A VECES NO A 
VECES INSULTAN SU INTEGRIDAD, EL

English: 
I TYPICALLY STICK WITH THE 
LAWYERS THAT I'M PAYING.
SO YOU HAD GOOD LEGAL ADVICE AND
ARE IN A TOUGH SPOT WANTING TO 
MAKE SURE THAT THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS PROTECTED BUT 
AT THE SAME TIME IF IN FACT 
THERE WAS SOMETHING AWRY HERE, 
THAT IT WOULD GET THE FULL 
HEARING THAT IT IS CLEARLY 
GETTING.
SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE 
AND I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>> MS. TOOLE.
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
I WANT TO TURN TO WHAT I FEAR 
MAY BE ONE OF THE MOST DAMAGING 
LONG TERM EFFECTS OF THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER EPISODE.
AND THAT IS THE CHILLING EFFECT 
THAT IT WILL HAVE ON OTHERS IN 
GOVERNMENT WHO MAY WITNESS 
MISCONDUCT BUT NOW MAY BE AFRAID
TO COME FORWARD TO REPORT IT.
SIR, I'M WORRIED THAT GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACTORS MAY 
SEE HOW IMPORTANT THIS SITUATION
HAS PLAYED OUT AND DECIDE IT IS 
NOT WORTH PUTTING THEMSELVES ON 
THE LINE.

Spanish: 
HECHO DE QUE TENEMOS DIFERENTES 
OPINIONES Y ESTAMOS EN EMPEZANDO
ATACARNOS MI EXPERIENCIA ES QUE 
EN ASUNTOS LEGALES AMBOS TENEMOS
ABOGADOS A LOS QUE LES PAGAMOS, 
PARA QUE NOS DEN BUENOS CONSEJOS
LEGALES, Y QUE NO HACEN PROTEGER
A LOS INFORMANTES ASÍ QUE 
GRACIAS POR SU SERVICIO
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS, DIRECTOR 
MAGUIRE GRACIAS POR ESTAR AQUÍ, 
CREO QUE NO UNO DE LOS EFECTOS 
MÁS DAÑINOS SOBRE ESTE EPISODIO 
ES EL EFECTO QUE TENDRÁ SOBRE 
OTROS GOBIERNOS, PERO AHORA ES 
ESTAMOS UN POCO ASUSTADOS DE 
CONTINUAR CON LA INFORMACIÓN AÍI
QUE ESTÉ PREOCUPADA DE QUE LOS 

Spanish: 
EMPLEADOS DEL GOBIERNOS PODRÍAN 
VER QUE TAN IMPORTANTE ESTÁ 
SITUACIÓN EL HECHO DE QUE UN 
INFORMANTE SIGA TODAS LOS PASOS 
APROPIADOS PARA INFORMAR Y LUEGO
EL DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA PARA 
MANTENER LAS QUEJAS ES 
PROBLEMÁTICO QUIERO SABER DEL 
VIDEO QUE TAN PROBLEMÁTICA ES TO
PODRÍA SER A LOS MIEMBROS DE ACI
?
>>> NO ESTOY EN DESACUERDO CON 
USTED DICE, QUIERO PERMITÍRSELO 
A LA COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA, Y 
ESTOY SEGURO QUE AL MENOS 

English: 
THE FACT THAT WHISTLEBLOWER 
FOLLOWED ALL OF THE PROPER 
PROCEDURES TO REPORT MISCONDUCT 
AND THEN THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE AND WHITE HOUSE SEEMS TO
HAVE WEIGHED IN TO KEEP THE 
COMPLAINT HIDDEN IS PROBLEMATIC,
SIR.
I WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT 
YOU SEE HOW PROBLEMATIC THIS 
WILL BE IN HAVING A CHILLING 
EFFECT ON MEMBERS OF THE IC THAT
YOU ARE SWORN TO REPRESENT AND 
OSTENSIBLY PROTECT.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I THINK THAT 
IS A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT 
YOU'VE SAID.
I HAVE ENDEAVORED TO TRANSMIT TO
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MY 
SUPPORT OF WHISTLEBLOWERS AND 
I'M QUITE SURE THAT FOR AT LEAST
TWO HOURS THIS MORNING THERE ARE
NOT MANY PEOPLE IN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT ARE 
DOING ANYTHING PRODUCTIVE 
BESIDES WATCHING THIS.
>> AND SO MY CONCERN I THINK IS 
A VALID ONE, THAT IN FACT WHAT 

English: 
HAS HAPPENED WITH THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER EPISODE WILL HAVE 
A CHILLING EFFECT.
I ALSO WANT TO ASK YOU HAVE YOU 
GIVEN DIRECTION TO THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER THAT HE CAN IN 
FACT, HE OR SHE, CAN IN FACT 
COME BEFORE CONGRESS?
DIRECTOR, WHEN THE PRESIDENT 
CALLED THE WHISTLEBLOWER A 
POLITICAL HACK AND SUGGESTED 
THAT HE OR SHE WAS POTENTIALLY 
DISLOYAL TO THE COUNTRY, YOU 
REMAINED SILENT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY, BUT I ALSO 
THINK THAT ADDS TO THE CHILLING 
EFFECT.
THE STATUTE SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR 
THAT YOU SHALL -- THE PROCESS IS
PRETTY CLEAR.
EVEN HAS A ROLE TO PLAY.
AND PART OF IT INCLUDES YOU 
DIRECTING THE WHISTLEBLOWER OF 
HIS OR HER PROTECTED RIGHTS.
CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU 
DIRECTED THAT WHISTLEBLOWER THAT
HE OR SHE CAN COME BEFORE 
CONGRESS?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THERE ARE 

Spanish: 
DURANTE DOS ESTA MAÑANA HAY 
MUCHAS PERSONAS EN LA COMUNIDAD 
QUE HAN ESTADO VIENDO ESTO
>>> MI PREOCUPACIÓN ES QUE ES LO
QUE SUCEDERÁ CON ESTE EPISODIO
DEL INFORMANTE, TAMBIÉN QUIERO 
PREGUNTARLE DE HADA O ERECCIÓN A
ESTE INFORMANTE, EL O ELLA P
PUEDEN VENIR ANTE EL CONGRESO, 
ESTO PODRÍA SER POTENCIALMENTE 
DESLEAL CON EL PAÍS, Y PUEDE 
TENER UN MAL EFECTO LOS 
ESTATUTOS PARECEN MUY CLAROS 
TODO EL MUNDO TIENE UN ROL, Y 
PARTES DE ÉL INCLUSO ES QUE 

English: 
SEVERAL QUESTIONS THERE.
ONE, I DO NOT KNOW THE IDENTITY 
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER.
TWO, NOW THAT THE COMPLAINT HAS 
COME FORWARD, WE ARE WORKING 
WITH HIS COUNSEL IN ORDER TO BE 
ABLE TO EMPLOY THEM WITH 
CLEARANCE -- 
>> SIR, I THINK THAT IT IS 
SIMPLE.
CAN YOU ASSURE THIS COMMITTEE 
AND THE AMERICAN PUBLIC THAT THE
WHISTLEBLOWER IS AUTHORIZED TO 
SPEAK TO THE COMMITTEE WITH THE 
FULL PROTECTIONS WHISTLEBLOWER 
ACT?
YES OR NO QUESTION.
>> RIGHT NOW I'M WORKING THROUGH
THAT WITH THE CHAIR AND TO THE 
BEST OF MY ABILITY I BELIEVE 
THAT THE CHAIR WAS ASKING TO 
HAVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER COME 
FORWARD AND I'M WORKING WITH 
COUNSEL, WITH THE COMMITTEE, TO 
SUPPORT THAT PROCESS.
>> YOU CAN 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 
THE FULL PROTECTIONS OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER -- AFTER ALL, WHAT
IS THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE FOR
IF NOT TO PROVIDE THOSE FULL 

Spanish: 
USTED DIRIGE  AL INFORMANTE Y A 
SUS DERECHOS DE PROTECCIÓN PUEDE
CONFIRMARNOS QUE ELLOS EL PODRÍA
VENIR ALGO ANTE EL CONGRESO
>>> NO SE Y NO CONOZCO LA 
IDENTIDAD DEL INFORMANTE, DOS 
NINGUNA DE LAS QUEJAS QUE 
SEGUIRÁN TIENEN QUE VER CON EL 
CONGRESO
>>> MI PREGUNTA SIMPLE, PUEDE 
ASEGURAR A ESTA JUNTA QUE EL 
INFORMANTE ESTÁ AUTORIZADO PARA 
HABLAR ?
>>> EN ESTE MOMENTO ESTOY 
TRABAJANDO EN ESO Y CREO QUE 
PODEMOS APOYAR ESO
>>> PUEDE ASEGURAR AL PÚBLICO

Spanish: 
ESTADOUNIDENSE QUE EL INFORMANTE
SE PRESENTARÁ, Y LUEGO DE TODA 
LA PROTECCIÓN QUE SE LE HA DADO
>>> HARÉ TODO PARA APOYAR ESO EL
INFORMANTE FUE CAPAZ DE PUBLICAR
TODO EL HECHO SENTADO AL LADO 
DEL PODRÍA PODRÍA ASEGURARNOS 
QUE EL INFORMANTE PODRÍA 
TESTIFICAR Y DISFRUTAR DE LA 
ERECCIÓN DE LA LEY ?
>>> SI
>>> ASÍ QUE SEÑOR DIRECTOR 

English: 
PROTECTIONS AGAINST RETALIATION,
AGAINST LITIGATION?
>> I'M DOING EVERYTHING TO 
ENDEAVOR TO SUPPORT THAT.
>> DIRECTOR, DO I HAVE YOUR 
ASSURANCE THAT ONCE YOU WORK OUT
THE SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COUNSEL, THAT 
THAT WHISTLEBLOWER WILL BE ABLE 
TO RELATE THE FULL FACTS WITHIN 
HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT CONCERN 
WRONGDOING BY THE PRESIDENT OR 
ANYONE ELSE, THAT HE OR SHE WILL
NOT BE INHIBITED IN WHAT THEY 
CAN TELL OUR COMMITTEE, THAT 
THERE WILL NOT BE SOMEONE FROM 
THE WHITE HOUSE OR ELSEWHERE 
TELLING THEM WHAT THEY CAN 
ANSWER AND NOT ANSWER?
DO I HAVE YOUR ASSURANCE THAT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER WILL BE ABLE 
TO TESTIFY FULLY AND FREELY AND 
ENJOY THE PROTECTIONS OF THE 
LAW?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> I YIELD BACK TO THE GENTLE 
WOMAN.
>> SO MR. DIRECTOR, I ALSO 
WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU 
ARE GOING TO DO TO TRY TO ENSURE
THE TRUST OF THE EMPLOYEES AND 
CONTRACTORS THAT YOU REPRESENT, 

Spanish: 
TAMBIÉN TIENDO QUE EL QUE USTED 
ESTÁ TRATANDO ASEGURAR ES LA 
CONFIANZA DE LO QUE USTED R
REPRESENTA PARA ASEGURAR EL 

English: 
TO ASSURE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE 
IS IN FACT BEING PROPERLIED A 
HE
ADHERED TO AND THAT NO FURTHER 
EFFORTS WOULD BE TO OBSTRUCT AN 
OPPORTUNITY FOR A WHISTLEBLOWER 
WHO HAS WATCHED MISCONDUCT TO 
ACTUALLY GET JUSTICE.
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, SUPPORTING AND
LEADING THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IS MY 
HIGHEST PRIORITY.
I DON'T CONSIDER THAT THEY WORK 
FOR ME.
I BELIEVE THAT I SERVICE -- 
>> I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD 
AS BEING VERY CLEAR THAT THIS 
WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY NOT WHAT THE
STATUTE WAS INTENDED FOR.
IT WAS INTENDED FOR 
TRANSPARENCY.
IT WAS INTENDED ALSO TO GIVE THE
WHISTLEBLOWER CERTAIN 
PROTECTIONS.
AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
KEY SE
DESERVE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. TURNER.
>> DIRECTOR, THANK YOU FOR BEING
HERE.

English: 
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND 
CHARITY AT WHICH YOU HAVE 
DESCRIBED THE DELIBERATIONS THAT
YOU WENT THROUGH IN APPLYING THE
LAWS WITH RESPECT TO THIS 
COMPLAINT IS INCREDIBLY 
ADMIRABLE AND THE MANNER IN 
WHICH YOU HAVE APPROACHED THIS.
NOW, I READ THE COMPLAINT.
AND I'VE READ THE TRANSCRIPT OF 
THE CONVERSATION WITH THE 
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE.
CONCERNING THAT CONVERSATION, I 
WANT TO SAY TO THE PRESIDENT 
THIS IS NOT OKAY.
THAT CONVERSATION IS NOT OKAY 
AND I THINK IT IS DSZ APPOINTING
TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WHEN THEY
READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
BUT I CAN SAY WHAT ELSE IS NOT.
IT IS NOT WHAT IS IN THE 
COMPLAINT.
WE NOW HAVE THE COMPLAINT AND 
THE TRANSCRIPT CRYPT AND PEOPLE 
CAN READ THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE 
COMPLAINT ARE NOT THE 
ALLEGATIONS OF THE SUBJECT 
MATTER OF THIS CONVERSATION.
WHAT ELSE IT IS NOT, IT IS NOT 
THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS IN THE
CHAIRMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT.
WHILE THE CHAIRMAN WAS SPEAKING,
I HAD SOMEONE TEXT ME IS HE JUST
MAKING THIS UP?
AND YES, HE WAS.
BECAUSE SOMETIMES FICTION IS 

Spanish: 
ESTADOUNIDENSE EL ESTATUS DEL 
INFORMANTE ES DE HECHO SIENDO
COMUNIDAD O DE HECHO
COMUNIDAD O DE HECHO
.INVOLUCRA MIEMBROS DE TODA LA 
.INVOLUCRA MIEMBROS DE TODA LA 

Spanish: 
.INVOLUCRA MIEMBROS DE TODA LA 
COMUNIDAD O DE HECHO
COMUNIDAD O DE HECHO
TIENEN LA TRANSCRIPCI;ON
CHOANEL PRESIENTE UCRANIA Y 
ESCUCHAMOS LAS Y LO QUE 
RECOLECTAR LAS CÁMARAS Y NO 
ESTAMOS REALIZANDO EN LOS 
ASUNTOS DE SEGURIDAD, LAS L
LLAMADAS DEL JUICIO POLÍTICO QUE
ERAN MUY INSULTANTES AHORA ES LA
QUEJA QUE TENEMOS ESTÁN BASADAS 
EN QUIEN ESCRIBIÓ Y HABLÓ CON
DOS PERSONAS Y ME COMENTARON 

English: 
BETTER THAN THE ACTUAL WORDS OF 
THE TEXT.
LUCKILY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC ARE 
SMART AND THEY HAVE THE 
TRANSCRIPT, THEY HAVE READ THE 
CONVERSATION, THEY KNOW WHEN 
SOMEONE IS JUST MAKING IT UP.
WE'VE BEEN HERE ALL YEAR ON LIT 
DEBATING IMPEACHMENT LONG BEFORE
THE JULY 25th CONVERSATION 
HAPPENED BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT 
AND THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND
WE'VE HEARD THE CLICKS OF THE 
CAMERAS IN THIS INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE'S ROOM WHERE WE'VE NOT
BEEN FOCUSSING ON THE ISSUES OF 
THE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS 
BUT INSTEAD OF THE CALLS FOR 
IMPEACHMENT WHICH IS REALLY AN 
ASSAULT ON THE ELECTORATE, NOT 
JUST THIS PRESIDENT.
THE COMPLAINT WE NOW HAVE IS 
BASED ON HEARSAY.
THE PERSON WHO WROTE IT SAYS I 
TALKED TO PEOPLE AND THEY TOLD 
ME THESE THINGS.
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS THE 
COMPLAINT, SO THEY HAVE THE 
ABILITY TO COMPARE THEM.
WHAT IS CLEAR ABOUT THE 
COMPLAINT IS IT IS BASED ON 
POLITICAL ISSUES.
HE IS ALLEGING OR SHE IS 

English: 
ALLEGING THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE
PRESIDENT WERE POLITICAL IN 
NATURE.
NOW, THAT IS MY CONCERN ABOUT 
HOW THIS IS APPLIED TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE IS 
INTENDED TO BETTER PROVIDE THOSE
IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AN
OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO CONGRESS 
WHEN THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT 
ABUSES OF POWERS AND LAWS, BUT 
IT IS ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY, ABUSE OF 
SURVEILLANCE, ABOUT THE ABUSE OF
THE SPY MECHANISMS THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS ABOUT ACTUALLY THE 
PRODUCT OF SURVEILLANCE.
SOMEONE HAS BEEN -- HAD ACCESS 
TO SURVEILLANCE THAT RELATED THE
PRESIDENT'S
BROUGHT IT FORWARD TO US.
I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO TURN FOR A 
MOMENT AND TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS
OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROCESS AND
CONCERNS AS TO WHY IT HAS TO BE 
THERE SO THAT THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY CAN BE HELD 
ACCOUNTABLE AND WE CAN HAVE 
OVERSIGHT.
BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY WASN'T 
THERE FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE 
PRESIDENT.
IT WAS THERE FOR OVERSIGHT FOR 

Spanish: 
ESTO TRANSCRIBIERON LAS QUEJAS
ASÍ QUE LAS QUEJAS ESTÁN BASADAS
EN ASUNTOS POLÍTICOS, LAS A
ACCIONES DEL PRESIDENTE TIENEN
NATURALEZA POLÍTICA ESTÁ MI 
PREOCUPACIÓN SOBRE EL ESTATUS 
DEL INFORMANTE. QUE FUE SE LE 
OTORGÓ PROTECCIÓN ES SOBRE LA 
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA, ES SOBRE
EL ABUSO, ESTE DERECHO SER 
PRODUCTO AL QUE TENEMOS ACCESO 
CON RESPECTO A LA CONVERSACIÓN 
DEL PRESIDENTE, ME GUSTARÍA QUE 
ESTÉ NO DIJERA SUS PENSAMIENTOS 

Spanish: 
SOBRE EL PROCESO CON RESPECTO AL
INFORMANTE Y LAS PROVOCACIONES 
QUE TIENEN QUE ESTAR AHÍ, PORQUE
LA COMUNIDAD TIENE QUE ESTAR AÍI
POR EL PRESIDENTE SI ÉSTE PUEDA 
DESCRIBIRNOS SUS PENSAMIENTOS, Y
ESTÁ INTERESANTE DE INTERESADO 
EN EL HECHO DEL ESTATUS DEL 
INFORMANTE CLARAMENTE USTED 
TIENE UN CONFLICTO DE LEYES CON 
RESPECTO A LOS PRIVILEGIOS 
EJECUTIVOS ASÍ QUE MENOS PODRÍA 
DECIR QUE TAN IMPORTANTE ES EL 
ESTATUTO DEL INFORMANTE EN LA 
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA ? Y LUEGO
LOS HECHOS QUE SE ESTÁN RE
REALIZANDO CON RESPECTO C
CONFLICTOS
>>> LA COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA Y 
EL ACTO DE PROTECCIÓN AL 

English: 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
SO IF YOU COULD DESCRIBE YOUR 
THOUGHTS ON THAT.
AND THEN I WAS VERY INTERESTED 
IN YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BECAUSE 
THERE HAS BEEN MUCH MADE OF THE 
FACT THAT THE LAW SAYS ON THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER STATUTE IT THAT 
YOU SHALL.
CLEARLY YOU HAVE A CONFLICT LAWS
WHEN YOU HAVE THE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE ISSUE AND THE ISSUE OF
SHALL.
SO FIRST TELL US ABOUT THE 
RESPECT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND OUR 
ROLEOF OVERSIGHT AND THEN YOUR 
PROCESS, THE EFFECTS OF BEING 
STUCK IN THE MIDDLE WHERE YOU 
HAVE THESE CONFLICTS OF LAW.
>> CONGRESSMAN, THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY WHISTLEBLOWER 
PROTECTION ACT IS TO APPLY TO 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
AND IT PERTAINS TO FINANCIAL, 
ADMINISTRATIVE OR OPERATIONAL 
ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE 

English: 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY UNDER THE
OVERSIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY OF 
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
IT DOES NOT ALLOW A MEMBER OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TO 
REPORT ANY WRONGDOING THAT COMES
FROM ANYWHERE IN THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT.
AND SO WITH THAT, I DO BELIEVE 
THAT THAT IS ABOUT THE 
INTELLIGENCE WHISTLEBLOWER 
PROTECTION ACT WITH THE BEST 
VEHICLE THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
HAD TO USE.
THEY CAME TO ME AND DISCUSSION 
WITH OUR ICIG, WHO IS A 
COLLEAGUE, AND THE DETERMINATION
WAS MADE BY THE -- WELL, THAT HE
VIEWED THAT IT WAS IN FACT 
CREDIBLE AND THAT IT WAS A 
MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN.
AND I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE 
PRUDENT TO HAVE ANOTHER OPINION.
I HAVE WORKED WITH LAWYERS MY 
WHOLE CAREER, WHETHER IT WAS THE

Spanish: 
INFORMANTE APLICADO POR LA 
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA Y LUEGO 
ES LA FINANCIACIÓN O LAS 
ACTIVIDADES DE LAS COMUNIDADES 
INTELIGENCIA Y LA R
RESPONSABILIDAD DEL DIRECTOR DE 
INTELIGENCIA NACIONAL, NO SE LE 
PERMITA UN MIEMBRO DE ESTA 
COMUNIDAD REALIZAR NINGÚN ERROR 
QUE VENGA EL GOBIERNO FEDERAL 
QUIERO CREER QUE ESTAS CON 
RESPECTO A LA PROTECCIÓN AL 
INFORMANTE QUE ES EL MEJOR 
VEHÍCULO QUE EL INFORMANTE PUEDE
UTILIZAR VINO PARA MÍ UNA 
DISCUSIÓN CON RESPECTO A QUIÉN 
ES EL COLEGA Y LA DETERMINACIÓN 
FUE HECHA POR QUE ÉL VIO QUE ERA
DE HECHO CREÍBLE Y QUE ERA UN 
ASUNTO DE PREOCUPACIÓN Y CME 

Spanish: 
INCLUYÓ COMO OTRA OPINIÓN HE 
TRABAJADO CON ABOGADOS TODA MI 
CARRERA CON RESPECTO CONFLICTOS 
CON, O SOLAMENTE CON RESPECTO AL
CÓDIGO DE JUSTICIA MILITAR Y 
DESCUBRÍ QUE DIFERENTES ABOGADOS
TIENEN DIFERENTES OPINIONES CON 
RESPECTO AL MISMO TEMA, NO ES UN
ASUNTO DE LA CORTE SUPREMA, ESO 
NO SIGNIFICA QUE ESTEMOS EN LO 
CORRECTO O NO SOLAMENTE SON 
DIFERENTES OPINIONES, ME DI 
CUENTA DE LA IMPORTANCIA EN EL 
QUE ESTAMOS EN ESTA MAÑANA, PARA
MÍ SERÍA PRUDENTE ASEGURAR EL 
HECHO DE LA PROTECCIÓN DEL 
INFORMANTE Y ESPERO QUE ESTO 

English: 
RULE UPON CONFLICT, RULES OF 
ENGAGEMENT, OR JUST UNIFORM CODE
OF MILITARY JUSTICE.
AND I HAVE FOUND THAT DIFFERENT 
LAWYERS HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS 
ON THE SAME SUBJECT.
WE HAVE NINE JUSTICES OF THE 
SUPREME COURT.
MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE 
OPINIONS ARE 5-4.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT FIVE ARE 
RIGHT AND FOUR ARE WRONG, THEY 
ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION.
BUT WHEN THIS MATTER CAME FOR 
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 THAT IT WOULD BE 
PRUDENT FOR ME TO ENSURE THAT IN
FACT IT MET THAT STATUTE BEFORE 
I SENT IT FORWARD IN DOM 
APPLIANCE WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER
PROTECTION ACT.
AND I HOPE THAT RESPONDS TO YOUR
QUESTION.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> AS AN ASIDE, I WANT TO 
MENTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE IS 
RIGHT ON BOTH COUNTS, IT IS NOT 
OKAY, BUT ALSO MY SUMMARY OF THE
PRESIDENT'S CALL WAS MEANT TO BE

Spanish: 
RESPONDA A SU PREGUNTA
>>> QUIERO MENCIONAR QUE MI 
COLEGA NO ESTÁ BIEN PERO TAMBIÉN
EL RESUMEN DE LA LLAMADA NO ES 
TAN CLARO SI ES UN PROBLEMA 
SEPARARON SISMO, USTÉ NO ME 
ENTENDIÓ MUCHO MÁS VECES MI.ES
QUE ESTÁ EN EL MENSAJE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIA ESTÁ 
RECIBIENDO CAGANDO MUCHAS 
GRACIAS DIRECTOR MAGUAYO
>>> DIRECTOR, ESTA QUEJA NUNCA 
HABÍA SIDO MANTENIDA POR EL 
CONGRESO ES VERDAD ?
>>> CREO QUE PODRÍA SER, Y LO 
QUE DIJO EN MI DECLARACIÓN ES 
HASTA AHORA COMO LO ENTIENDO SIN

English: 
AT LEAST PART IN PARODY.
THE FACT THAT IS NOT CLEAR IS A 
SEPARATE PROBLEM IN AND OF 
ITSELF.
OF COURSE THE PRESIDENT NEVER 
SAID IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME,
I'LL SAY IT SEVEN MORE TIMES.
MY POINT IS THAT THAT IS THE 
MESSAGE THAT THE UKRAINE 
PRESIDENT WAS RECEIVING IN NOT 
SO MANY WORDS.
MR. CARSON.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN SCHIFF.
THANK YOU DIRECTOR MAGUIRE FOR 
YOUR SERVICE.
DIRECTOR, THIS APPEARS TO BE THE
FIRST INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THAT HAS
EVER, EVER BEEN WITHHELD FROM 
CONGRESS.
IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> CONGRESSMAN CARSON, I BELIEVE
THAT IT MIGHT BE AND ONCE AGAIN 
I SAID IN MY STATEMENT THAT IT 
IS IN FACT AS FAR AS I'M 
CONCERNED UNPRECEDENTED.
>> IT IS UNPRECEDENTED, SIR.
DO YOU KNOW WHY IT IS 
UNPRECEDENTED?
I THINK IT IS BECAUSE THE LAW 

Spanish: 
PRECEDENTE
>>> NO TIENE PRECEDENTE, SABE 
POR QUÉ ?
>>> CREO QUE ES POR QUÉ LA LEY 
DEL CONGRESO REALMENTE NO PUDO 
SER MUY CLARA, DECLARA TAN 
URGENTE ALEGATO QUE VENGA USTED 
O DEL DIRECTOR, EN SIETE DÍAS NO
TIENE RESPUESTA INCLUSO SI SE HA
ENCONTRADO QUE ESTAS 
PREOCUPACIONES NO IMPORTAN, 
ENTONCES ESTAS SON TRANSMITIDAS
>>> EN EL PASADO CUANDO TENÍAMOS
ESTE TIPO DE OCUPACIONES Y EL Y 

English: 
THAT CONGRESS, THAT THIS VERY 
COMMITTEE DRAFTED, REALLY 
COULDN'T BE CLEARER.
IT STATES THAT UPON RECEIVING 
SUCH AN UR
IT STATES THAT UPON RECEIVING 
SUCH GENT COMPLAINT FROM THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU THE 
TORE 
OF NATIONAL AL INTELLIGENCE 
SHALL FORWARD TO THE INTEL 
COMMITTEES WITHIN SEVEN DAYS NO 
IFs, ANDs OR BUTs.
AND EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT URGENT 
CONCERN OR EVEN CREDIBLE, YOUR 
OFFICE HAS CONSISTENTLY AND 
UNIFORMLY STILL TRANSMITTED 
THOSE COMPLAINTS TO THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CONGRESSMAN CARSON, IN THE 
PAST EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT A 
MATTER OF URGENT CONCERN OR 
WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE NOT 
CREDIBLE, THEY WERE FORWARDED.
BUT EVERY INSTANCE PRIOR TO THIS
IT INVOLVED MEMBERS OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY WHO WERE 
SERVING ORGANIZATIONS UNDER THE 
CONTROL OF THE DNI.
THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE 
THIS DID NOT MEET THOSE TRUE 
CRITERIA.
>> DIRECTOR, DOES EXECUTIVE 

Spanish: 
PENSABAN QUE NO ERAN CREÍBLES 
CONTINUAMOS CON ELLAS, ESTO ES
DIFERENTE PORQUE NO TUVIMOS LO 
MISMO CRITERIOS
>>> EL PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO EN 
LA COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA, EN LA
SEGURIDAD DE LA DEMOCRACIA
>>> NO
>>> ESTO ES ALGO ANTIGUO CON 
RESPECTO A LA CONSTANCIA DE SU 
OFICINA, LUEGO DE LA ELECCIÓN DE
LA CASA BLANCA EN EL DEPA
DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA TÚ SE 
SIGUE LAS ÓRDENES CON RESPECTO A
LA LEY, USTÉ EN LA ADM
ADMINISTRACIÓN ACTUAL HA 
REALIZADO UNA ACCIÓN SIN PR
PRECEDENTES, USTÉ PUBLICÓ ESTAS 
PREOCUPACIONES CONTRA LA 

English: 
PRIVILEGE IN YOUR MIND OR LAWS 
THAT REGULATE THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY PREEMPT OR NEGATE EVEN
THE LAWS THAT SAFE GUARD THE 
SECURITY OF AMERICA'S DEMOCRATIC
ELECTIONS AND HURT DEMOCRACY 
ITSELF, SIR?
>> NO, CHAIRMAN CARSON, IT DOES 
NOT.
>> NOTWITHSTANDING THIS 
UNAMBIGUOUS MANDATES AND THE 
CONSISTENT PRACTICE OF YOUR 
OFFICE THAT YOU WITHHELD THIS 
URGENT COMPLAINT FROM CONGRESS 
AT THE DIRECTION OF THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, YOU FOLLOWED THEIR 
ORDERS INSTEAD OF THE LAW.
AND IF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAD
NOT BROUGHT THIS COMPLAINT TO 
OUR ATTENTION, YOU AND THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN
AWAY WITH THIS UNPRECEDENTED 
ACTION.
SIR, YOU RELEASED A STATEMENT 
YESTERDAY 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 
FAPGTS HERE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO US, SIR?
>> CONGRESSMAN CARSON, A COUPLE 

English: 
THINGS.
THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT, DID 
NOT, DIRECT ME TO WITHHOLD THE 
INFORMATION.
NEITHER DID THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL.
THAT OPINION HAS BEEN 
DISSEMINATED.
THE QUESTION CAME DOWN TO URGENT
CONCERN, WHICH IS A LEGAL 
DEFINITION.
IT DOESN'T MEAN IS IT IMPORTANT,
IS IT TIMELY.
URGENT CONCERN MET THE CERTAIN 
CRITERIA THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED 
SEVERAL TIMES HERE.
SO IT DID NOT.
AND ALL THAT DID, SIR, WAS THEN 
JUST TAKE AWAY THE SEVEN DAYS.
NOW, AS I SAID BEFORE, JUST 
BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FORWARDED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE DOES NOT MEAN 
THAT IT WENT UNANSWERED.
THE ICIG AND THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT REFERRED TO THE 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
FOR INVESTIGATION.
SO THAT WAS WORKING WHILE I WAS 
ENDEAVORING TO GET THE EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE CONCERNS ADDRESSED.
SO THAT IT CAN THEN BE 

Spanish: 
CONSTITUCIÓN Y LAS INDICACIONES,
TENGO LA ENTENDER CÓMO ESTA 
DECLARACIÓN PUEDE SER VERDADERA 
A LA LUZ DE LOS HECHOS ?
>>> LA CASA BLANCA NO ME DIRIGÓO
A PUBLICAR INFORMACIÓN, TAMPOCO 
LOS CONSEJOS LEGALES, ESA 
OPINIÓN HA SIDO CLASIFICADA Y 
DISEMINADA LA PREGUNTA VIENE Y 
LAS PREOCUPACIONES URGENTE EN 
TIENEN UNA DEFINICIÓN LEGAL, SI 
TIENE CIERTO CRITERIO QUE SE HA 
DISCUTIDO ACÁ Y NO, LO QUE ME 
PREOCUPA QUE ESTO SE LLEVE LOS 
SIETE DÍAS, ESTO NO SIGNIFICA 
QUE TE RESPONDEN A LA PREGUNTA 

English: 
FORWARDED.
IT WAS NOT STONEWALLING.
I DIDN'T RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM 
ANYBODY.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO WORK 
THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE LAW 
THE WAY THAT IT IS WRITTEN.
I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE WAY 
THE LAW IS, NOT WAY SOME PEOPLE 
WOULD LIKE TO BE.
AND IF I COULD DO OTHERWISE, IT 
WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE 
CONVENIENT FOR ME, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND LASTLY, DIRECTOR, AS YOU 
SIT HERE TODAY, SIR, DO YOU 
COMMIT TO PROVIDING EVERY SINGLE
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT INTENDED
FOR CONGRESS TO THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY THAT IS REQUIRED BY 
THE STATUTE, SIR?
>> IF IT IS REQUIRED BY THE 
STATUTE, CONGRESSMAN, YES, I 
WILL.
>> THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW, SIR.
AND I CERTAINLY HOPE SO BECAUSE 
I THINK THAT THE UNPRECEDENTED 
DECISION TO WITHHOLD THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT FROM 
CONGRESS, I THINK IT RAISES 
SERIOUS CONCERNS FOR US AND FOR 
ME AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO 
GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.
I YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.

Spanish: 
DE LA FÍA Y EL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA, ESTÁN INVESTIGANDO POR
INVESTIGAR, ESTO INVOLUCRA EL 
PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO CON 
RESPECTO A LAS PREOCUPACIONES, 
NO DIRÉ NO RECIBÍ IR DIRECCIÓN 
DE NADIE TENGO QUE QUEJAS CON 
RESPECTO A CÓMO LA LEY ES NO DE 
CÓMO DEBÍA SER DE HECHO DE OTRA 
FORMA PODRÍA DECIR MUCHO MÁS 
CONVINCENTE PARA MÍ
>>> Y POR ÚLTIMO USTÉ COMÍ SIO
>>> SI ES REQUERIDO POR EL 
ESTATUS Y LO HARÉ
>>> ESPERO QUE ESTA DECISIÓN SIN
PRESIDENTE QUIEN AUMENTAN ESTAS 

English: 
THANK YOU.
>> HOW MUCH TIME DOES THE 
GENTLEMAN HAVE REMAINING?
OKAY.
WELL, DIRECTOR, YOU WERE NOT 
DIRECTED TO WITHHOLD THE 
COMPLAINT, IS THAT YOUR SYSTEM?
>> YES, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
>> SO EXERCISED YOUR DISCRETION 
TO WITHHOLD THE COMPLAINT FROM 
THE COMMITTEE.
>> I DID NOT, SIR.
WHAT I DID, I DELAYED IT BECAUSE
IT DID NOT MEET THE STATUTORILY 
DEFINITION OF URGENT CONCERN AND
I WAS WORKING THROUGH -- 
>> DIRECTOR, YOU ARE AWARE, YOU 
SPENT A LOT OF TIME FOCUSING ON 
THE DEFINITION OF URGENT 
CONCERN, YOU ARE A WEAR THAT THE
PRACTICE OF YOUR OFFICE HAS BEEN
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE 
COMPLAINT MEET DEFINITION OF 
URGENT CONCERN REGARDLESS OF 
WHETHER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 
FOUND IT CREDIBLE ARE ARE ON 
OR 
NOT CREDIBLE, IT IS ALWAYS GIVEN
TO THE COMMITTEE.
ARE YOU AWARE THIS IS NOW A 
BROKEN PROMISE?

Spanish: 
PREOCUPACIONES CREO QUE NE
NECESITAMOS SEGUIR CON EL 
BALANCE DE NUESTRO TIEMPO MUCHAS
GRACIAS
>>> USTÉ DIRIGIÓ LAS QUEJAS ES 
ESTO TESTIMONIO
>>> SI
>>> SU EJERCICIO DISCRECIÓN SÓLO
DE LAS QUEJAS
>>> NO, NO TENÍA DEFINICIÓN DE 
URGENCIA Y ESTABA TRABAJANDO EN 
ESO
>>> Y ESTÁ CONSCIENTE QUE HA 
SIDO MUCHO TIEMPO FOCALIZÁNDOSE 
EN LA DEFINICIÓN DE LA OCUPACIÓN
? MÁS ALLÁ DE LA DEFINICIÓN, LA 
QUEJA SIEMPRE SE ESTÁ DANDO A 

English: 
>> EVERY PREVIOUS WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT FORWARDED TO THE 
INTELLIGENCE CAN COMMITTEES 
INVOLVED A MEMBER OF THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND 
ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE HAD AUTHORITY AND 
RESPONSIBILITY.
>> BUT YOU'RE AWARE THE PAST 
PRACTICE, WE'RE TALKING URGENT 
CONCERN HERE, THAT WHETHER YOU 
OR THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OR 
ANYBODY ELSE BELIEVES IT MEETS 9
STATUTORY DEFINITION, PAST 
PRACTICE IS TO GIVE TO THIS 
COMMITTEE.
>> I'M AWARE THAT THIS IS 
UNPRECEDENTED AND THIS NEVER -- 
AND WITH THAT, SIR, YOU I AGREE,
THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A UNIQUE 
SITUATION.
>> BUT YOU DIRECTOR MADE THE 
DECISION.
YOU MADE THE DECISION TO 
WITHHOLD IT FROM THE COMMITTEE 
FOR A MONTH WHEN THE WHITE HOUSE
HAD MADE NO CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT 
OF JUSTICE SAID YOU DON'T HAVE 
TO GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT YOU CAN.
YOU MADE THE DECISION NOT TO.
>> NOT TRUE, SIR.
WHAT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL
SAID, THAT IT DOES NOT MEET THE 
LEGAL DEFINITION OF URGENT 
CONCERN.

Spanish: 
NUESTRO GRUPO EL ESTABLECIMIENTO
DEL INSPECTOR GENERAL
>>> CADA QUEJA FUE SEGUIDA POR 
EL GRUPO INTELIGENCIA Y POR LA 
POR LOS MIEMBROS DE LA COMUNIDAD
INTELIGENCIA Y POR EL DIRECTOR 
QUE TIENE AUTORÍA R
RESPONSABILIDAD
>>> LAS PASADAS PRÁCTICAS TIENE 
URGENCIA ALGUIEN MÁS CREE QUE LA
DEFINICIÓN ES IMPORTANTE ESTÁ 
CONSCIENTES O NO ? SÉ QUE ESTO 
NO TIENE PRECEDENTE, Y ESTOY DE 
ACUERDO EN QUE ESTO NUNCA 
PASADOS Y QUE ESTOS UNA 
SITUACIÓN ÚNICA
>>> EL USTÉ TOMÓ LA DECISIÓN, DE
MANTENER ESTO DURANTE UN MES, 
CUANDO EL DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA 

English: 
>> SO IT SAID YOU ARE NOT 
REQUIRED.
IT DIDN'T SAY YOU CANNOT PROVIDE
IT, IT SAID YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED
SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, WE WNTS
FORCE YOU, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED,
BUT IT DIDN'T SAY YOU CAN'T.
AM I RIGHT?
>> IT ALLOWED ME AND I SAID THAT
IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, BUT 
EVEN SO, IT WAS REVREFERRED TO  
FBI FOR INVESTIGATION AND I WAS 
ENDEAVORING TO GET THE 
INFORMATION TO YOU, BUT I COULD 
NOT FORWARD IT AS A MEMBER OF 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITHOUT 
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES BEING 
ADDRESSED.
AND I FEEL THAT THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL WAS DOING THE BEST THAT 
THEY COULD IN ORDER TO GET THAT 
AND IT TOOK LONGER THAN I WOULD 
HAVE LIKED THAT IS FOR SURE, BUT
THAT CAME TO CONCLUSION 
YESTERDAY WITH THE RELEASE OF 
THE TRANSCRIPTS AND BECAUSE THE 
TRANSCRIPTS WERE RELEASED, NO 
LONGER WAS THERE IS A SITUATION 
OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND I WAS
THEN FREE TO SEND BOTH THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL'S COVER LETTER
AND COMPLAINT TO YOU.

Spanish: 
DIJO USTED TIENE QUE NO TIENE 
QUE DAR LA PROTECCIÓN PERO 
PUEDES QUE USTEDES Y YO NO
>>> ESTA NO TENÍA DEFINICIÓN 
URGENCIA
>>> USTED NO REQUIRIÓ, PORQUE SE
USTÉ NO QUERÍA, NADIE DICE QUE 
ÉSTE NO PODÍA
>>> FUE REFERIDO POR LA SD Y 
COMO INVESTIGACIÓN, Y NO PODÍAS 
SEGUIRLO CON UN MIEMBRO DE LA 
RAMA EJECUTIVA, SIENTO QUE LA EL
CONSEJO LA CASA BLANCA ESTABA 
HACIENDO LO MEJOR QUE PODÍA, Y 

Spanish: 
EN LO QUE CONCLUIMOS AYER FUE 
QUE LA PUBLICACIÓN DE LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN, NO SERÍA MAYOR
>>> NO HABÍA TIEMPO,
>>> ME GUSTARÍA TENER LA 
CONFIANZA EN ESTA AUDIENCIA DE 
QUE USTED NOS OTORGARÍA ESTA 
QUEJA PERO NO EVITA QUEJA
>>> GRACIAS MISTER MCGWIRE POR 
AQUÍ, CREO QUE LAS IMPLICACIONES
DE LAS CONVERSACIONES HAN TOMADO
UN LUGAR SIN PRECEDENTES 
PONIENDO PALABRAS QUE NO EXISTE 
EN EN LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN, Y CREO 
QUE ESTO NO ES VIDA HA SIDO 

English: 
AT NO TIME WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT
ON MY PART SIR EVER TO WITHHOLD 
THE INFORMATION FROM YOU AS THE 
CHAIR, THIS COMMITTEE OR THE 
SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
>> DIRECTOR, I WISH I HAD THE 
CONFIDENCE OF KNOWING THAT BUT 
FOR THIS HEARING, BUT FOR THE 
DEADLINE THAT WE WERE FORCED TO 
SET WITH THIS HEARING, THAT WE 
WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THAT 
COMPLAINT.
BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD 
HAVE EVER SEEN THAT COMPLAINT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAGUIRE, FOR 
BEING HERE.
I THINK IT IS A SHAME THAT WE 
STARTED OFF THIS HEARING WITH 
FICTIONAL REMARKS, IMPLICATION 
OF A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK 
PLACE BETWEEN A PRESIDENT AND A 
FOREIGN LEADER, PUTTING WORDS 
INTO IT THAT DID NOT EXIST, THEY
ARE NOT IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
AND I WILL CONTEND THAT THOSE 
WERE INTENTIONALLY NOT CLEAR AND
THAT THE CHAIRMAN DESCRIBED IT 
AS PARDY AND I DON'T BELIEVE 
THIS IS THE TIME OR PLACE WHEN 
WE ARE TRYING FOR SEEK FACTS.
UNFORTUNATELY TODAY, MANY 
INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE GOING TO 

Spanish: 
INTENCIONAL, NADIE ESTABA I
INVOLUCRADA ESTA CONVERSACIÓN 
ESTABA CUERDO Y 
DESAFORTUNADAMENTE CUANDO 
PRENDEMOS LA TELEVISIÓN LO ÚNICO
QUE VEMOS ES ESTO, MUCHOS 
ESTADOUNIDENSES ÁMBITOS PAPEL
VAYA PERO DÉJEME HACER UNAS 
PREGUNTAS, CREÍBLE NO SIGNIFICA 
QUE SE PUEDE PROBAR ?
>>> LA INTERPRETACIÓN DE ESTA 
DECISIÓN FUE HECHA ANTES DE VER 
LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN
>>> CREO QUE CONDUJERON SU MEJOR
HABILIDAD DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN Y 

English: 
TURN ON THEIR TV AND THE MEDIA 
IS ONLY GOING TO SHOW THAT 
SECTION OF WHAT THE CHAIRMAN HAD
TO SAY.
BUT I'M ALSO GLAD TO KNOW THAT 
MANY AMERICANS HAVE SEEN THIS 
MOVIE TOO MANY TIMES AND THEY 
ARE TIRED OF IT.
BUT LET ME GET TO SOME 
QUESTIONS, SIR.
LET'S GO TO THE WORD CREDIBLE.
CREDIBLE DOES NOT MEAN PROVEN 
TRUE OR FACTUAL.
WOULD THAT BE CORRECT IN THIS 
SITUATION?
>> I FIND NO FAULT IN YOUR 
LOGIC, CONGRESSMAN.
>> SO THE INTERPRETATION THAT IT
WAS CREDIBLE, BUT ALSO WAS THAT 
DECISION MADE BY THE IG BEFORE 
SEEING THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE 
CONVERSATION?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE ICIG 
CONDUCTED TO HIS BEST OF HIS 
ABILITY THE INVESTIGATION AND HE
FOUND TO HIS ABILITY THAT BASED 
ON THE EVIDENCE AND DISCUSSING 
IT WITH THE WHISTLEBLOWER, THAT 
HE THOUGHT THAT IN FACT IT WAS 
CREDIBLE.
>> BUT THE I GICHLT DIDN'T 
 -- I
GICHLT DIDN'T HAVE THE 
TRANSCRIPT?

English: 
>> HE DID NOT.
>> SO TO ANOTHER POINT, ONE OF 
THE ISSUES THAT ROSE OUT OF THE 
RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WAS A 
QUESTION OVER THE LATITUDE 
PROVIDED TO THE U.S. PRESIDENT 
TO CONDUCT FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
IN 071, I ASKED THEN DIRECTED 
 
BRENNAN HOW HE VIEWED STATEMENTS
MADE BY PRESIDENT OBAMA TO 
MEDVEDEV AFTER THE 2012 ELECTION
AND MEDVEDEV REPLIED THAT HE 
WOULD TRANSMIT THE INFORMATION 
TO PUTIN AND THEN MEDVEDEV STOOD
WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA.
THAT WAS IN AN OPEN HEARING.
DIRECTOR BRENNAN WOULDN'T 
ENTERTAIN 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 FURTHER CLAIMED THAT HE WAS 
AVOIDING GETTING INVOLVED IN 
POLITICAL PARTISAN ISSUES WHICH 
BRINGS ME TO A SIMILAR QUESTION 
RELATED TO THIS WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT.
ONE, YOU SAID THIS EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE IS UNWAIVERABLE.
AND I THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT 
WITH DIRECTOR BRENNAN.

Spanish: 
CREO QUE ESTÁ INVESTIGACIÓN ESÁA
BASADA EN LA EVIDENCIA DE QUE EL
INFORMANTE ERA CREÍBLE PERO LA 
IG NO CREYÓ QUE ESTO FUERA 
IMPORTANTE
>>> ALGO MÁS SOBRE LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN RESPECTO A RUSIA, 
EL 2017 EL DIRECTOR LE HACÍA 
REALIZÓ DOS DECLARACIONES POR EL
PRESIDENTE OBAMA SOBRE LA 
FLEXIBILIDAD DE LA NEGOCIACIÓN 
DE ELECCIONES DEL 2012 LE 
PRESIENTE IMPLICÓ QUE ESTÁ T
TRANSMITIENDO INFORMACIÓN A 
VLADIMIR Y FUE ENTENDIDA POR EL 
PRESIDENTE OBAMA ESO FUE EN 
AUDIENCIA ABIERTA DIRECTOR 
BRANDON USTÉ ENTIENDE QUE ESTA 
CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE LOS JEFES DE 
GOBIERNO ESTÁ LO QUE TE DIJO
>>> ESTO ME TRAE ALGUNAS 
PREGUNTAS CON RESPECTO A LAS 

English: 
>> CONGRESSMAN, ONLY THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT CAN 
WAIVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.
THE PRESIDENT EXERTS IT AND ONLY
THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE 
PRESIDENT CAN WAIVE THAT.
>> SO DIRECTOR BRENNAN GAVE MY 
THE IMPRESSION THAT THAT WAS THE
RULE, THAT IS THE LAW.
SO I'LL HAVE TO GO WITH THAT.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT IS 
ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD HIS OR HER 
COMMUNICATIONS FROM CONGRESS IF 
THE CONVERSATION IS USED IN A 
WHISTLEBLOWER CASE?
>> I THINK THAT THE PRESIDENT 
WHEN HE CONDUCTS DIPLOMACY AND 
DEALS WITH FOREIGN HEADS OF 
STATE HE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE 
ABLE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION BE
HELD WITHIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND 
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AND YESTERDAY I THINK THE 
TRANSMISSION OF THE CALL IS 
UNPRECEDENTED AND ALSO I THINK 
THAT OTHER FUTURE LEADERS WHEN 
THEY INTERACT WITH OUR HEAD OF 
STATE MIGHT BE MORE CAUTIOUS IN 
WHAT THEY SAY AND REDUCE THE 
INTERACTION THAT THEY HAVE WITH 
THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE OF THAT 
RELEASE.

Spanish: 
QUEJAS DEL INFORMANTE UNA DIJO 
QUE ESTE PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO 
CONSISTÍA EN EL DIRECTOR Y ESTÁ 
IMPLÍCITO
>>> CREO QUE SOLAMENTE LA CASA 
BLANCA Y EL PRESIDENTE TIENEN 
ESTE ELEGIDO ESTE PRIVILEGIO
>>> ME DIO LA IMPRESIÓN DE QUE 
ESTARÁ LA REGLA Y A LA LEY, CREE
QUE TODAS ESTAS CONVERSACIONES 
EN QUE CON INFORMANTE ? CREO QUE
ESTO NOS CONDUCE LA DIPLOMACIA Y
ASUNTO CREEN QUE EL CUAL ESTADO,
Y SIEMPRE CORRECTO MANTENER ESTA
INFORMACIÓN LA CASA BLANCA, AYER
CREO QUE LA TRANSMISIÓN DE LA 
LLAMADA SIN PRECEDENTE TAMBIÉN 

English: 
>> SO WE MAY NEED TO CHANGE OUR 
PROCESS HERE.
BECAUSE I GUESS IF A DECISION 
REGARDING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, 
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE MADE PRIOR TO
SUBMITTING THE COMMUNICATIONS TO
CONGRESS.
>> WELL, EITHER THAT, I BELIEVE 
THAT THIS COMMITTEE WROTE THE 
LAW, AND BASED ON WHAT WE'RE 
DOING TODAY, PERHAPS IT NEEDS TO
BE RELOOKED.
I DON'T KNOW.
I LEAVE THAT TO THE LEGISLATIVE 
BRANCH.
>> SO ALSO IF WE MAY NEED TO 
CHANGE PROCESS, THE 14 DAYS, 
THAT MIGHT BE KIND OF TOUGH TO 
ADHERE TO.
SO I THINK MAYBE THIS IS A 
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE, 
UNRESIDENTED, MAYBE THERE SHOULD
BE SOME LEEWAY IN THE TIME 
FRAME.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW, 
DID YOU FEEL OR DID THE IG EVER 
SAY THAT THEY FELT RUSHED IN 
MAKING A DECISION BECAUSE OF THE
14 DAY PROCESS?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE 
THAT HE IS A VERY EXPERIENCED 
INSPECTOR GENERAL, HE IS USED TO
DEALING WITH THE 14 DAY PROCESS.
AND HE WORKED WITH HIS STAFF 

Spanish: 
SEGUIRÁ A FUTUROS LÍDERES CUANDO
INTERACTÚEN, CON RESPECTO A LO 
QUE DICEN Y LAS INTERACCIONES 
QUE TIENEN CON LOS PRESIDENTES
>>> DE QUE LA ACCIÓN PODRÍA SER 
PRIORITARIA PARA LA COMUNICACIÓN
DEL CONGRESO
>>> CREO QUE ESTÁ REUNIÓN ROMPE 
LA LEY NO LO SÉ, CREO QUE SE 
DEBE QUE CON LA RAMA LEGISLATIVA
>>> CREO QUIÉN 14 DÍAS SERÁ 
DIFÍCIL YA ESTE PROCESO POR 
ESTAS DIFÍCILES CIRCUNSTANCIAS, 
EN EL MARCO DE 14 DÍAS USTÉ 
SABES ESTE SIENTE QUE SI LA IG 
ALGUNA VEZ DICE QUE NO PODRÁ 
TOMAR ESTA DECISIÓN DEBÍA A LA 

English: 
ENDEAVORING TO THE EXTENT 
BECAUSE HE WAS FOLLOWING THE 
STATUTE AS HE BELIEVED IT WAS 
WRITTEN.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT ANY 
PRUDENT LAWYER WOULD LIKE TO 
HAVE MORE TIME TO BE ABLE TO 
COLLECT THE FACTS AND DO OTHER 
THINGS.
BUT MICHAEL ATKINSON WAS UNDER 
THE 14 DAYTIME LINE AND HE DID 
THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY TO COM 
PLIN WITH THAT. LINE AND HE DID 
THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY TO COM 
PLIN WITH THAT.
>> DID YOU FEEL RUSHED IN ANY 
WAY, SIR?
>> I DID NOT.
>> THANK YOU.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU DIRECTOR MAGUIRE 
FOR YOUR EXTRAORDINARILY LONG 
SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY.
AT ANY POINT DURING THIS PROCESS
DID YOU PERSONALLY THREATEN 
RESIGN IF THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT 
PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE?
>> NO, I DID NOT.
AND I KNOW THAT THAT STORY HAS 
APPEARED QUITE A BIT.
I ISSUED A STATEMENT 
YESTERDAY -- 
>> ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU.
WHEN YOU READ THE COMPLAINT, 
WERE YOU SHOCKED AT ALL BY WHAT 

Spanish: 
CANTIDAD YES
>>> ESTAMOS LIDIANDO CON ESTE 
PROCESO DE 14 DÍAS, CREO QUE SE 
ESTÁ SIGUIENDO EL ESTATUTO QUE 
SE CREE QUE FUE ESCRITO, ASÍ QUE
NO CREO QUE ES EN ESTE TIEMPO 
PERO MAICO ESTÁ TRABAJANDO EN 
ESTO
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU EXTRA 
ORDINARIO SERVICIO A OTRO PAÍS
EN ALGÚN PUNTO DURANTE ESTE 
PROCESO SE SIN VIO AMENAZADO A 
RENUNCIAR CON RESPECTO QUE ESTA 
QUEJA NO ERA NO FUERA OTORGADA 

Spanish: 
LA COMUNIDAD
>>> NO
>>> CUANDO LE LLEVÓ LA QUEJA, SE
IMPACTÓ
>>> HE TENIDO MUCHAS E
EXPERIENCIAS EN LA VIDA
>>> PUEDA RESPONDER
>>> ME DI CUENTA DE LA 
IMPORTANCIA DE LA QUEJA, CUANDO 
ANTICIPÉ ESTA DISCUSIÓN
>>> LA QUEJA REFERIDA A LO QUE 
SUCEDIÓ LUEGO DE EL 20 Y 5 DE 
JULIO CON RESPECTO AL PRESIDENTE

English: 
YOU READ?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, AS I SAID, I 
HAVE A LOT OF LIFE EXPERIENCE.
I JOINED THE NAVY -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR RECORD.
COULD YOU ANSWER IT?
>> I REALIZED FULL AND WELL THE 
IMPORTANCE OF THE ALLEGATION AND
I ALSO HAVE TO TELL YOU, 
CONGRESSWOMAN, WHEN I SAW THAT, 
I ANTICIPATED HAVING TO SIT THIS
FRONT OF SOME COMMITTEE SOMETIME
TO DISCUSS IT.
>> THE COMPLAINT REFERS TO WHAT 
HAPPENED AFTER THE JULY 25th 
CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE UKRAINE
PRESIDENT AND THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES.
AND THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS 
ORDERED OTHER STAFF TO MOVE THE 
TRANSCRIPT FROM ITS TYPICAL 
REPOSITORY TO A MORE SECURE 
LOCATION IN ORDER TO LOCK DOWN, 
AND THAT WAS THE TERM USED IN 
THE COMPLAINT, ALL RECORDS OF 
THE PHONE CALL.
THAT REACTION TO THE TRANSCRIPT 
SEEM TO YOU RECOGNITION WITHIN 

Spanish: 
ESTADOS UNIDOS, LOS ABOGADOS 
MOVIERON ESTA TRANSCRIPCIÓN A UN
LUGAR MÁS SEGURO ES LA REACCIÓN 
LE HIZO PENSAR QUE LA LLAMADA 
ERA COMPLETAMENTE INAPROPIADA ?
>>> TODO LO QUE TENÍA EL 
CONOCIMIENTO QUE ME HABÍA DADO 
EL INFORMANTE, NO SABÍA SI ERA 
REAL O NO, SOLAMENTE TENÍA LA 
CARTA DEL INFORMANTE
>>> ASÍ QUE PENSANDO INFORMANTE 
PARECÍA CREÍBLE ESTA ESTA E
EVALUACIÓN SE HIZO POR EL 
DIRECTOR GENERAL PORQUE ENTONCES
USTED EN SU PRIMERA ACCIÓN FUERA
DE LA COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA FUE
DIRECTAMENTE A LA CASA BLANCA ? 
LA ENTIDAD QUE ESTÁ SIENDO I
INVESTIGADA, PORQUE FUE PARA 

English: 
THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THE CALL 
WAS COMPLETELY IMPROPER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I HAVE NO 
FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
ALL I HAVE IS THE KNOWLEDGE THAT
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ALLEGES IN HIS
ALLEGATION OR COMPLAINT.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT IS 
TRUE OR NOT.
MY ONLY AWARENESS OF THAT IS 
FROM THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S LETTER.
>> SO KNOWING THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER APPEARED TO BE 
CREDIBLE BASED ON THE EVALUATION
BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AND 
KNOWING THAT THAT EFFORT WAS 
UNDERTAKEN BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO
COVER IT UP, WHY WOULD YOU THEN 
AS YOUR FIRST ACTION OUTSIDE OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY GO 
DIRECTLY TO THE WHITE HOUSE TO 
THE VERY ENTITY THAT WAS BEING 
SCRUTINIZED AND COMPLAINED ABOUT
IN THE COMPLAINT, WHY WOULD YOU 
GO THERE TO ASK THEIR ADVICE AS 
TO WHAT YOU SHOULD DO?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THE ALLEGATION
THAT IS MADE BY THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS SECONDHAND 
INFORMATION.
NOT KNOWN TO HIM OR HER 

English: 
FIRSTHAND.
>> EXCEPT MR. MAGUIRE, IT WAS 
DETERMINED TO BE CREDIBLE, THERE
WAS AN INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE
INSPECTOR GENERAL.
LET ME GO ON TO ANOTHER ISSUE.
PRESIDENT TRUMP OVER THE WEEKEND
TWEETED 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 SAID SEVERAL TIMES SO 
FAR THIS MORNING, I BELIEVE THAT
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLIED WITH 
THE LAW AND DID EVERYTHING THAT 
THEY THOUGHT HE OR SHE THOUGHT 
WAS RESPONSIBLE UNDER THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION 
ABILITY.
>> BUT YOU DID NOT SPEAK OUT TO 
PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER, DID 
YOU?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I -- 
>> YES OR NO, SIR.
>> I DID, YES.
I DID WITHIN MY OWN WORKFORCE.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS ENOUGH STUFF
THAT WAS APPEARING OUT IN THE 
PRESS THAT WAS ERRONEOUS, THAT 
WAS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT, AND I 
DIDN'T THINK THAT I NEEDED TO 

Spanish: 
ELLA SI SE LE HABÍA ACONSEJADO
QUE NO ?
>>> ESTA INFORMACIÓN FUE SEGUNDA
MANO
>>> SE DETERMINÓ QUE LA CREÍBLE.
DÉJEME CONTINUAR CON OTRO ASUNTO
ES PRESIENTE DONALD TRUMP EN UN 
TWITTER ESCRIBIÓ QUE LAS AGENCIA
DE INTELIGENCIA ESTÁN SIENDO 
INSPIRADOS POR ELLO MISMO TE 
CREE QUE ESTA AGENCIA ESTÁN 
HACIENDO PRESIDENTE ?
>>> CREO QUE EL INFORMANTE SE 
CREYÓ SIGUIENDO LA LEY PORQUE 

Spanish: 
CREYÓ QUE PROTEGERÍAN
>>> SI O NO
>>> SI, CREO QUE ERA INCORRECTO 
Y QUE DEBÍA RESPONDER A CADA 
ESTATUTO QUE ESTUVIERA FUERA Y 
QUE POR INCORRECTO ASÍ QUE LO 
QUE HICE FUE MI TRABAJO
>>> EL PRESIENTE EL LUNES DIJO, 
QUIEN ESTÉ TAN LLAMAR INFORMANTE
? QUIEN SABE SI ESTÁ DEL LADO 
NUESTRO PAÍS ?
>>> TE CREE QUE EL INFORMANTE 
ESTABA EN LA NOCHE PAÍS ?
>>> CREO QUE ÉL ESTÁ SIENDO LO 
QUE CREE CORRECTO
>>> ASÍ QUE ESTÁ CONSCIENTE QUE 

English: 
RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE 
STATEMENT THAT WAS OUT THERE 
THAT WAS INCORRECT.
SO WHAT I DID IS I -- 
>> THANK YOU.
>> I USED MY WORKFORCE -- 
>> I APPRECIATE THAT.
THANK YOU.
THE PRESIDENT ON MONDAY SAID WHO
IS THIS SO-CALLED WHISTLEBLOWER,
WHO THOSE THE CORRECT FACTS.
IS HE ON OUR COUNTRY'S SIDE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THE LIST IS ON 
OUR COUNTRY'S SIDE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND ALL EMPLOYEES 
WHO COME FORWARD IN THE ICIG TO 
RAISE CONCERNS OF FRAUD, WASTE 
AND ABUSE ARE DOING WHAT THEY 
PERCEIVE TO BE THE RIGHT THING.
>> ON WORKING ON BEHALF OF OUR 
COUNTRY.
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE FACT THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWERS WITHIN THE 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE 
IDENTIFIED WASTE FRAUD AND ABUSE
OF OVER 59 BILLION THAT HAS HAD 
THE EFFECT OF BENEFITING THE 
TAXPAYERS AND KEEPING OUR 
COUNTRY SAFE AS WELL?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'M NOT 

English: 
FAMILIAR WITH THE DOLLAR VALUE, 
BUT HAVING BEEN IN THE 
GOVERNMENT SERVICE FOR NEARLY 
FOUR DECADES, I'M VERY MUCH 
AWARE OF THE VALUE OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM.
>> ONE FINAL QUESTION.
DID THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES ASK YOU TO FIND OUT THE 
IDENTITY OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> I CAN SAY ALTHOUGH I WOULD 
NOT NORMALLY DISCUSS MY 
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT, I CAN TELL YOU 
EMPHATICALLY NO.
>> HAS ANYBODY ELSE WITHIN THE 
WHITE HOUSE OR THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE ASKED YOU?
>> NO, CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> I YIELD.
>> MR. STEWART.
>> MR. MAGUIRE, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING HERE TODAY.
I WANT YOU TO KNOW THE GOOD NEWS
IS I'M NOT GOING TO TREAT YOU 
LIKE A CHILD.
AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A 
CHANCE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS 
IF I ASK YOU SOMETHING.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
SERVICE.
I'D LIKE YOU TO REMIND ME, YOU 
SAID IT EARLIER, HOW MANY YEARS 

Spanish: 
EL INFORMANTE DENTRO DEL 
GOBIERNO FEDERAL SE IDENTIFICÓ 
COMO ABUSO,
>>> NO ESTABA FAMILIARIZADO CON 
ESO, ESTOY MUY CONSCIENTE DEL 
VALOR DE NUESTRO PROGRAMA
>>> ÚLTIMA PREGUNTA, EL 
PRESIDENTE DE LE PIDIÓ AVERIGUAR
LA IDENTIDAD DEL INFORMANTE ?
>>> NO DISCUTIRÉ MIS 
CONVERSACIONES CON EL PRE
PRESIDENTE, PERO ENFÁTICAMENTE 
NO
>>> ALGUIEN DEL DEPARTAMENTO 
INTELIGENCIA LO HIZO
>>> NO
>>> SEÑOR STUART SEÑOR MCGWIRE 
GRACIAS POR ESTAR AQUÍ, NO LO 

English: 
OF SERVICE, MILITARY SERVICE, DO
YOU HAVE?
>> I HAVE 36 YEARS OF SERVICE IN
THE UNITED STATES NAVY, 34 OF 
THOSE AS NAVY S.E.A.L.
>> THAT IS GREAT.
36 YEARS, 34 YEARS AS A NAVY 
S.E.A.L.
I HAD A MERE 14 YEARS AS AN AIR 
FORCE PILOT, I PROUDLY WEAR 
THESE AIR FORCE WINGS.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY MY FATHER 
HE'S AIR FORCE WINGS.
HE SERVED IN THE MILITARY AS 
WELL AS DID FIVE OF HIS SONS.
FOR SOMEONE WHO HASN'T SERVED IN
THE MILITARY, I DON'T THINK THAT
THEY REALIZE HOW DEEPLY 
OFFENSIVE IT IS TO HAVE YOUR 
HONOR AND YOUR INTEGRITY 
QUESTIONED.
SOME ON THIS COMMITTEE HAVE DONE
EXACTLY THAT.
THEY HAVE ACCUSED YOU OF 
BREAKING THE LAW AND I'LL READ 
JUST ONE PART OF MANY THAT I 
COULD FROM THE CHAIRMAN.
THIS RAISES GRAVE CONCERNS THAT 
YOUR OFFICE TOGETHER WITH THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND 
POSSIBLY THE WHITE HOUSE HAVE 
ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL EFFORT TO 
PROTECT THE PRESIDENTARE OTHERS 

Spanish: 
VERDAD COMO NIÑO QUIERO DAR EL 
LA OPCIÓN DE RESPONDER PRE
PREGUNTAS, ME GUSTARÍA QUE SE ME
DIJERA CUANTOS AÑOS DE SERVICIO 
MILITAR TIENE
>>> 36 EN EL SERVICIO
>>> YO TUVE 40 AÑOS ESTOS SON 
LOS HUESOS MI PADRE, NO CREO QUE
SE DIO CUENTA CUÁNTA GENTE HA 
OFENDIDO EN ESTA PREGUNTA ELLOS 
LO ACUSAN DE VIOLAR LA LEY ESTO 
ALCANZA GRAN PREOCUPACIÓN, CON 

Spanish: 
RESPECTO A SU DEPARTAMENTO Y 
POSEE LA CASA BLANCA SE HAN 
INVOLUCRADO EN UN ESFUERZO POR 
PROTEGER EL PRESIENTE, ASÍ QUE 
DALE LA OPORTUNIDAD DE RESPONDER
CLARAMENTE ESTÁ MOTIVADO POR 
POLÍTICAS EN SU TRABAJO CON 
RESPECTO A SU COMPORTAMIENTO ?
>>> NO
>>> NO SOY POLÍTICO, Y NO CREO 
ESTAR SENTADO COMO DIRECTOR 
GENERAL DE INTELIGENCIA, PERO EL
PRESIENTE ME LO PIDIÓ Y ENVIÉ 
VER LIDERAR LA COMUNIDAD 
INTELIGENCIA
>>> CREE QUE SIGUIÓ LAS LEYES
>>>
>>> SI
>>> DE ALGUNA FORMA HA PROTEGIDO

English: 
READ.
SO I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO ANSWER VERY CLEARLY, ARE YOU 
MOTIVIATED BY POLITICS IN YOUR 
WORK OR PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR?
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR?
>> ARE YOU MOTIVATED BY POLITICS
IN YOUR WORK OR YOUR 
PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN.
NOT AT ALL.
I AM NOT.
I AM NOT POLITICAL.
I AM NOT PARTISAN.
AND I DID NOT LOOK TO BE SITTING
HERE AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF 
F
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
I THOUGHT THERE WERE OTHER 
PEOPLE WHO WERE MORE QUALIFIED 
BUT THE PRESIDENT ASKED ME TO DO
THAT AND IT WAS MY HONOR TO STEP
UP AND LEAD AND SUPPORT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE 
FOLLOWED THE LAWS IN THE WAY YOU
FOLLOWED THIS COMPLAINT IN. 
>> I KNOW I HAVE.
>> HAVE YOU IN ANY WAY SOUGHT 
PROPER-TO-PROTECT THE PRESIDENT 
OR ANYONE ELSE FROM ANY WROCHK 
DOING IN. 
>> I HAVE NOT.
WHAT I HAVE DONE IS ENDEAVOR TO 
FOLLOW THE LAW.
>> THANK YOU.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU HAD A 
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO FOLLOW 
THE GUIDE ANSWER OF THE OFFICE 

English: 
OF LEGAL COUNSEL?
>> THE OPINION OF THE OFFICE OF 
LEGAL COUNSEL IS BINDING ON THE 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
>> THANK YOU.
NOW, THERE IS A BIG DEAL ABOUT 
THE FACT THAT THIS IS THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITHHELD
THERE CONGRESS, BUT IT IS ALSO 
TRUE ISN'T IT THAT IT IS THE 
FIRST WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT 
THAT HAS POTENTIALLY FALLS UNDER
EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AND IT IS 
ALSO THE FIRST TIME THAT IT 
INCLUDED INFORMATION THAT WAS 
POTENTIALLY OUTSIDE OF THE 
AUTHORITIES OF THE DNI, IS THAT 
TRUE?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, 
THAT IS CORRECT.
>> AND I WILL SAY TO MY 
COLLEAGUES SITTING HERE, I THINK
YOU ARE NUTS IF YOU THINK THAT 
YOU ARE GOING TO CONVINCE THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT YOUR CAUSE 
IS JUST BY ATTACKING THIS MAN.
AND BY IMPUGNING HIS CHARACTER 
WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT HE FELT 
THERE IS A DISCREPANCY, 
POTENTIALLY DEFICIENCY IN THE 
LAW AND HE WAS TRYING TO DO THE 
RIGHT THING.
HE FELT COMPELLED BY THE LAW TO 
DO EXACTLY WHAT HE DID.
AND YET THE ENTIRE TONE HERE IS 
THAT SOMEHOW YOU ARE A POLITICAL
STOOGE WHO HAS DONE NOTHING BUT 

Spanish: 
MÁS DE PRESIENTE
>>> HICE LO QUE DEBÍA SER
>>> TIENE RESPONSABILIDAD LEGAL 
? LA OPINIÓN DEL CONSEJO
>>> AHORA ESTA ES LA PRIMERA QUE
CON INFORMANTE EN EL CONGRESO DE
TAMBIÉN ES VERDAD QUE ES EL 
PRIMER INFORMANTE QUE TIENE 
PRIVILEGIO POTENCIALMENTE F
FALSOS, ES VERDAD ?
>>> SI
>>> SEGÚN SI
>>> ES CLARO QUE SE FALLÓ CON LA
EFICIENCIA LA LEY Y ESTÁ 

English: 
TRY TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT AND
I THINK THAT IS NUTS.
ANYONE WATCHING THIS HERE 
HEARING WILL SURELY WALK AWAY 
WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT YOU ARE
A MAN OF INTEGRITY WHO DID WHAT 
YOU FELT WAS RIGHT REGARDLESS OF
THE QUESTIONS AND INNUENDO THAT 
IS CAST BY SOME OF MY. 
>> Caller: -- COLLEAGUES SITTING
HERE DAY.
AND ONE MORE THING BEFORE I 
YIELD MY TIME.
I THINK THAT WE CAN AGREE THAT 
LEAKS ARE UNLAWFUL AND THAT 
LEAKS ARE DAMAGING.
AND FOR HEAVEN SAKES, WE'VE SEEN
PLENTY OF THAT OVER THE LAST 
THREE YEARS.
AND THERE IS A LONG LIST OF 
LEAKS THAT HAVE HAD CLEAR INCH 
BRING INDICATIONS FOR OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
MEANINGFUL IMPLICATIONS FOR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
I WANT TO KNOW, DO YOU KNOW WHO 
IS FEEDING THE PRESS INFORMATION
ABOUT THIS CASE AND HAVE YOU 
MADE ANY REFERRALS TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 
UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURES?
DO YOU KNOW WHO IS FEEDING 
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS CASE?
>> NO.
>> DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE 

Spanish: 
TRATANDO HACER LO CORRECTO, EL
HIZO EXACTAMENTE LO QUE DEBÍA 
SER, CUALQUIERA QUE VEA ESTA 
AUDIENCIA SE ESCAPARÁ CON LA 
PRESIÓN DE QUE A PESAR DE LAS 
PREGUNTAS SEGÚN MIS COLEGAS HOY,
HAY ALGO MÁS, PODEMOS ESTAR DE 
ACUERDO EN LOS BAÑOS, EN LOS 
BAÑOS, HAY CLARAS IMPLICACIONES 

English: 
APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A REFERRAL 
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO 
TRY TO DETERMINE THAT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY WHO 
WITNESSES OR SEES ANY WRONGDOING
SHOULD REFER ANY WRONGDOING OR 
COMPLAINT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE FOR INVESTIGATION.
>> INCLUDING INVESTIGATION ABOUT
LEAKS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT.
YES, CONGRESSMAN, ANY 
WRONGDOING.
>> ALL RIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME IT IS 
BECAUSE OUR CLOCK ISN'T WORKING.
I SUPPOSE MY TIME IS UP.
BUT I WOULD CONCLUDE BY 
EMPHASIZING ONCE AGAIN GOOD LUCK
CONVINCING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
THAT THIS IS A DISHONORABLE MAN 
SITTING HERE.
GOOD LUCK CONVINCING THE 
AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT HE HAS DONE
ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT HE C 
S
THINKS IT RIGHT.
AND IF YOU THINK IT SCORES 
POLITICAL POINTS WITH YOUR 
FRIENDS WHO WANTED TO IMPEACH 
THIS PRESIDENT SINCE THE DAY HE 
WAS ELECTED, KEEP GOING DOWN 
THAT ROAD.
>> THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN.
>> I WOULD ONLY SAY, DIRECTOR, 

Spanish: 
PARA SEGURIDAD NACIONAL, DE ESÁA
CONSCIENTE DE ESTO ?
>>> SABE QUIÉN ESTÁ CALZANDO 
ESTA INFORMACIÓN CON RESPECTO A 
LOS ESTADOS ? CREE QUE NO 
APROPIADO REFERIRSE AL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA ?
>>> CREO QUE CUALQUIERA QUE HAGA
ALGO INCORRECTO DEBE IR AL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA POR 
INVESTIGACIÓN, INCLUYENDO 
INVESTIGACIÓN CON RESPECTO A 
FILTRACIÓN DE INFORMACIÓN G
GASIFICADA ? NECE NO SE QUE HORA
ES PERO QUIERE ENFATIZAR 
NUEVAMENTE BUENA SUERTE CON 
VENCIENDO A LOS ESTADOUNIDENSES 
DE QUE ESTE HOMBRE NO TIENE 

English: 
NO ONE HAS ACCUSED YOU OF BEING 
A POLITICAL STOOGE OR 
DISHONORABLE, NO ONE HAS SAID 
SO, NO ONE HAS SUGGESTED THAT.
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY OUR STRONG 
VIEW AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT IT 
WOULD BE SHARED BY THE MINORITY 
THAT WHEN THE CONGRESS SAYS THAT
SOMETHING SHALL BE DONE, IT 
SHALL BE DONE.
AND WHEN THAT INVOLVES THE 
WRONGDOING OF THE PRESIDENT, IT 
IS NOT AN EXCEPTION TO THE 
REQUIREMENT OF THE STATUTE.
AND THE FACT THAT THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BEEN LEFT 
TWISTING IN THE WIND NOW, 
ATTACKED BY THE PRESIDENT, 
SHOULD CONCERN ALL OF US 
DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.
THAT THIS WAS EVER ALLOWED TO 
COME TO BE, THAT ALLEGATIONS 
THIS SAYS AND URGENT WERE 
WITHHELD AS LONG AS THEY WERE, 
THAT SHOULD CONCERN ALL OF US.
BUT NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT 
THERE IS A DISHONOR HERE.
BUT NONETHELESS, WE WILL INSIST 
THAT THE LAW BE FOLLOWED.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, WILL YOU 
YIELD -- 
>> MR. QUIGLEY.

Spanish: 
HONOR, MANTENGAN HACIENDO LO QUE
HACEN SI CREEN QUE ÉL NO LO ESÁA
HACIENDO BIEN
>>> NADIE SEA ACUSADO DE SER UNA
PERSONA SIN HONOR PERO ES UN 
FUERTE PUNTO DE VISTA DE LA M
MINORÍA, CUANDO EL CONGRESO DICE
QUE ALGO DEBE SER HIZO HECHO, 
DEBE SERLO Y EL PRESIENTE NO ES 
UNA EXCEPCIÓN, ESTÉ INFORMANTE 
HA ESTADO MOVIENDO TODO, ESTO LO
QUE NOS PREOCUPA, PERO NADIE 

English: 
>> THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR 
SERVICE AND FOR BEING HERE.
AS YOU KNOW, THOSE WHO N. PUBLIC
LIFE WHO WORK AND DEAL WITH 
OTHER COUNTRIES, THEY ARE 
VETTED, THEY GO BEFORE THE 
SENATE, THEY HAVE TO GET CLEAR 
AFTERNOONS.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE POLICY 
REASONS FOR THAT, CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH 
CIVILIANS WITHOUT APPROVAL, 
WITHOUT VETTING, WITHOUT 
CLEARANCE TAKING ON THOSE ROLES?
>> YES, I DO, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND WHY WOULD YOU HAVE THOSE 
CONCERNS?
>> WELL, IN ORDER TO BE -- IN 
ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE 
SENSITIVE INFORMATION, WHETHER 
IT BE DIPLOMATIC OR CERTAINLY 
INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION, ONE 
MUST BE VETTED.
THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART OF 
PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY.
AND WE JUST CAN'T BRING PEOPLE 
IN AND AUTOMATICALLY WAVE A 
MAGIC WAND OR PUT HOLY WATER ON 
THEM TO GET SECURITY CLEARANCE.

Spanish: 
ESTÁ SUGIRIENDO QUE USTED NO 
TIENE HONOR, QUEREMOS INSISTIR 
EN QUE LA LEY SEA SEGUIDA
>>> GRACIAS POR SU SERVICIO, 
COMO SABE MUCHOS EN EL CAMPO 
INTELIGENCIA, TIENEN QUE SER 
CLAROS Y USTED ENTIENDE LAS 
POLÍTICAS TIENE ALGÚN ASUNTO CON
CIVILES SIN PRUEBA ?
>>> SI
>>> Y PORQUE USTÉ SIGUE ESTAS 
OCUPACIONES
>>> PARA SER CAPAZ DE MANEJARLO 
EN DÍA ESTA INFORMACIÓN AL 

Spanish: 
INFORMACIÓN DIPLOMÁTICA ESTA ES 
LA PARTE IMPORTANTE PARA 
PREVENIR LA SEGURIDAD FAMILIAR, 
ES UN ASUNTO PARA MÍ VOLVER AL 
GOBIERNO, DE QUE INSANA EXAMINAN
TODOS Y REGIDO FINANCIEROS Y 
HACEMOS LO MISMO QUE LEEN CON LA
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA TODO LO 
QUE SEAN PRIVILEGIADOS TIENEN 
ACCESO A LA INFORMACIÓN IN
INTELIGENCIA ES UN ASUNTO 
SECRETO LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS ES 
ESPERAN MANTENERSE SEGUROS Y 
PARA ESO DEMOS ASEGURAR QUE 
CUALQUIER PERSONA QUE TIENE 
ACCESO AL CENTRO INFORMACIÓN DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS HASTA SEA 
VALIDADA PARA ASEGURAR LA I
INFORMACIÓN LAS PERSONAS TIENE 

English: 
IT IS A MATTER OF VETTING.
FOR ME TO COME BACK INTO 
GOVERNMENT, THE FBI WENT 
FOR 15 YEARS, EXAMINED ALL MY 
FINANCIAL RECORDS TO MAKE SURE 
THAT I WAS IN FACT WORTHY OF 
HAVING AN INTELLIGENCE 
CLEARANCE.
AND WE DO THE SAME THING WITH 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
EVERYBODY WHO IS SUBJECT OR 
EVERYBODY WHO IS PRIVILEGED TO 
HAVE ACCESS TO INTELLIGENCE 
INFORMATION IS A SACRED TRUST.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE EXPECT US TO
KEEP THEM SAFE AS I SAID 
EARLIER.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO 
ENSURE THAT ANY PERSON WHO HAS 
ACCESS TO THIS SENSITIVE 
INFORMATION OF THE UNITED STATES
HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY VETTED TO 
ENSURE THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO 
NORTHAM THAT INFORMATION.
>> AND IT IS NOT JUST THE INTEL 
ISSUES, THE ISSUES OF NATIONAL 
POLICY THAT PEOPLE HAVE AN 
OFFICIAL ROLE THAT THEY CARRY 
OUT ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND WE KNOW WHAT THEIR 
ROLE IS, CORRECT?
>> YES, CONGRESSMAN, I WOULD -- 
>> WHAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING 
RIGHT NOW OF WHAT MR. GIULIANI'S

Spanish: 
UN ROL OFICIAL CON RESPECTO LA 
PREOCUPACIÓN Y SABEMOS 
COLESTEROL ES CORRECTO ? QUE LO 
QUE USTED ENTIENDE EN ESTE 
MOMENTO COMO EL ROL DE GIULIANI 
?
>>> AHORA ESTAMOS HABLANDO DEL 
ABOGADO PRESIENTE NO A LA CASA
BLANCA
>>> LEÍMOS LA QUEJA Y LEÍMOS LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN Y FUE MENCIONADO 
CINCO VECES LA REACCIÓN DE ESTE 
CIVIL TIENE UN ROL
>>> NO SEÑOR, LO QUE DIGO ES QUE
CONOZCO CUÁLES SON LOS ALEGATOS 
Y NO SÉ SI SON VERDAD
>>> HAY UNA CREDIBILIDAD LA 

English: 
ROLE IS?
>> MR. CONGRESSMAN, I 
RESPECTFULLY REFER YOU TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE TO COMMENT ON THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER.
>> OKAY.
SO SO FAR WHAT I'VE GLEANED IS 
YOU SEE THAT HE IS HIS PERSONAL 
LAWYER.
WE READ IN THE COMPLAINT, WE 
READ IN THIS MODIFIED 
TRANSCRIPT, HE IS MENTIONED FIVE
TIMES.
YOUR REACTION TO THE FACT THAT 
THIS CIVILIAN WITHOUT ANY OF 
THIS VETTING HAS PLAYED THIS 
ROLE.
>> NO, SIR, ALL I'M SAYING IS 
THAT I KNOW WHAT THE ALLEGATIONS
ARE.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE 
ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE AND THAT IS
WHERE THE COMMITTEE -- 
>> I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS 
ANY QUESTION THE CREDIBILITY OF 
THE COMPLAINT IN THE TRANSCRIPT 
THE PRESIDENT SPEAKS HIGHLY OF 
MR. GIULIANI, HIGHLY RESPECTED 
MAN, HE WAS THE MAYOR OF NEW 
YORK, I WOULD LIKE HIM TO CALL 
YOU, I WILL ASK HIM TO CALL YOU 
ALONG WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
YOUR REACTION OF A CIVIL I CAN'T
BE -- CIVILIAN DEALING WITH 
THESE.

Spanish: 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN QUE SIGNIFICA QUE 
EL SEÑOR QUE LEAN Y SU REACCIÓN 
COMO CIVIL EN IMPORTANCIA, LOS 
INSPECTORES GENERALES HABLARON 
SOBRE LA ALTA RESPONSABILIDAD, Y
GIULIANI ESTÁ JUGANDO ESTE ROL
>>> LO SE Y EL CONGRESO NO 
ESTABA CONSCIENTE DE ESTO ANTES 
DE QUE
>>> ANTES DE QUE TODO ESTO 
SUCEDIERA, ÉL ESTÁ HACIENDO LO 
QUE USTED HACÍA
>>> MI ÚNICO CONOCIMIENTO CON 
RESPECTO AL SEÑOR GIULIANI, ES 
LO QUE VI EN TELEVISIÓN, NO 
ESTABA CONSCIENTE DE LO QUE LA 
CIA POR EL PRESIENTE
>>> NO ESTABA CONSCIENTE DE LA 

English: 
THE COMPLAINT TALKS ABOUT OUR 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
INSPECTOR GENERAL TALKS ABOUT 
THIS AS THE HIGHEST 
RESPONSIBILITY AMONG THOSE THAT 
THE DNI HAS AND OBVIOUSLY MR. 
GIULIANI IS PLAYING THIS ROLE.
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DOES HE HAVE 
SECURITY CLEARANCE?
>> I DON'T KNOW.
CONGRESSMAN QUIGLEY, I'M NEITHER
AWARE NOR UNAWARE WHETHER OR NOT
MR. GIULIANI HAS A SECURITY 
CLEARANCE.
>> BEFORE THIS ALL HAPPENED, 
WERE YOU AWARE OF HIS ROLE OR 
UNDERSTANDING WHAT HIS ROLE WAS 
DOING WHAT YOU DO?
>> CONGRESSMAN QUIGLEY, MY ONLY 
KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT MR. GIULIANI 
DOES, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH 
YOU, I GET FROM TV AND FROM THE 
NEWS MEDIA.
I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT HE DOES IN
FACT FOR THE PRESIDENT.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY 
COMMUNICATION BY MR. GIULIANI 
AND YOUR OFFICE ABOUT HOW HE 
SHOULD PROCEED WITH THIS ROLE 
GIVEN THE CLASSIFIED NATURE, THE
NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS 
THAT ARE IN THE COMPLAINT THAT 

English: 
ARE IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND THE 
ROLE THAT HE IS PLAYING?
>> I HAVE READ THE TRANSCRIPTS 
JUST AS YOU HAVE.
SO MY KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ACTIVITY 
IN THERE IS JUST LIMITED TO THE 
CONVERSATION THAT THE PRESIDENT 
HAD WITH THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE.
>> SO WE RESPECT YOUR ROLE AND 
WHILE WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF 
OPINION, WE CONTINUE TOTEGRITY .
BUT WE HAVE ALL THIS VAST AMOUNT
OF EXPERIENCE AND WE NEED TO 
UNDERSTAND HOW IT PLAYS 
JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE 
COMPLAINT.
I'M READING, OMB OFFICIAL 
INFORMED DEPARTMENTS AND 
AGENCIES THAT THE PRESIDENT 
EARLIER THAT MONTH HAD ISSUED 
INSTRUCTION TO SUSPEND ALL U.S. 
SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
YOUR REACTION TO THAT.
>> CONGRESSMAN QUIGLEY, I THINK 
THAT ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO 
WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LAWYER AND 
THESE MATTERS SHOULD BE REFERRED
TO THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE 
PRESIDENT FOR THAT.
>> I'M JUST READING THE 
COMPLAINT.
>> I READ AND I SUPPORT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND THE 
17 DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND 
AGENCIES UNDERNEATH MY 

Spanish: 
COMUNICACIÓN ENTRE SEÑOR 
GIULIANI Y SU OFICINA ? LA 
IMPLICACIONES DE LA SEGURIDAD 
NACIONAL, LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN Y EL 
ROL QUE ÉL TENÍA
>>> LEÍ LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN QUE 
USTED TENÍA Y MI CONOCIMIENTO 
ESTA ACTIVIDAD ES LIMITADO A LA 
CONVERSACIÓN QUE TUVO EL 
PRESIDENTE
>>> ASÍ QUE USTÉ CONTINUARÁ 
RESPETANDO SU INTEGRIDAD 
PRESTAMOS QUE ENTIENDA LA 
POSICIÓN DE LA QUEJA ESTOY 
LEYENDO, CONOZCA LA INFORMACIÓN 
DEL DEPARTAMENTO, EL ASUNTO DE 
LA INSTRUCCIÓN DE SUSPENDER 
TODAS LAS ASISTENCIAS DE ESTADOS
UNIDOS A UCRANIA
>>> USTÉ REACCIONÓ ESTO ?
>>> TODO LO QUE SÉ DEL ABOGADO 
PRESIENTE ES LO QUE ÉL HACE POR 

English: 
LEADERSHIP.
I DO NOT LEAD THE PRESIDENT.
AND I HAVE NO AUTHORITY OR 
RESPONSIBILITY OVER THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
>> BUT YOU ARE A WEAR THAT THE 
FACT THAT WE HAVE THIS 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE THAT 
THEY ARE DEPENDENT UPON US AND 
THAT THIS COMPLAINT DOESN'T 
CONCERN YOU, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT 
PUBLICLY THAT IT CONCERNS YOU?
>> THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS THAT
CONCERN ME.
I'M DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
AND THIS ONE HERE THOUGH, I JUST
HAVE TO DEFER BACK THAT THE 
CONVERSATIONS THE PRESIDENT HAD 
IS HIS CONVERSATION.
HOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES WANTS TO TALK DIPLOMACY 
IS HIS BUSINESS.
AND IT IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT I 
APPROVE IT OR DISAPPROVE OF IT.
THAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S BUSINESS
ON HOW HE WANTS TO CONDUCT THAT,
SIR.
>> THE ISSUE IS WHETHER IT 
COMMITS A CRIME AND THAT BOTHERS
YOU -- 
>> THE TIME HAS EXPIRED.
DIRECTOR, YOU MAY COMPLETE YOUR 
ANSWER IF YOU WANTED TO RESPOND.
>> NO, I'M FINE.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

Spanish: 
EL PRESIENTE
>>>
>>> APOYO LA COMUNIDAD 
INTELIGENCIA EN TODOS LOS 
DIFERENTES DEPARTAMENTOS BAJO MI
LIDERAZGO NO LIDERAR PRESIDENTE 
NI TENGO RESPONSABILIDAD CON 
RESPECTO A LA CASA BLANCA
>>> ESTÁ CONSCIENTE DE ESTA 
RELACIÓN CON UCRANIA DEPENDÍA DE
NOSOTROS Y ESTAR QUEJA NO TIENE 
QUE DEMOSTRAR ?
>>> Y ES EL DIRECTOR THOR DE 
INTELIGENCIA LA COMPARACIÓN QUE 
EL PRESIENTE TUVO ES SU 
CONVERSACIÓN, ESOS SON SUS 
ASUNTOS, Y YO NO LOS TENGO QUE 
APROBAR O NO

English: 
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR LIFE OF 
PUBLIC SERVICE.
MY QUESTION RELATES TO PRIOR TO 
THE TRANSMISSION ON AUGUST 26th 
FROM THE IG TO THE DNI, WERE 
THERE ANY CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU
HAD WITH THE IG PRIOR TO AUGUST 
26 RELATED TO THIS MATTER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, THERE HAS BEEN
A LOT THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE 
LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.
AS FAR AS THE TIME LINE IS 
CONCERNED, I THINK THAT -- I'D 
LIKE TO TAKE THAT AND GET BACK 
TO YOU AND GIVE YOU A FULL 
CHRONOLOGY IF I MAY ON THE 
ACTUAL TIME LINE OF EVENTS.
>> THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO
THIS COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF IF 
THERE WERE ANY PRELIMINARY 
CONVERSATIONS, WHAT WAS 
DISCUSSED, AND IF THERE WAS ANY 
ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT OF 
THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
I WANT TO TURN TO THE COMPLAINT 
ITSELF WHICH IS MADE PUBLIC FOR 
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TO READ.
AND LET ME PREFACE THIS BY 
SAYING THAT I GREATLY APPRECIATE
YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU BELIEVE 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS OPERATING 
IN GOOD FAITH.

Spanish: 
>>> SE ESTÁ CONVIRTIENDO UN 
CRIMEN EN ESTE ASUNTO
>>> SI USTÉ QUE RESPONDER
>>> NO GRACIAS
>>> PREGUNTA SE RELACIONA CON LA
CLARIDAD DE LA TRANSMISIÓN DEL 
26 DE AGOSTO AL LA DNI, ?
>>> ESTO PASÓ MUCHO LAS ÚLTIMAS 
SEMANAS, LA LÍNEA DE TIEMPO QUE 
CONCIERNE CREO QUE ES FO
FOCALIZARSE LACRÓN CRONOLOGÍAS 
DEL LA LÍNEA TIEMPO EL EVENTOS
>>> HUBO ALGUNA ACCIÓN TOMADA 

Spanish: 
COMO RESULTADO DE LAS 
CONVERSACIONES, LA QUEJA SE HA 
VUELTO PÚBLICA, Y APRECIO SU 
DECLARACIÓN Y QUE CREE QUE EL 
INFORMANTE ESTÁ ACTUANDO DE 
BUENA FE PERO LA PÁGINA UNO NO 
QUIERE IMPROVISAR, LA CITA DICE 
NO FUI TESTIGO DE LA 
CONVERSACIÓN, ESTA MUY 
IMPORTANTE ASÍ QUE LE PREGUNTA 
ES, LA IG REALIZÓ LA INFORMACIÓN
COMPLETA
>>> KERBER
>>> CREO QUE SE REALIZÓ LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN COMO DEBIÓ HABER 

English: 
I THINK THAT THAT IS VERY 
IMPORTANT FOR AMERICANS TO HEAR.
BUT ON PAGE ONE, AND I'M NOT 
GOING TO IMPROVISE FOR PARITY 
PURPOSES LIKE THE CHAIRMAN DID, 
I'M GOING TO QUOTE IT DIRECTLY.
ON PAGE ONE, THE COMPLAINT 
READS, QUOTE, I WAS NOT A DIRECT
WITNESS TO MOST OF THE EVENTS 
DESCRIBED.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY IMPORTANT
LINE TO LOOK INTO.
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 FULLY 
INVESTIGATE THE ALLEGATIONS INTO
THIS COMPLAINT AT THIS TIME?
HAS THE IG FULLY INVESTIGATED 
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT
WILL. 
>> AS I SAID EARLIER, I BELIEVE 
THAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
INSPECTOR GENERAL DID A THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION WITH THE 14 
DAYTIME FRAME THAT HE HAD.
AND UNDER THAT TIME TO THE BEST 
OF HIS ABILITY MADE THE 
DETERMINATION THAT IT WAS BOTH 
CREDIBLE AND URGENT.
I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT 
MICHAEL ATKINSON DID ANYTHING 

Spanish: 
SIDO HECHA, LA DETERMINACIÓN ES 
CREÍBLE Y URGENTE NO TENGO RAZÓN
PARA DUDAR QUE SE HAYA HECHO MAL
ALGO
>>> SI QUE USTÉ CREE EN LA 
VERACIDAD DE LAS DECLARACIONES 
HAY MUCHAS REFERENCIAS A LOS 
OFICIALES DE LA CASA BLANCA QUE 
HABLARON CON LOS OFICIALES DE LA
IG, O HUBO UNA INVESTIGACIÓN 
CRIMINAL
>>> ME GUSTARÍA REFERIRME A LA 
IG DE LO QUE YO SÉ, NO CONOZCO 
LA IDENTIDAD DEL INFORMANTE 
CONOZCO A MICRO MICHAEL, CUANDO 
HABLÉ CON ÉL NO ESTABA 
CONSCIENTE DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN 

English: 
BUT HIS JOB.
>> SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A FULL
INVESTIGATION, WERE THE VERACITY
OF THE ALLEGATIONS LOOKED INTO?
THERE WERE MANY REFERENCES TO 
WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE IG SPOKE WITH
THOSE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS, DO 
YOU KNOW IF HE INVESTIGATED 
AGAIN THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THESE 
ALLEGATIONS, OR WAS IT A 
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, I'D HAVE TO 
DEFER TO THE IG TO RESPOND TO 
YOU ON THAT.
BUT ALL I DO KNOW, ALTHOUGH I DO
NOT KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, I DO KNOW THAT 
MICHAEL ATKINSON HAD IN FACT 
DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND FOUND HIS 
COMPLAINT TO BE CREDIBLE.
AS FAR AS WHO ELSE HE SPOKE 
WITH, I AM UNAWARE OF WHAT WENT 
ON IN MICHAEL ATKINSON'S 
INVESTIGATION IN THIS MATTER. 
>> SO AS OF TODAY, THE ONLY 
INDIVIDUAL THAT WE KNOW THAT THE
IG SPOKE WITH IS THE 
COMPLAINANT, THE AUTHOR AND 
WHISTLEBLOWER?
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, WHAT I'M 
SAYING IS I'M UNAWARE WHO ELSE 

English: 
MICHAEL ATKINSON MAY HAVE SPOKEN
TO.
I'M JUST UNFAMILIAR WITH HIS 
INVESTIGATIVE PROCESS AND EVEN 
THAT HE SPOKE TO IN THIS REGARD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWER ON 
THE RECORD.
AGAIN, FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, 
THEY WILL HAVE MANY QUESTIONS AS
THEY READ THIS COMPLAINT TODAY.
AND BECAUSE ON PAGE ONE IT SAYS 
NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE, I THINK IT 
IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE 
CONDUCT -- THAT WE HAVE 
QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR 
INDIVIDUALS THAT DO HAVE DIRECT 
KNOWLEDGE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU, CONGRESSWOMAN.
>> MR. SWALWELL.
>> MR. MAGUIRE, DO YOU AGREE THE
DEFINITION OF A COVERUP IS AN 
ATTEMPT TO PREVENT PEOPLE 
DISCOVERING A CRIME?
>> I'D SAY THAT IS CLOSE.
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT I
DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
>> AND IN THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S 
COMPLAINT, THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
ALLEGES THAT IMMEDIATELY AFTER 
THE PRESIDENT'S CALL WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE ON JULY 25,
WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS MOVED 
QUICKLY TO DIRECT WHITE HOUSE 

Spanish: 
QUE ESTÁ SIENDO LLEVADA
>>> ASÍ QUE HASTA HOY EL ÚNICO 
INDIVIDUO QUE SE HABLÓ ES CON 
RESPECTO A LA OFERTA DEL 
INFORMANTE
>>> NO ESTOY CONCIENTE Y, NO SOY
NO ESTOY COMO FAMILIARIZADO CON 
QUIEN SE HABLÓ EN ESTE ASPECTO
>>> HAY MUCHAS PREGUNTAS CON 
RESPECTO A LA QUEJA HOY PORQUE 
EN LA PÁGINA UNO DICE QUE NO HAY
DELITO CONOCIMIENTO PROTESTÓ MUY
IMPORTANTE, CON RESPECTO A LA 
CONDUCTA
>>> ESTÁ DE ACUERDO CON LA DE 
FINES DEFINICIÓN DE QUE ESTO UN 
INTENTO DE LAS PERSONAS DE 

English: 
OFFICIALS TO MOVE ELECTRONIC 
TRANSCRIPTS FROM ONE COMPUTER 
SYSTEM WHERE IT WAS NORMALLY 
STORED TO A SECRET CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION SYSTEM.
IS THAT RIGHT?
>> CONGRESSMAN -- 
>> IS THAT WHAT IS ALLEGED?
THE COMPLAINT?
>> ALL I KNOW IS THAT IS THE 
ALLEGATION.
>> I'M ASKING YOU THAT.
THAT IS WHAT IS ALLEGED.
>> THAT IS THE ALLEGATION.
>> AND YOU READ THAT AND THE 
FIRST PEOPLE THAT YOU GO TO 
AFTER YOU READ THAT ALLEGATION 
ARE THE WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS WHO 
ARE TELLING THE WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS WHO SEE THIS 
TRANSCRIPT AND MOVE IT INTO A 
SECRET HIMIS SYSTEM, THOSE ARE 
THE FIRST PEOPLE THAT YOU GO 
TO -- 
>> LET ME SAY A COUPLE THINGS. 
>> YES OR NO.
>> YES.
>> I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING.
YOU HAVE NO I GO WHEN LEWHIGLE  
GO TO CONGRESS AND INSTEAD YOU 
SEND YOUR CONCERN TO THE SUBJECT
OF THE COMPLAINT, THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
SO DID THE WHITE HOUSE TELL YOU 

Spanish: 
DESCUBRIR UN CRIMEN ?
>>> NO ESTOY EN DESACUERDO,
>>> SEGÚN INFORMANTE, LA LLAMABA
Y LOS ABOGADOS SE MOVIERON 
RÁPIDO CON RESPECTO LA LLAMADA 
PARA REALIZAR TRANSCRIPCIONES 
ELECTRÓNICAS, PARA GUARDARLO 
COMO SECRETO CLASIFICADO
>>> TODO LO QUE SE
>>> ESO ES LO QUE SE DICE
>>> LOS ABOGADOS DE LA CASA 
BLANCA LE DIJERON A LOS 
OFICIALES DE LA CASA BLANCA QUE 
GUARDEN EL SECRETO
>>> LA MOANES Y ALGO
>>> ES UN SÍ O NO
>>> SI EL INSPECTOR GENERAL CREE
QUE ESO URGENTEMENTE CREÍBLE QUE

Spanish: 
ESTO NO VAYA AL CONGRESO, Y 
USTED ENVIÓ SUS PREOCUPACIONES A
LA CASA BLANCA, LA CASA BLANCA 
LE PIDIÓ QUE FUE AL DEPARTAMENTO
DE JUSTICIA DESPUÉS ?
>>> FUI PARA CONSULTAR,
>>> DIJO, QUE NO ESTÁ INVO
INVOLUCRADO EN ESTAS ACTIVIDADES
SIN EMBARGO EL INFORMANTE DICE 
QUE NO ES LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE EL 
PRESIENTE TRANSCRIBE LA LLAMADAS
A OTROS PRESIDENTES AL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE INTELIGENCIA
>>> TAMBIÉN PODEMOS HABLAR SI LA
TRANSCRIPCIÓN DEL LÍDER FUE UN 
MOVIMIENTO APROPIADO, ESTO 

English: 
AFTER YOU SENT YOUR CONCERN 
ABOUT PRIVILEGE, DID THEY TELL 
YOU TO GO TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 
JUSTICE NEXT?
>> MY COUNSEL IN CONSULTATION 
WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WENT 
TO THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
WE WERE NOT DIRECTED TO DO THAT.
>> AND YOU SAID THIS DID NOT 
INVOLVE ONGOING INTELLIGENCE 
ACTIVITIES.
HOWEVER THE WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS 
THAT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME 
THAT THE PRESIDENT'S TRANSCRIPT 
S WITH FOREIGN LEADERS WERE 
IMPROPERLY MOVE.
IS THAT PART OF THE ALLEGATION?
>> I WILL LET THE LETTER SPEAK 
FOR ITSELF.
>> AND WHAT ALSO SPEAKS FOR 
ITSELF, IF A TRANSCRIPT WITH A 
FOREIGN LEADER IS IMPROPERLY 
MOVED IN TO AN INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM,
THAT ACTUALLY WOULD INVOLVE YOUR
RESPONSIBILITIES, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NOT NECESSARILY.
THAT IS -- I DO NOT, IT IS NOT 

English: 
UNDERNEATH MY AUTHORITY AND 
RESPONSIBILITY.
AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS AN 
ALLEGATION THAT HAS BEEN MADE, 
DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT 
THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.
>> AND THE ALLEGATION WAS DRMED 
DETERMINED TO BE URGENT AND 
CREDIBLE BY THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL.
>> YES, IT WAS.
>> CONSIDER TRANSCRIPTS ARE 
BEING MOVED INTO A SECRET 
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM, WOULD YOU 
WANT TO KNOW THAT MAYBE OTHER 
TRANSCRIPTS PERHAPS PHONE CALLS 
WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN OR MBS OF 
SAUDI ARABIA OR ERDOGAN OF 
TURKEY OR KIM JUNG-UN, WOULD YOU
WANT TO KNOW IF THOSE WERE ALSO 
BEING IMPROPERLY MOVED BECAUSE 
THE PRESIDENT IS TRYING TO COVER
UP SOMETHING?
>> CONGRESSMAN, HOW THE WHITE 
HOUSE, OFFICE OF THE -- 
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE 
PRESIDENT AND NATIONAL SECURITY 
COUNCIL CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS 
IS THEIR BUSINESS.
>> IT IS ACTUALLY YOUR BUSINESS 
TO PROTECT AMERICA'S SECRETS.
>> IT IS ALL OF OURS.
THIS COMMITTEE AS WELL.
>> AND IF THERE IS COVERUP 
ACTIVITY BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT 
IS WORKING IMPROPERLY WITH A 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, THAT COULD 
COMPROMISE AMERICA'S SECRETS, IS

Spanish: 
TAMBIÉN SERÍA SU RESPONSABLE AL 
PRE
>>> NO NECESARIAMENTE, ESTO NO 
ESTÁ BAJO MI AUTORIDAD Y 
RESPONSABILIDAD, ESTO ES UN 
SUPUESTO NO NECESARIAMENTE ES 
REAL
>>> TAMBIÉN QUERÍA SABER SI USÉE
CONSIDERABA LA TRANSFERENCIA FUE
HECHA RESISTENCIA EN UN SISTEMA 
SECRETO, EL MISMO QUE FUE HECHO 
CON EL PRESIDENTE DE RUSIA ENTRE
OTROS CREE QUE TE CREE QUE SE 
HIZO UN MOVIMIENTO INCORRECTO
>>> DE HECHO USTED EL QUE TIENE 

English: 
THAT RIGHT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, THERE IS AN 
ALLEGATION OF A COVER UP.
I'M SURE AN INVESTIGATION AND 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE MIGHT LEAD
CREDENCE OR DISPROVE THAT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, ALL WE HAVE IS AN
ALLEGATION, SECONDHAND 
INFORMATION FROM A 
WHISTLEBLOWER.
I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ON WHETHER 
OR NOT THIS IS TRUE AND ACCURATE
STATEMENT.
>> THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OPINION YOU RELIED UPON SAID 
THAT YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR
PREVENTING FOREIGN ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE, IS THAT RIGHT?
THAT WAS IN THE OPINION.
>> WHAT THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 
COUNSEL DID WAS OVER 11 PAGES --
AN OPINION DEFINING AND 
EXPLAINING THEIR JUSTIFICATION 
FOR IT NOT COMPLYING WITH URGENT
AND -- 
>> ROUGH RESPONSIBLE FOR 
PREVENTING ELECTION INTERFERENCE
BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, ELECTION 
 -- 
>> YES OR NO.
>> MY ELECTION INTERFERENCE 
IS -- 

Spanish: 
QUE PROTEGER EL SECRETO 
ESTÓNIANSE
>>> SI EL PRESIENTE NO ESTÁ 
ACTUANDO BIEN ESO COMPROMETE SER
ESTADOUNIDENSE
>>> EN ESTE MOMENTO TODO LO QUE 
TENEMOS SON ACUSACIONES DE UN 
INFORMANTE, NO SABEMOS SI SON 
VERDAD O NO
>>> SEGÚN EL DEPARTAMENTO 
JUSTICIA USTÉ NO RESPONSABLE DE 
PREVENIR
>>> LO QUE DICEN LOS OFICIALES 
DEL CONGRESO SON SUS OPINIONES, 
ESO
>>> ES RESPONSABLE USTÉ DE LA 

Spanish: 
SELECCIÓN DE INTERFERENCIA 
ELECCIONES ?
>>> ES SU PRIORIDAD
>>> ESTA QUEJA HABLA SOBRE EL 
PRESIENTE ESTADOS UNIDOS 
INVOLUCRADO EN UN ACTO SIN 
CLARIDAD CON RESPECTO A ESTADOS 
UNIDOS Y UN ESFUERZO DE LA CASA 
BLANCA POR MOVER LA 
TRANSFERENCIA ESTÁS LLAMADAS A 
UN SISTEMA SECRETO
>>> CREO QUE LA SEGURIDAD ES MI 
PRIORIDAD Y EN ESTO ESTÁ 
FOCALIZAR LA CONVERSACIÓN
>>> SI ESTA CONVERSACIÓN 
INVOLUCRA AL PRESIDENTE NO ES UN

English: 
>> OR I REALLY HOPE YOU KNOW THE
ANSWER.
ISIT PRIORITY?
>> YES.
>> AND SO THIS THE ALLEGES A 
SHAKE DUNN BY THE PRESIDENT 
INVOLVING A ROGUE ACTOR WHO HAS 
NO CLEARANCE, NO AUTHORITY UNDER
THE UNITED STATES AND AN EFFORT 
BY THE WHITE HOUSE TO MOVE THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF THIS CALL TO A 
SECRET SYSTEM.
IS THAT RIGHT?
THAT IS AT LEAST WHAT IS 
ALLEGED.
>> CONGRESSMAN, I BELIEVE THAT 
ELECTION SECURITY IS MY MOST 
FUNDAMENTAL PRIORITY.
HOWEVER, THIS COMPLAINT FOCUSED 
ON A CONVERSATION BY THE 
PRESIDENT WITH ANOTHER FOREIGN 
LEADER, NOT ELECTION SECURITY.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> IF THAT CONVERSATION INVOLVED
THE PRESIDENT REQUESTING HELP IN
THE FORM OF INTERVENTION IN OUR 
ELECTION, IS THAT NOT AN ISSUE 
OF INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTION?
>> CHAIRMAN, ONCE AGAIN, THIS 
WAS SENT TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU 

Spanish: 
ASUNTO DE INTERFERENCIA NO 
SELECCIÓN
>>> TO FUE ENVIADO POR LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN FEDERAL, NO ESTÁ 
SUGIRIENDO QUE LAS LEYES SEAN 
REALIZADAS
>>> NINGUNA NOSOTROS SIN ESTÁ 
SOBRE LA LEY EN ESTE PAÍS
>>> UNA PREGUNTA ESPECÍFICA LA 

English: 
OF INVESTIGATION.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT YOU ARE NOT SUTSUGGESTING T 
THE PRESIDENT IS SOMEHOW IMMUNE 
FROM THE LAWS THAT PRECLUDE A 
U.S. PERSON SEEKING FOREIGN 
HELP?
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT NONE 
OF US IS ABOVE THE LAW IN THIS 
COUNTRY.
>> MR. HERD.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I TELL MY FRIENDS ALL THE TIME 
THAT I'VE GOTTEN MORE 
SURVEILLANCE AS A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS AS I DID IN THE CIA.
AND I THINK THAT YOU HAVE GOTTEN
MORE ARROWS SHOT AT YOU SINCE 
YOU'VE BEEN DNI THAN YOU DID IN 
YOUR ALMOST FOUR DECADES ON THE 
BATTLEFIELD.
A SPECIFIC QUESTION, LETTER THAT
IS CONTAINED IN THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER PACKAGE, IT IS 
ACTUALLY DATED AUGUST 12.
AND I RECOGNIZE THIS MAY BE A 
BETTER QUESTION TO BE ASKING THE
ICIG.
THAT LETTER IS DATED AUGUST 12.
AND IT IS TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
AND CHIR CHAIRMAN OF THIS 

Spanish: 
CARTA QUE CONTENÍA EL PAQUETE 
DEL INFORMANTE TIENE LA FECHA 
DEL DOS AGOSTO, QUE SABE QUE EL 
INFORMANTE OTORGÓ ESTA CARTA A 
ESTOS DIRECTORES COMPARADO CON 
LA CIA
>>> NO CREO QUE EL INFORMANTE 
ACTUÓ EN BUENA FE
>>> EL ESTÁ TODO EL INFORMANTE 
ES DECIDIDO POR PREOCUPACIONES 
URGENTES
>>> DE ALGUNA RAZÓN SI HAY ALGÚN
IMPACTO EN ESTA LEGISLACIÓN QUE 
HAYA CAMBIADO CON RESPECTO A LAS

English: 
COMMITTEE.
DO YOU KNOW IF THE WHISTLEBLOWER
PROVIDED THAT LETTER TO THOSE 
TWO CHAIR MEN CONCURRENTLY WITH 
THE ICIG IN. 
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN, AS I SAID 
EARLIER, I BELIEVE THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER AND THE ICIG ACTED
IN GOOD FAITH AND FOLLOWED THE 
LAW EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.
>> AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE WAY 
THE LAW ON THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
STATUTE SAYS THAT YOU SHALL 
SHARE IF IT IS DECIDED TO BE AN 
URGENT CONCERN, HOWEVER BEST 
PRACTICES AS ALWAYS BEEN TO 
SHARE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT
URGENT CONCERN.
DO YOU SEE ANY REASON NEGATIVE 
IMPACT ON THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY IF THAT LEGISLATION 
WAS CHANGED IT SAY ALL 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINTS SHOULD 
BE SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEES?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, 
CONGRESSMAN, LET'S JUST SAY THE 
ALLEGATION WAS MADE AGAINST A 
MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF THIS 

Spanish: 
QUEJAS DEL INFORMANTE
>>> SI ES CORRECTO
>>> LOS MIEMBRO DE ESTA 
COMUNIDAD NO SON MIEMBROS DEL EN
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA, Y NO 
TENGO AUTORIDAD O RESP
RESPONSABILIDAD CON SOBRE ESTÁ 
COMUNIDAD NI PREGUNTA ES SI EL 
INFORMANTE COMPARTIÓ ESTA 
INFORMACIÓN E IMPACTO A TODAS 
LAS COMUNIDADES INTELIGENCIA
>>> USTÉ CREE QUE SI CAMBIAMOS 
ESTA LEY PODRÍA DE IMPACTO EN LA
AGENCIA DE INTELIGENCIA
>>> CREO QUE TENEMOS UNA BUENA 

English: 
COMMITTEE, ALTHOUGH YOU ARE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, ARE NOT 
MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY AND AS THE DNI, I HAVE
NO AUTHORITY OR RESPONSIBILITY 
OVER THIS COMMITTEE.
>> MY QUESTION IS DO YOU THINK 
THAT IF EVERY WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT THAT WAS BROUGHT TO 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
INSPECTOR GENERAL WAS ALWAYS 
SHARED WITH THIS COMMITTEE, 
WOULD THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON 
INTELLIGENCE -- I DON'T KNOW WHY
THAT THE STATUTE DIDN'T SAY ALL 
SHOULD BE SHARED RATHER THAN 
ONLY URGENT CONCERNS AND AS TO 
MY QUESTION TO YOU, DO YOU THINK
THAT WE CHANGED THAT LAW, WOULD 
IT HAVE IMPACT ON INTELLIGENCE 
EQUITIES?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT LAW COULD 
BE CHANGED TO COVER ALL THINGS 
THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY HAPPEN.
I THINK THAT WE HAVE A GOOD LAW.
I THINK THAT IT IS WELL WRITTEN.
HOWEVER, AS I SAID, THIS IS 
UNPRECEDENTED AND THIS IS A 
UNIQUE SITUATION.
>> AND I HOPE WE'RE NOT IN THIS 
POSITION AGAIN.

Spanish: 
LEY CREO QUE ESTO NO TIENE 
PRECEDENTE Y ES UNA SITUACIÓN 
ÚNICA
>>> SIN EMBARGO ESTAMOS 
NUEVAMENTE ESTA POSICIÓN, 
USTEDES ESTABA CONSCIENTE DE LA 
DECISIÓN DE SUSPENDER AYUDA A 
UCRANIA ? >>>
>>> NO SÉ SI ALGUIEN SABE LA 
RESPUESTA. >>> LA PREGUNTA TAL 
VEZ SEA UNA LEGAL Y LA PUEDE 
RESPONDER ALGUIEN MEJOR QUE YO. 
QUE PASÓ CUANDO LA OFICINA 

English: 
HOWEVER IF WE DO FIND OURSELVES 
HERE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT 
THERE IS NOT ANY UNCERTAINTY IN 
WHEN INFORMATION SHOULD BE 
SHARED.
UNDER YOU OR UNDER YOUR 
PREDECESSOR, AWARE OF AN OMB 
DECISION TO SUSPEND UKRANIAN AID
AS WAS ALLEGED IN THIS 
COMPLAINT.
>> CONGRESSMAN, NO, I HAVE NO 
KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
AND I'M UNAWARE IF ANYBODY 
WITHIN THE ODNI IS AWARE OF 
THAT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO 
THAT.
>> WHEN -- I APOLOGIZE FOR LOT 
OF THESE LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT 
MAY BE BEST DIRECTED AT SOMEBODY
ELSE, BUT I FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE A
PERSPECTIVE.
WHEN DOES OLC OFFICE OF 
LEGISLATIVE LEGAL COUNSEL, 
EXCUSE ME, GUIDANCE OVERRIDE 
LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS IN. 
>> THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
DOES NOT OVERRIDE LAWS PASSED BY
CONGRESS.

Spanish: 
LEGISLATIVA PERDÓN LA CONSEJOS 
LEGALES PASAN POR ENCIMA DEL 
CONSEJO . >>>
LO QUE HACE NO ES SOBREPASAR 
SINO QUE USA LA OPINIÓN LEGAL DE
LOS QUE ESTABAN EN LA RAMA 
LEGAL. Y LA OPINIÓN LEGAL ES 
VINCULANTE CON CUALQUIERA EN LA 
RAMA.
>>> OTRA PREGUNTA SI TIENE 
TIEMPO PARA RESPONDER: QUE ES LO
QUE USTEDES PIENSA EN CUANTO LAS
OPERACIONES EN GENERAL Y COMO 
BUENA SER IMPACTADAS POR ESTE 
ÚLTIMO EPISODIO Y AHÍ ME REFIERO
A EL CÍRCULO DE LOS MEDIOS Y LOS
PUNTOS TÉCNICOS ENTRE LAS 
REVELACIONES DE EL DELATOR. LO 
VIMOS EN LAS REVELACIONES 
ANTERIORES Y DE VERDAD CREO QUE 

English: 
WHAT IT DOES, IT PASSES LEGAL 
OPINION FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE 
IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
AND THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL 
LEGAL OPINION IS BINDING TO 
EVERYONE WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH.
>> GOOD COPY.
TWO FINAL QUESTIONS THAT I'LL 
ASK TOGETHER.
WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF HOW 
INTELLIGENCE PLACES IN GENERAL 
ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS
LATEST EPISODE.
AND WHEN I SAY EPISODE, I'M 
REFERRING TO THE MEDIA CIRCUS, 
THE POLITICAL CIRCUS, THE 
TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT ARE 
RELATED TO THIS WHISTLEBLOWER 
REVELATION.
YOU ALLUDED TO IT IN SOME OF 
YOUR PREVIOUS ANSWERS BUT I'D 
LIKE YOUR ASSESSMENT ON HOW IF 
COULD IMPACT INTELLIGENCE 
OPERATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
AND I DO BELIEVE THIS IS YOUR 
FIRST TIME TESTIFYING TO 
CONGRESS IN YOUR POSITION.
AND I WOULD WELCOME IN THE 
END -- I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE 
OFF TOPIC, WHAT DO YOU SEE OUR 
GREATEST CHALLENGES AND THREATS 

English: 
TO THIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
>> LET ME ANSWER THE LATTER PART
OF THAT.
I THINK THAT THE GREATEST 
CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE IS NOT 
NECESSARILY FROM A KINETIC 
STRIKE OR RUSSIA OR CHINA OR 
IRAN OR NORTH KOREA.
I THINK THAT THE GREATEST 
CHALLENGE THAT WE DO HAVE IS TO 
MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THE 
INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTION 
SYSTEM.
WE KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT THERE ARE
FOREIGN POWERS TRYING TO GET US 
TO QUESTION VALIDITY ON WHETHER 
OR NOT OUR ELECTIONS ARE VALID.
SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, I THINK 
THAT PROTECTING THE SANCTITY OF 
OUR ELECTION WITHIN THE UNITED 
STATES, WHETHER IT BE NATIONAL, 
CITY, STATE, LOCAL, IS PERHAPS 
THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB THAT WE 
HAVE WITH THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY.
OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE DO FACE 
SIGNIFICANT THREATS, I'D SAY 
NUMBER ONE IS NOT NECESSARILY 
KINETIC BUT CYBER.
THIS IS A CYBER WORLD.
WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE
GREAT COMPETITION IS TAKING 
PLACE WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA AND 

Spanish: 
ESTA ES LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE 
TESTIFICA EN ESTA POSICIÓN. LE 
DIRÍA SOCIAL FINAL, TAL VEZ 
FUERA DE TEMAS, CUÁLES SON LOS 
DESAFÍOS MÁS GRANDES QUE DEPARA 
EL PAÍS?
VOY A RESPONDER UNA PARTE. EL 
DESAFÍO MÁS GRANDE NO ES NE
NECESARIAMENTE RUSO DE CHINA O 
IRÁN O COREA DEL NORTE. CREO QUE
EL DESAFÍO MÁS GRANDE ES LA 
INTEGRIDAD DE NUESTRO SISTEMA. 
ELECTORAL. SABEMOS AHORA QUE HAY
UNA CU CUESTIONAMIENTO A NUESTR 
SISTEMA ELECTORAL. CREO QUÉ 
PROTEGER LA SANTIDAD DE NUESTRA 
ELECCIONES. FUERA DE ESO ESTAMOS

Spanish: 
CON AMENAZAS SIGNIFICATIVAS. 
CREO QUE LA PRIMERA NO ES 
GENÉTICA SINO QUE CIBERNÉTICAS. 
HAY UNA GRAN CANTIDAD DE CO
COMPETICIÓN ENTRE RUSIA Y CHINA 
Y CONSTRUYEN NAVES Y TENEMOS QUE
HACER ESO. HAY UNA GRAN 
COMPETENCIA CON ELLOS EN ESTE 
MOMENTO.
 CREO QUE SE ME VA EL TIEMPOPERO
HAY IMPLICACIONES MÁS GRANDES EN
CUANTO A ESTA SITUACIÓN DEL 
DELATOR.
LE DIRÍA QUE HAY MUCHO TRABAJO Y
COMO EL LÍDER DE LA COMUNIDAD DE
ASEGURARNOS Y RE ASEGURAR A LA 
COMUNIDAD DE INTELIGENCIA QUE DE
HECHO ESTOY COMPLETAMENTE 
TRABAJANDO POR EL PROGRAMA Y 
ESTOY ABSOLUTAMENTE AQUÍ PARA 
PROTEGER LA ÁNIMO EL ANONIMATO 
DE TODOS LOS DELATORES Y DE 
TODOS LOS QUE ESTÁN HACIENDO SU 
TRABAJO MANTENERLOS SEGUROS. 

English: 
WE ARE BUILDING SHIPS AND 
WEAPONS TO DO THAT.
BUT IN MY ESTIMATESTIMATION, TH 
COMPETITION IS TAKING PLACE IN 
THE CYBER -- 
>> AND MY TIME I THINK IS 
RUNNING OUT.
BUT THE BROADER IMPLICATIONS ON 
INTELLIGENCE PLACES OF IN 
CURRENT WHISTLEBLOWER SITUATION.
>> I WILL TELL YOU IN LIGHT OF 
THIS, I CLEARLY HAVE A LOT OF 
WORK AS THE LEADER OF THIS 
COMMUNITY TO REASSURE THAT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THAT IN 
FACT THAT I'M TOTALLY COMMITTED 
TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM.
AND I'M ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO 
PROTECTING THE ANONYMITY OF THIS
INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS MAKING 
SURE THAT MICHAEL ATKINSON, WHO 
IS OUR ICIG, CONTINUES TO BE 
ABLE TO DO HIS JOB UNFETED.
BUT WITH THAT, I CERTAINLY HAVE 
TO BE PROCEED ACTIVE IN MY 
COMMUNICATIONS WITH MY TEAM.
>> I YIELD BACK THE TIME I MAY 
OR MAY IN THE HAVE.
>> MR. CASTRO.

English: 
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY 
TODAY.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU ALSO TO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COURAGE AND BRAVERY TO COME 
FORWARD.
AND THANK YOU TO THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL FOR HIS COURAGE IN 
COMING FORWARD.
YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU BELIEVE 
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S REPORT 
IS CREDIT ONLY, THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS CREDIBLE, THAT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ACTED IN GOOD 
FAITH.
YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE NOW AS WE 
HAVE AND I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY 
TO REVIEW BOTH THE WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINT AND THE TRANSCRIPT 
THAT WAS RELEASED OF THE PHONE 
CALL BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE.
YOU HAVE READ BOTH DOCUMENTS BY 
NOW.
>> YES.
>> WOULD YOU SAY THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT IS 
REMARKABLY CONSISTENT WITH THE 
TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS RELEASED?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT IS IN 
ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WAS RELEASED
YESTERDAY BY THE PRESIDENT.
>> I WANT TO READ YOU A QUICK 

Spanish: 
PERO SEGUIRÉ COMUNICÁNDOME CON 
EQUIPO
.BUENO CREO QUE SE ME ACABÓ EL 
TIEMPO
GRACIAS DIRECTOR, GRACIAS POR SU
TESTIMONIO DE O EL SEÑOR MC
MCGWIRE. GRACIAS POR VENIR A 
HABLAR ENFRENTA LA NACIÓN, 
GRACIAS AL INSPECTOR GENERAL POR
SU VALOR DE HABLAR DEL CONGRESO.
MENCIONÓ QUE EL INFORME ES 
CREÍBLE, EL DEL DELATOR, QUE HAN
ACTUÓ CON BUENA FE. Y CREO QUE 
EL PUEBLO AMERICANO TUVO DE LA 
OPORTUNIDAD DE LEER LA QUEJA Y 
LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE LA LLAMADA 
ENTRE LOS PRESIDENTES DE ESTADOS
UNIDOS Y UCRANIA. DIRÍA QUE LA 
QUEJA ES CONSISTENTE CON LA 

Spanish: 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN?
YO DIRÍA QUE ESTÁ ALINEADA CON 
LO QUE SE PUBLICÓ AYER.
VOY A LEER UNA SECCIÓN RÁPIDA 
PARA PODER ENTENDER EXACTAMENTE 
QUÉ TAN EXACTA ES ESTA QUEJAS. 
EN LA PÁGINA DOS EL DELATOR DICE
QUE" SEGÚN LOS QUE TIENEN 
CONOCIMIENTO DIRECTO DE LA L
LLAMADA, EL PRESIDENTE PRESIONO 
EL PRESIENTE UCRANIANO PARA QUE 
INICIASE O CONTINUASE UNA I
INVESTIGACIÓN CONTRA EL EX 
VICEPRESIDENTE JOE BIDEN. Y SU 
HIJO Y LO DIJO DE MANERA 
EXPLÍCITA. EL SEÑOR GIULIANI Y 
EL FISCAL GENERAL A QUIENES EL 
PRESIDENTE SE REFIRIÓ VARIAS 

English: 
SECTION OF BOTH TO UNDER SCORE 
EXACTLY HOW ACCURATE AND 
CONSISTENT THIS COMPLAINT IS.
ON PAGE TWO OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER SAYS ACCORDING TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIALS WHO 
HAD DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE 
CALL, THE PRESIDENT PRESSURED 
MR. ZELENSKY TO, AND THEN A FEW 
BULLET POINTS, FIRST SAYS 
INITIATE OR CONTINUE AN 
INVESTIGATION INTO THE 
ACTIVITIES OF FORMER VICE 
PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN AND HIS 
SON HUNTER AND THE THIRD BULLET 
POINT, MEET OR SPEAK WITH TWO 
PEOPLE THE PRESIDENT NAMED 
EXPLICITLY MR. GIULIANI AND 
ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR IT WHOM 
THE PRESIDENT REFERRED MULTIPLE 
TIMES IN TANDEM.
IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS 
RELEASED ON PAGE ABOUT FOUR OF 
THE FIRST PARAGRAPH INTO WHAT 
LOOKS LIKE THIRD SENTENCE, 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS FORMER 
AMBASSADOR FOR THE UNITED 
STATES, THE WOMAN, WAS BAD NEWS 
AND THE PEOPLE SHE WAS DEALING 
WITH IN THE UKRAINE WERE BAD 

English: 
NEWS.
SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW 
THAT.
THE OTHER THING, THERE IS A LOT 
OF TALK ABOUT BIDEN'S SON, THAT 
BIDEN STOPPED THE PROSECUTION 
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO FIND
OUT ABOUT THAT.
SO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO WITH THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD BE GREAT.
BIDEN WENT AROUND BRAGGING THAT 
HE STOPPED THE PROSECUTION, ET 
CETERA.
DO YOU HAVE REASON TO DOUBT WHAT
THE WHISTLEBLOWER HAS BROUGHT 
FORWARD?
>> GETTING BACK INTO MICHAEL 
ATKINSON'S DETERMINATION ON 
WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS CREDIBLE 
OR URGENT CONCERN, AS THE DNI, 
IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO ENSURE 
THAT IT IS CREDIBLE.
THAT IS THE ICIG'S JOB AS 
INSPECTOR.
HE HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS 
CREDIBLE.
MY ONLY TROUBLE WAS THAT IN FACT
IT INVOLVED SOMEONE WHO IS NOT 
IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OR
IN AN ORGANIZATION UNDER WHICH I
HAVE AUTHORITY AND 
RESPONSIBILITY.
OUTSIDE OF THAT -- 
>> BUT DIRECTOR, YOU AGREE THAT 

Spanish: 
VECES EN LA CONVERSACIÓN." EN EL
PRIMER PARÁGRAFO, EL PRESIDENTE 
DONALD TRUMP DICE QUE EL EX 
EMBAJADOR DE ESTADOS UNIDOS, LA 
MUJER ERA MALAS NOTICIAS, EL 
AGENTE NO PLANEARAN MALAS 
NOTICIAS. QUERÍA DECIRLE ESO. LO
OTRO SE HABLA MUCHO SOBRE EL 
HIJO DE JOE BIDEN, MUCHA GENTE 
QUIERE SABER SOBRE ESO, ASÍ QUE 
LO QUE PUEDE HACER CON EL FISCAL
GENERAL SERÁ GENIAL. BAILE 
SIEMPRE DECÍA QUE LE TUVO LA 
FISCALÍA, ETC.
TIENE ALGUNA RAZÓN PARA DUDAR LO
QUE DICE EL DELATOR?
TIENE QUE VER CON LA 
DETERMINACIONES DE SI ERA 
CREÍBLE O URGENTE. NO ES UN 
LUGAR ASEGURARME QUE SEA C
CREÍBLE. ES ES EL TRABAJO DEL 
INSPECTORÍA LA DETERMINADO QUE 
ES CREÍBLE. MI ÚNICO PROBLEMA ES

English: 
IT INVOLVED INTELLIGENCE 
MATTERS, IT INVOLVED AN ISSUE OF
ELECTION INTERFERENCE, IT 
INVOLVED AN INVESTIGATION OF 
U.S. PERSONS INCLUDING A FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT.
IF YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE OR THE CIA 
HAD KNOWLEDGE THAT GO.
 -- GOVERNMENT WAS GOING TO DRUM
UPPEN A INVESTIGATION AGAINST A 
FORMER VICE PRESIDENT, THAT 
WOULDN'T QUALIFY AS AN 
INTELLIGENCE MATTER?
WOULD THAT QUALIFY AS AN 
INTELLIGENCE MATTER, YES OR NO?
>> I DON'T MEAN TO SAY -- THIS 
IS A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.
>> NO, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IS 
IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
THAT IS WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR.
>> THE COMPLAINT, THE 
COMPLAINT -- 
>> BUT THAT IS WHAT THE 
PRESIDENT IS ASKING THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UKRAINE IS DO, 
HE IS ASKING THE PRESIDENT OF 
UKRAINE TO INVESTIGATE A FORMER 
VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES.
DOES THAT QUALIFY AS AN 
INTELLIGENCE MATTER THAT THE CIA
WOULD WANT TO KNOW?
>> THE CONVERSATION WAS BY THE 
PRESIDENT TO THE PRESIDENT OF 

Spanish: 
QUE DE HECHO TENÍA QUE VER CON 
ALGUIEN QUE NO ESTÁN EN 
COMUNIDAD DE LA INTELIGENCIA O 
ALGUIEN, POR SOBRE QUIEN TENGA 
AUTORIDAD O RESPONSABILIDAD
PERO SE ESTABA DE ACUERDO QUE 
ESTO TENÍA QUE VER CON LAS 
ELECCIONES DE INTERFERENCIA, QUE
HABÍA UNA INVESTIGACIÓN EN 
CONTRA DEL EX VICEPRESIDENTE. SI
USTED NO LO HA TUVIES CO
CONOCIMIENTO.. ESTO NO SERÍA UN 
PROBLEMA DE INTELIGENCIA, SE LOS
HABÍA SIDO NO?
NO QUIERO DECIRLO DE MANERA 
HIPOTÉTICA
NO CREO QUE SEA HIPOTÉTICO, ESO 
SALE EN LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN ESO ES 
LO QUE PIDE.
LA QUEJA, LA QUEJA
ES LO QUE LE ESTÁ PIDIENDO AL 
PRESIDENTE DE UCRANIA, QUE 
INVESTIGUE A UN EX V

English: 
THE UKRAINE AS YOU KNOW.
AND IT IS HIS -- I AM NOT -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT CANNOT
BE AN ULTIMATE SHIELD AGAINST 
TRANSPARENCY, AGAINST 
ACCOUNTABILITY.
THE PRESIDENT IS NOT ABOVE THE 
LAW.
ONE THING THAT YOU HAVEN'T TOLD 
US IS IF YOUR OFFICE OR IF THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL IS NOT ABLE TO
INVESTIGATE, THEN WHO IS ABLE TO
INVESTIGATE?
>> CONGRESSMAN CASTRO, ONCE 
AGAIN, SIR, AS I MENTIONED 
SEVERAL TIMES SO FAR, ALTHOUGH 
IT DID NOT COME TO THE 
COMMITTEE, THE COMPLAINT WAS 
REFERRED TO THE JUDICIAL 
DEPARTMENT FOR CRIMINAL 
INVESTIGATION.
IT WAS NOT SWEPT UNDER THE RUG.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU.
WHY DID YOUR OFFICE THINK THAT 
YOU SHOULD APPEAL THE IG'S 
DETERMINATION ABOUT 
QUOTE/UNQUOTE URGENT CONCERN TO 
THE DOJ?
THAT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
>> THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THAT
IN THE PAST THERE HAS NEVER BEEN
A MATTER THAT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL HAS INVESTIGATED THAT 
DID NOT INVOLVE A MEMBER OF THE 

Spanish: 
VICEPRESIDENTE DE NUESTRO PAÍS. 
ES ESTO UNA PELIGRO NUESTRA 
SEGURIDAD NACIONAL QUE QUISIESE 
SABER LAS  CIA?
SI LO ENTIENDO PERO ESO NO PUEDE
SER EL ÚLTIMO ESCUDO POR LA 
TRANSPARENCIA NI LA 
RESPONSABILIDAD. EL PRESIDENTE 
NO ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY. UNA DE
LAS COSAS QUE NOS HA DICHO ES 
QUE SI NO SE PUEDE INVESTIGAR 
QUIÉN PUEDE HACERLO?
DE NUEVO SEÑOR, COMO DIJE VARIAS
VECES, AUNQUE NO LE CORRESPONDÍA
AL COMITÉ ESTO SE LE LLEGÓ A ÉL 
DEPARTAMENTO JUDICIAL PARA LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN ESTO NOS ESCONDIÓ.
TENGO OTRA PREGUNTA: QUÉ PASA 
CON LA DETERMINACIÓN DE 

English: 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OR AN 
ORGANIZATION THAT THE DIRECTOR 
OF NATIONAL -- 
>> ONE LAST POINT I WOULD MAKE 
WITH RESPECT TO YOU KEEP SAYING 
THE PRESIDENT IS IS NOT PART OF 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
I BELIEVE HE IS.
THE PRESIDENT YOU AGREE HAS THE 
ABILITY TO DECLASSIFY ANY 
INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENT.
>> THE PRESIDENT HAS RING 
CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY -- 
>> THEN HOW IS THAT PERSON 
OUTSIDE THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY?
>> HE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES.
ABOVE THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
>> YOU COMMANDED S.E.A.L. TEAM 
TWO AND RETIRED FROM THE NAVY.
23 DAYS AFTER THE TRUMP/ZELENSKY
CALL AND FOUR DAYS AFTER THE 

Spanish: 
PREOCUPACIONES URGENTES A ÉL 
GGOP
ESA NUNCA HA SIDO UN TEMA 
SIEMPRE SIDO INVESTIGADO NO 
TENÍA QUE VER NUNCA CON EL QUE 
NO FUESES DE LA COMUNIDAD DE 
INTELIGENCIA.
UN ÚLTIMO PUNTO QUE QUIERO H
HACER, DICE QUE EL PRESIDENTE NO
PARTE DE LA COMUNIDAD DE LA I
INTELIGENCIA. YO CREO QUE SÍ LO 
ES PORQUE ÉL PUEDE CLASIFICAR 
CUALQUIER DOCUMENTO.
EL TIENE AUTORIDAD DE 
CLASIFICACIÓN Y DE PLANIFICACIÓN
ENTONCES COMO ES POSIBLE QUE NO 
SE APARTA DE LA COMUNIDAD 
INTELIGENCIA? >
GRACIAS
DIRECTOR, ALMIRANTE UN GUSTO 
VERLO. USTED SE RETIRÓ Y SE 
JUBILÓ
 ASÍ ES

Spanish: 
Y A PESAR DE QUE DESPUÉS DE ESE 
SERVICIO SE CONVIRTIÓ EN EL 
INTERINO, Y A LOS POCOS DÍAS SE 
HIZO LA QUEJA DEL DELATOR 
USTEDES FUE CITADOS EN ESTE 
COMITÉ NO DE ACUSADO DE COMETER 
CRIMEN DE MANERA PÚBLICA.
ASÍ ES
ENTONCES SUPUESTAMENTE USTED ERA
PARTE DE UN ENCUBRIMIENTO I
ILEGAL. LA VOCERA DE LA CÁMARA 
DIJO QUE USTED COMETIÓ UN CRIMEN
Y ROMPIÓ LA LEY ELLA DIJO: EL 
DIRECTOR DE INTELIGENCIA 
NACIONAL COMETIÓ UN CRIMEN Y 
ESTA ES UNA VIOLACIÓN DE LA LEY 
AL NO ENTREGARLA QUEJA. 
USTED ESTÁ SIENDO ACUSADO 
FALSAMENTE Y PÚBLICAMENTE DE 
COMETER UN CRIMEN. USTED ESTABA 

English: 
WHISTLEBLOWER MADE HIS OR HER 
COMPLAINT, YOU WERE SUBPOENAED 
BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE.
>> YES.
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF WROTE A 
LETTER ON SEPTEMBER 13 ACCUSING 
YOU 6 BEING PART OF AN UNLAWFUL 
COVER UPAND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
SAID NOT ONCE BUT TWICE THAT YOU
BROKE THE LAW, THAT YOU 
COMMITTED A CRIME.
SHE SAID THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BLOCKED 
HIM, MEANING THE ICI GICHLT, 
FROM DISCLOSING THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, THIS IS
A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
YOU WERE FALSELY ACCUSED OF 
COMMITTING A CRIME.
YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW NOT 
JUST AN OPINION OF WHAT THE LAW 
IS, BUT THE OPINION FROM THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AN 11 PAGE 
OPINION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU
WERE REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPORT 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.

English: 
CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, CONGRESSMAN.
>> AND THAT OPINION SAYS, THE 
QUESTION IS WHETHER SUCH A 
COMPLAINT FALLS WITHIN THE 
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF URGENT 
CONCERN THAT THE LAW REQUIRES 
THE DNI TO FORWARD TO THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE.
WE CONCLUDE THAT IT DOES NOT.
DID I READ THAT ACCURATELY?
I BETTER HAVE, RIGHT?
THAT IS AN OPINION NOT FROM BILL
BARR.
THAT IS AN OPINION FROM THE 
DEPARTMENTOF JUSTICE ETHICS 
LAWYERS THAT DETERMINED THAT YOU
DID FOLLOW THE LAW.
SO YOU WERE PUBLICLY ACCUSED AND
FALSELY ACCUSE AND YESTERDAY 
HERE TODAY I HAVEN'T HEARD 
ANYTHING CLOSE TO AN APOLOGY 
WITH THAT.
WELCOME TO THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES WITH DEMOCRATS 
IN CHARGE.
LET ME TURN TO THE MATTER THAT 
WE'RE HERE FOR, A LOT OF TALK 
ABOUT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT.
THE QUESTION IS, AT THIS POINT 
GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE, WHY ALL THE 

Spanish: 
SIGUIENDO NO SÓLO UNA OPINIÓN, 
SINO QUE LA LEY Y LA LEY DEL 
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA. ES
ASÍ?
ASÍ ES
Y TAMBIÉN AQUÍ DICE QUE LA 
PREGUNTA ES SI ESTA QUEJA CAE 
DENTRO DE LA URGENCIA QUE HACE 
QUE SE LE ENTREGUE INM
INMEDIATAMENTE AL SENADO. N
NOSOTROS DIJIMOS QUE NO ES ASÍ 
ES ESO CORRECTO?
ASÍ ES
ESTA NO ES UNA OPINIÓN DE BILL 
BAR. SINO QUE DE LOS OFICIALES 
DE CARRERA QUE SIRVEN LOS D
DEMÓCRATAS Y REPUBLICANOS. ELLOS
DETERMINAN QUE USTED NO SIGUIÓ 
LA LEY Y POR ENDE FUE ACUSADO DE
MANERA FALSA QUE USTED ES 
ALIEN QUE CORMETE UN CRIMEN. NO

Spanish: 
HE ESCUCHADO UNA DISCULPA ESTÁ 
AHORA POR ELLO. >
>>> LA PREGUNTA EN ESTE MOMENTO 
DE NI ESTO LO QUE TENEMOS. 
PORQUE TODO EL ENFOQUE DEL 
DELATOR? LA MEJOR EVIDENCIA DE 
LO QUE EL PRESIDENTE LE DIJO AL 
PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO ES UNA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE LO QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE LE DIJO, NO ESTAR 
HABLANDO MAL DE LA FE CON LA 
INTENCIÓN DEL DELATOR. PERO 
DECIR QUE LO QUE ALGUIEN ESCUCÓO
QUE SE DIJO ES MEJOR QUE LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE LO QUE SE DIJO 
. EN VARIOS PUNTOS TODO ESTO 
ESTÁ MAL Y VOY A LEER LA QUEJA 
DICE: ESTOY PROFUNDAMENTE 
PREOCUPADO (HABLANDO DEL 
PRESIDENTE( DE QUE HAYA UNA 
VIOLACIÓN DE LA LEY FLAGRANTE. 

English: 
FOCUS ON THIS WHISTLEBLOWER, THE
BEST EVIDENCE OF WHAT PRESIDENT 
TRUMP SAID TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKY
IS THE TRANSCRIPT OF WHAT 
PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID TO 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
NOT CASTING ASPERSIONS ON THE 
WIT'S GOOD FAITH OR THEIR 
INTENT, BUT A SECONDHAND ACCOUNT
OF SOMETHING SOMEONE DID ISN'T 
THE BEST EVIDENCE.
AND TO THAT POINT DESPITE GOOD 
FAITH, THE WHISTLEBLOWER IS IN 
FACT WRONG IN NUMEROUS RESPECTS.
AND I KNOW EVERYONE WON'T HAVE 
TIME TO READ THE WHISTLEBLOWER'S
COMPLAINT, BUT THE WHISTLEBLOWER
SAYS THAT I AM DEEPLY CONCERNED,
TALKING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT, 
THAT THERE WAS A SERIOUS OR 
FLAGRANT PROBLEM ABUSE OR 
VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
WHISTLEBLOWER THEN GOES ON TO 
SAY I WAS NOT A DIRECT WITNESS 
TO THE EVENTS DESCRIBED.
HOWEVER, I FOUND MY COLLEAGUES' 
ACCOUNTS OF THIS TO BE CREDIBLE.
AND THEN TALKING ABOUT THOSE 
ACCOUNTS OF WHICH THIS 

Spanish: 
NO SOY UN TESTIGO DIRECTO DE LO 
QUE PASÓ, PERO MIS COLEGAS 
HABLAN DE ELLO Y ES CREÍBLE. YA 
LABRAR DE ESO SE BASA EN LO QUE 
NOS DICEN LOS OFICIALES CON LOS 
QUE HABLÉ Y ME DIJERON Y ME 
DIJERON ESO Y Y TAMBIÉN DICE LO 
SUPE DE VARIOS OFICIALES. Y LOS 
OFICIALES MEDIOS DE LA CASA 
BLANCA ME DIJERON ESO Y Y 
TAMBIÉN VARIOS OFICIALES ME 
DIJERON ESO
EN OTRAS PALABRAS ESTA ES 
INFORMACIÓN DE SEGUNDA FUENTE. 
TODO SIGUE Y DICE OTRAS FUENTES 
ADEMÁS DE ESA INFORMACIÓN DE 
SEGUNDA MANO, Y ESO SE INCLUYEN 
LOS MEDIOS, INCLUYE EL W
WASHINGTON TOES EL NEW YORK ES, 

English: 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT IS BASED
ON, THE WHISTLEBLOWER TELLS US 
THE OFFICIALS THAT I SPOKE WITH 
TOLD ME AND I WAS TOLD THAT AND 
I LEARNED FROM MULTIPLE U.S. 
OFFICIALS THAT AND WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS TOLD ME THAT AND I 
ALSO LEARNED FROM MULTIPLE U.S. 
OFFICIALS THAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, ALL OF THIS IS 
SECONDHAND INFORMATION.
NONE OF IT IS FIRSTHAND 
INFORMATION.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER THEN GOES ON 
TO CITE ADDITIONAL SOURCES 
BESIDES THOSE SEND HAND SOURCES 
AND THOSE SOURCES HAPPEN TO 
INCLUDE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, THE 
SOURCES THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
BASES HIS COMPLAINT ON INCLUDING
"WASHINGTON POST," "NEW YORK 
TIMES," POLITICO, THE HILL,BURG,
ABC AND OTHERS.
SO THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT ARE 
BASED ON THIRD HAND MAINSTREAM 
MEDIA SOURCES RATHER THAN 
FIRSTHAND INFORMATION.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER ALSO APPEARS 

English: 
TO ALLEGE CRIMES NOT JUST 
AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, BUT SAYS 
WITH REGARD TO THIS SCHEME TO 
SOLICIT INTERFERENCE FROM A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY IN THE 2020 
ELECTION, THAT, QUOTE, THE 
PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL LAWYER MR. 
GIULIANI IS A CENTRAL FIGURE IN 
THIS EFFORT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
BARR APPEARS TO BE INVOLVED AS 
WELL.
BUT BURIED IN A FOOTNOTE A 
COUPLE PAGES LATER, 
WHISTLEBLOWER ADMITS I DO NOT 
KNOW THE EXTENT TO WHICH IF AT 
ALL MR. GIULIANI IS DIRECTLY 
COORDINATING HIS EFFORTS ON THE 
UKRAINE WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL 
BARR.
ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES KNOW 
BECAUSE HE ISSUED A STATEMENT 
YESTERDAY SAYING THERE WAS NO 
INVOLVEMENT.
MY POINT IN ALL OF THIS IS AGAIN
THE TRANSCRIPT IS THE BEST 
EVIDENCE OF WHAT WE HAVE AND SO 
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE 
VERY CLEAR WHAT THAT TRANSCRIPT 
RELATES IS LEGAL COMMUNICATIONS,
THE UNITED STATES IS ALLOWED TO 
SOLICIT HELP FROM A FOREIGN 
GOVERNMENT IN AN ONGOING 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION WHICH IS 

Spanish: 
BLOOMBERG EN BICNBC NEWS, ENTRES
Y SON OTRAS FUENTES QUE NO SON 
DE PRIMERA FUENTE. ALTA AL 
PARECER TAMBIÉN HABLA NO 
SOLAMENTE CONTRA OTRA SINO QUE 
TAMBIÉN HABLA DE LA 
INTERFERENCIA DE OTRO PAÍS EN 
LAS ELECCIONES 2020. EL SEÑOR 
GIULIANI ES UN UNA FIGURA 
CENTRAL EN ESTE ESFUERZO, Y BAR 
PARECE TAMBIÉN ESTAR INVO
INVOLUCRADO. Y UNAS PÁGINAS 
DESPUÉS EL DELATOR ADMITE "NO SE
SI EL SEÑOR GIULIANI COORDINA 
SUS ESFUERZOS CON EL FISCAL 
GENERAL" EL FISCAL GENERAL NO 
TENÍA IDEA DE ESTO. MI. EN TODO 
ESTO AL FINAL, ES QUE LA 
TRANSCRIPCIÓN DE LA MEJOR 
EVIDENCIA DE LO QUE TENEMOS. AÍI

English: 
EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP DID
IN THAT CONVERSATION.
SO IF THE DEMOCRATS ARE INTENT 
ON IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT FOR 
LAWFUL CONDUCT, THEN BE MY 
GUEST.
I YIELD BACK.
>> THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, 
SIR.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR 
SERVICE.
I WANT TO STEP BACK A LITTLE BIT
AND KIND OF PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE
I THINK WHATIS AT STAKE HERE.
OBVIOUSLY YESTERDAY THE WHITE 
HOUSE RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPT OF
THAT JULY 25th CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
PRESIDENT ZELENSKY.
AND WE NOW KNOW THAT THE PHONE 
CALL WAS INDEED A PART OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
YESTERDAY THE CHAIR AT A PRESS 
CONFERENCE CHARACTERIZED THE 
PRESIDENT'S CONVERSATION IN THAT
CALL AS A SHAKEDOWN OF THE 
UKRAINE LEADER.

Spanish: 
QUE PARA EL PUEBLO QUEDA MUY 
CLARO ES COMUNICACIÓN LEGAL: 
ESTADOS UNIDOS PUEDE PEDIR LA 
AYUDA A UN PAÍS EXTRANJERO EN 
UNA INVESTIGACIÓN CRIMINAL. ES 
EXACTAMENTE LO QUE EL PRESIDENTE
NO OT
DONDE ENTRAN HIZO.
MUCHAS GRACIAS
GRACIAS DIRECTOR, GRACIAS POR 
ESTAR AQUÍ SEÑOR, GRACIAS POR SU
SERVICIO. QUIERO VOLVER UN POCO 
HACIA ATRÁS Y PONER PERSPECTIVAS
LO QUE ESTÁ AQUÍ EL JUEGO. UNA 
CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE PRESIDENTE DE
ESTADOS UNIDOS Y EL PRESIDENTE 
DE UCRANIA. HOY SABEMOS QUE ESÁA
LLAMADA FUE PARTE DE UNA QUEJA 
DEL DELATOR. AYER EN UNA 
CONFERENCIA DE PRENSA SE 
CARACTERIZÓ LA CONVERSACIÓN COMO

English: 
NOT FOR ARE INFORMATION OR 
MONEY, BUT INSTEAD A SHAKEDOWN 
FOR HELP TO WIN A PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION.
LET'S REWIND TO MAY 7 WHEN FBI 
DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY 
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 ABOUT, QUOTE, INFLUENCING
OR INTERFERING WITH OUR 
ELECTION.
DIRECTOR WRAY OF COURSE IS THE 
TOP COP IN THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA.
YOU AGREE WITH DIRECTOR WRAY, DO
YOU NOT, SIR?
>> CONGRESSMAN HECK, I DO NOT 
DISAGREE WITH DIRECTOR WRAY -- 
>> IS THAT THE SAME THING THAT 
YOU AGREE WITH HIM, SIR?
>> YES, AND -- IN THIS REPORT, 
IT WAS REFERRED TO THE FBI.
>> LET ME FAST FORWARD -- WAS IT
REFERRED TO THE FBI BY THE 
PRESIDENT WHO ACTUALLY ENGAGED 

Spanish: 
UNA FORMA DE ASUSTAR A UN LÍDER 
UCRANIANO NO LE PEDÍA DINERO POR
INFORMACIÓN SINO QUE LE PEDÍA 
AYUDA PARA GANAR UNA CARRERA 
PRESIDENCIAL, QUE ES DEL PRÓXIMO
AÑO ASÍ QUE AHORA VAMOS A 7 DE 
MAYO DE ESTE AÑO CUANDO 
CHRISTOPHER REY TESTIFICA Y 
AHORA CITO: CUALQUIER OFICIAL 
PÚBLICO O MIEMBRO DE CUALQUIER 
CAMPAÑA DEBERÍA INFORMAR DE 
MANERA DIRECTA INFORME CUALQUIER
C
CONVERSACIÓN QUE INTERFIERA CON 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES. Y POR 
SUPUESTO, USTED ESTÁ ACUERDO CON
ESTO SEÑOR?
>>> CONGRESISTA, Y NO ESTOY EN 

English: 
IN THE CONVERSATION?
NO, IT WAS NOT.
LET ME FAST FORWARD TO JUNE 
13th, FIVE WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF 
THAT, WHEN THE CHAIR OF THE 
FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION 
MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT.
FUL FOLLOW ME, LEASE.
LET ME MAKE SOMETHING 100% CLEAR
TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND 
ANYONE RUNNING FOR PUBLIC 
OFFICE.
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANY PERSON TO 
ACCEPT, SOLICIT, OR RECEIVE 
ANYTHING OF VALUE FROM A FOREIGN
NATIONAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE 
U.S. ELECTION.
THIS IS NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT.
ELECTION INTERVENTION FROM 
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS HAS BEEN 
CONSIDERED UNACCEPTABLE SINCE 
THE BEGINNINGS OF OUR NATION.
DO YOU AGREE WITH THE CHAIR?
>> I AGREE THAT OUR ELECTIONS 
ARE SACRED.
AND ANY INTERFERENCE FROM AN 
OUTSIDE SOURCE IS NOT WHAT WE 

Spanish: 
DESACUERDO. SE LE REFIRIÓ A LE 
ADEL FBIL
F 
F FBI
SE LE REFIRIÓ POR EL PRESIDENTE 
AL FBI?
NO
NO PARA NADA. AVANCEMOS ENTONCES
LA COMISIÓN DE ELECTORAL DIJO LO
SIGUIENTE"VOY A SER 100% CLARO, 
CUALQUIERA QUE VAYA A UNA 
OFICINA PÚBLICA: EXHIBIDA ILEGAL
PARA CUALQUIERA RECIBIR O PEDIR 
CUALQUIER COSA DE VALOR DE UN 
EXTRANJERO EN CONEXIÓN CON LA 
ELECCIÓN DEL PAÍS" ESTE NO ES UN
CONCEPTO NUEVO. SE HA 
CONSIDERADO INACEPTABLE DESDE EL
COMIENZO DE NUESTRA NACIÓN ESTÁ 
DE ACUERDO?
>>> ESTOY DE ACUERDO QUE 

English: 
WANT.
>> AND SO SOLICIT OR ACCEPT IT 
IS ILLEGAL?
>> I'M NOT A LAWYER, SIR.
I DON'T MEAN TO BE EVASIVE, 
BUT -- 
>> SO YOU THINK IT IS OKAY FOR A
PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO SOLICIT OR IT
MAY BE OKAY, YOU DON'T KNOW THE 
LAW.
YOU THINK IT MAY BE OKAY FOR A 
CANDIDATE OR AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
TO SOLICIT FOSH INTERFERENCE IN 
OUR ELECTION?
I CANNOT BELIEVE YOU ARE SAYING 
THAT.
YOU'RE NOT REALLY SAYING THAT, 
RIGHT?
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT, 
CONGRESSMAN, AT ALL.
>> SO WE SHOULD NOTE THAT THE 
FEC CHAIR WAS PROMPTED TO SAY 
THIS BECAUSE IT WAS JUST 
LITERALLY THE DAY BEFORE THAT 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES SAT AT THE RESOLUTE DESK 
IN THE MOST ICONIC ROOM IN THE 
UNITED STATES, THE OVAL OFFICE, 
AND SAID THAT FBI DIRECTOR WRAY 
WAS WRONG.
YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY DISAGREEING 
WITH THAT.
HE ALSO SAID THAT HE WOULD 
CONSIDER ACCEPTING FOREIGN HELP 
AND OF COURSE YESTERDAY WE 
LEARNED THAT THE PRESIDENT DID 

Spanish: 
NUESTRAS ELECCIONES SON SAGRADAS
Y QUE CUALQUIER INTERFERENCIA DE
AFUERA NO ES LO QUE QUEREMOS.
ACEPTARLA SOLICITARLAS ILEGAL?
NO LO SÉ, NO TENGO PORQUE 
DEFINIRLO
QUE ES LO ILEGAL? SOLICITARLO? 
TAL VEZ ENTONCES ESTÁ BIEN QUE 
UN CANDIDATO SOLICITE 
INTERFERENCIA DEL EXTRANJERO?
NO ESTOY DICIENDO ESO CO
CONGRESISTA PARA NADA.
ENTONCES DEBERÍAMOS SABER ESTO 
PORQUE LITERALMENTE FUE EL DÍA 
ANTERIOR A QUE EL PRESIDENTE DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS SE SENTARSE HAGO 
EN UNA DE LAS SALAS MÁS ICÓNICAS
LA OFICINA OVAL, Y DIJO QUE EL 

English: 
IN FACT, DID IN FACT, DO EXACTLY
THAT.
SOLICITED THAT HELP.
DIRECTOR, WHETHER IT IS THIS 
PRESIDENT OR ANY PRESIDENT, DO 
YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS OKAY FOR 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES TO PRESSURE A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY INTO HELPING HIM OR HER 
WIN AN ELECTION?
>> CONGRESSMAN HECK, I BELIEVE 
THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND
EVE DISCUSSED WHAT WE THINK 
APPLIES FOR THE LAW.
>> SO IT IS ILLEGAL TO 
SOLICIT -- 
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
AGAIN, SIR -- 
>> I CAN'T RECONCILE YOUR TWO 
STATEMENTS.
IS IT OKAY IF A PRESIDENT TO 
PRESSURE, ANY PRESIDENT, TO 
PRESSURE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT 
FOR HELP TO WIN AN ELECTION?
>> IT IS UNWARRANTED, IT IS 
UNWELCOME, IT IS BAD FOR THE 
NATION TO HAVE OUTSIDE 
INTERFERENCE FROM ANY FOREIGN 
POWER.
>> AND BY EXTENSION IT WOULD BE 
EQUALLY UNACCEPTABLE TO EXTORT 
THAT ASSISTANCE AS WELL?
>> I MEAN, ALL I KNOW IS THAT I 

Spanish: 
DIRECTORR RAY ESTABA EQUIVOCADO 
DIJO QUE ACEPTARÍA AYUDA 
EXTRANJERA Y DIJO QUE DE HECHO 
HIZO EXACTAMENTE ESO. DIRECTOR 
YA SEA ESTE PRESIDENTE O C
CUALQUIER PRESIDENTE, CREE USTED
QUE ESTÁ BIEN QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS PRESIONE A OTRO 
PAÍS PARA QUE LO AYUDARAN A DE 
LAS ELECCIONES?
NADIE ESTÁ POR SOBRE LA LEY Y YA
LO VAMOS. DISCUTIDOS
ENTONCES ES ILEGAL SOLICITARLO?
NO PUEDO RESPONDER ESA PREGUNTA
NO PUEDO CONCILIAR ESA RES
RESPUESTA. ES ILEGAL PRESIONAR A
OTRO PAÍS PARA QUE LE AYUDEN A 
LAS REELECCIONES?
ES MALO PARA LA NACIÓN QUE HAYA 
INTERFERENCIA EXTRANJERA SEA 
CUAL SEA.

Spanish: 
ENTONCES SERÍA INACEPTABLE 
EXTORSIONAR ES ASISTENCIA 
TAMBIÉN?
QUIERO DECIR, LO ÚNICO QUE HACE,
ES QUE TENGO LOS TRANSCRITOS 
COMO USTEDES.
NO ME REFIERO A LA QUEJA, SINO 
QUÉ PASA SI EL PRESIDENTE HACE 
ALGO ASÍ. CREO QUE ES 
INACEPTABLE DIRECTOR, CREO QUE 
ESTÁ MAL Y QUE TODO LO SABEMOS. 
QUE COMENZÓ NADA ES MUY 
TEMPRANAS Y HAY UNA VOZ DENTRO 
DE NOSOTROS QUE NOS SUGIERE QUE 
ESTÁ MAL QUE ES ILEGAL Y CREO 
QUE CON ESO VOY A DETENERME ME 
QUEDÉ SIN TIEMPO.
NO PERO SI PUEDE RESPONDER

English: 
HAVE THE TRANSCRIPTS AS YOU 
HAVE.
I HAVE THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT AS YOU HAVE.
AND -- 
>> I WASN'T REFERRING TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
BUT IF ANY PRESIDENT WERE DO 
THIS AND I ACCEPT YOUR ANSWER.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS 
UNACCEPTABLE, I THINK THAT IT IS
WRONG, AND I THINK WE ALL KNOW 
IT, I THINK THAT WE WERE TAUGHT 
THIS AT A VERY YOUNG AND I THINK
AND THERE IS A VOICE WITHIN MOST
OF US, UNFORTUNATELY NOT ALL OF 
US, THAT SUGGESTS THAT IT IS 
WRONG.
IT IS ILLEGAL AND IT IS WRONG.
I THANK YOU SIR AND I YIELD 
BACK.
>> CONGRESSMAN, IF I MAY JUST 
ANSWER ONCE AGAIN, I -- 
>> I'VE RUN OUT OF TIME.
>> DIRECTOR, GO AHEAD.
>> ONCE AGAIN, IT WAS REFERRED 
TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION.
>> NOT BY THE PRESIDENT.

English: 
>> NO, BY THIS OFFICE AND BY THE
OFFICE OF -- BY THE ICIGP. 
>> DIRECTOR WRAY SAID ANY 
CANDIDATE OR ELECTED OFFICIAL 
SHOULD IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT.
HE DIDN'T SAY THAT THE DIRECTOR 
OF ONI SHOULD REPORT IT ALTHOUGH
YOU DID AND THANK YOU.
BUT THE PERSON INVOLVED DID NOT 
DO WHAT DIRECTOR WRAY SAID 
SHOULD OCCUR.
PERIOD.
>> THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN.
>> MR. WELCH.
>> THANK YOU.
DIRECTOR, I WANT TO SAY THANK 
YOU.
THERE IS NOBODY IN THIS ROOM WHO
CAN CLAIM TO HAVE SERVED THEIR 
COUNTRY LONGER AND MORE VALUE 
 
VALIANTLY THAN YOU AND I HEARD 
THAT YOUR FAMILY BEFORE YOU HAS 
BEEN COMMITTED TO THIS COUNTRY 
AND I SAY THANK YOU.
SECOND, I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR
IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT WHEN 
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER ACTED IN GOOD 
FAITH.
AND THIRD, I APPRECIATED YOUR 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL ALSO ACTED IN 

Spanish: 
>>> DE NUEVO SE REFIRIÓ AL FBI, 
NO CON EL PRESIDENTE, POR ESTA 
OFICINA EL DIRECTOR MÉDICO DICE 
QUE CUALQUIER CANDIDATO NO DIGO 
QUE CUALQUIERA PODRÍA HACERLOS 
SINO QUE LA PERSONA DEBERÍA SER 
LO QUE EL DIRECTOR RAY DEBERÍA 
OCURRIR.
GRACIAS CONGRESISTA
GRACIAS. DIRECTOR QUIERO DECIRLE
GRACIAS. NO HAY NADIE HABITACIÓN
QUE PUEDA DECIR QUE HAYA SERVIDO
AL PAÍS DURANTE MÁS TIEMPO QUE 
USTED. Y LO ESCUCHA CUANDO SE 
ABRIÓ SU DISCO DISCURSO HABLÓ DE
SU FAMILIA Y DE SU SERVICIO Y SE
LO AGRADEZCO. TAMBIÉN LE 

Spanish: 
AGRADEZCO SU HONESTIDAD, AL 
DECIR QUE USTED CREE QUE EL 
DELATOR HABLÓ EN BUENA FE. Y EL 
DIRECTOR GENERAL TAMBIÉN AL 
ACTUAL BUENA FE Y QUIERO DECIR 
ESTO. CUANDO ESTÁS EN UNA 
POSICIÓN ÚNICA ES O NO 
SUFICIENTE SE TIENE UNA QUE 
DEPRESIÓN DE ESTADOS UNIDOS Y 
TAMBIÉN DEL FISCAL GENERAL. NO 
ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON MUCHAS DE 
LAS COSAS QUE USTED DECIDIÓ, 
PERO ENTIENDO EL SENTIDO DE 
USTED TIENE Y ELLAS NO GUIARON 
ASÍ QUE GRACIAS. QUIERO 
PREGUNTARLE ALGUNAS COSAS SOBRE 
EL DOCUMENTO EXTRAORDINARIO QUE 
NOS LLEGO. ELDNI HA INTERFERIDO 
EN ESTAS ELECCIONES ES ESTO 

English: 
GOOD FAITH AND ACCORDING TO HIS 
VIEW OF THE LAW.
AND I WANT TO SAY THIS.
WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE IN A
UNIQUE POSITION, THAT IS AN 
UNDERSTATEMENT.
YOU GOT A COMPLAINT INVOLVING 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND ALSO THE UNITED 
STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL.
I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF THE 
DECISIONS THAT YOU MADE, BUT I 
HAVE NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER THAT 
THE SAME SENSE OF DUTY THAT YOU 
APPLIED IN YOUR LONG AND 
ILLUSTRIOUS CAREER GUIDED YOU AS
YOU MADE THESE DECISIONS.
SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I WANT TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS 
ABOUT THE EXTRAORDINARY DOCUMENT
THAT CAME TO YOUR 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 MUELLER 
REPORT AND HIS INDICTMENTS 
AGAINST 12 FOREIGN RUSSIANS WHO 

English: 
ACTIVELY INTERFERED.
>> I HAVE READ THE REPORT.
>> SO IT IS A HUGE 
RESPONSIBILITY THAT YOUR AGENCY 
HAS.
AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE
TWO THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED 
THAT THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONE 
PERSON THAT IS ABOVE THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND YOUR 
SENSE ABOUT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE,
YOU DIDN'T FORWARD THE COMPLAINT
TO US, CORRECT?
>> I DID NOT FORWARD -- YES, 
CONGRESSMAN WELCH, BECAUSE I WAS
STILL WORKING WITH THE WHITE 
HOUSE -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
YOU'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
BUT LET ME ASK A HYPOTHETICAL 
JUST TO SHOW THE DILEMMA THAT 
YOU WERE IN.
LET'S SAY A U.S. SENATOR WHO IS 
WELL CONNECTED, OR A PRIVATE 
CITIZEN REALLY WELL CONNECTED 
HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE 
LEADER OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
AND ASKED THAT PERSON FOR A 
FAVOR, THE U.S. SENATOR LET'S 
SAY, OF PROVIDING DIRT ON A 

Spanish: 
CORRECTO?
ES CORRECTO
Y EN EL INFORME DE MUELLER Y EN 
SU QUERELLA CONTRA DISTINTOS 
RUSOS QUE INTERFIRIERON NUESTRA 
ELECCIÓN ES ESO CORRECTO?
HE LEÍDO EL INFORME
ES UNA GRAN HAZAÑA LA QUE USTED 
TIENE. EN ESTE CASO DEBIDO LAS 
DOS COSAS QUE MENCIONO EXP
EXPRESIDENTES LA PERSONA QUE 
ESTÁ POR SOBRE EN LA COMUNIDAD 
DE INTELIGENCIA Y POR ESTO NO 
NOS ENVIÓ LA QUEJA.
SI CONGRESISTA, PORQUE AÚN 
TRABAJABA CON LA CASA BLANCA.
SI ENTIENDO HA SIDO MUY CLARO EN
ESO, PERO ESTO ES HIPOTÉTICO EN 
EL DRAMA QUE USTED ESTABA 
DIGAMOS QUE USTED ES UN SENADOR 
CON BUENAS CONEXIONES, TIENE 

English: 
POLITICAL OPPONENT.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD
SEE THAT SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO 
THIS COMMITTEE IN. 
>> CONGRESSMAN, I DON'T MEAN TO 
BE DISRESPECTFUL, BUT IT IS VERY
DIFFICULT TO ANSWER HYPOTHETICAL
QUESTIONS.
NOT SURE -- 
>> I WON'T MAKE IT HYPOTHETICAL.
INSTEAD OF A CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND THE 
PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, SO A U.S. 
SENATOR WHO WAS LET'S SAY HEAD 
OF THE FOREIGN RELATIONS 
COMMITTEE AND WAS ASKING FOR THE
FOREIGN LEADER -- 
>> I UNDERSTAND.
>> WOULD YOU FORWARD THAT TO OUR
COMMITTEE?
>> SIR, THAT WOULD NOT BE -- I 
THINK I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER 
IN OUR CONVERSATION THAT THE 
UNITED STATES SENATOR IS NOT A 
MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY.
AND THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT HAVE THE 
AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE U.S. SENATE.
SO ANY WRONGDOING IN THAT REGARD
SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE 
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR 
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

Spanish: 
ACCESO A UNA CONVERSACIÓN CON EL
LÍDER DE UN PAÍS EXTRANJERO Y LE
PIDE ESA PERSONA UN FAVOR. EL 
SENADO DE ESTONIA SE DIGAMOS, 
PARA TENER UNA VENTAJA SOBRE UN 
OPONENTE POLÍTICO: ES ESO ALGO 
QUE USTED LE ENTREGARÍA ESTE 
COMITÉ?
LO SIENTO NO QUIERO FALTAR EL 
RESPETO, PERO ES MUY DIFÍCIL 
RESPONDER ESA PREGUNTA 
HIPOTÉTICA NO SÉ SI ENTIENDO.
ES UNA CONVERSACIÓN MÁS ALLÁ DE 
ENTRE PRESIDENTES, SI FUESE UN 
SENADOR DE ESTADOS UNIDOS 
QUISIESE ESTO Y LE PIDIESE A UN 
LÍDER EXTRANJERO
>>> ENTIENDO, DE NUEVO CREO QUE 
LO MENCIONÉ ANTES EN LA 
CONVERSACIÓN. EL SENADOR DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS NO ES MIEMBRO DEL
LA COMUNIDAD DE INTELIGENCIA, Y 
COMO NO ES MIEMBRO NO SE TIENE 
LA AUTORIDAD NI RESPONSABILIDAD 
POR SORENSEN ASÍ QUE CUALQUIER 
CRIMEN EN ESE PUNTO DEBERÍA 

English: 
>> I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH 
YOU BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD
BE A SOLICITATION FOR 
INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS 
AND THAT IS IN YOUR 
JURISDICTION, YES. 
>> ALTHOUGH IT IS, AS FAR AS 
WHAT THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
DO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 
INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT, THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT, IT
DOES NOT -- THE STATUTE DOES NOT
ALLOW FOR THAT TO BE DONE.
>> I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
HERE IS THE DILEMMA THAT WE'RE 
IN BUT NOW WE CAN FOLLOW UP 
BECAUSE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE IF 
IT EXISTED WAS WAIVED.
UNDER 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 
MAY APPLY AND NUMBER TWO, THE 
PRESIDENT WHO HAD THE 
CONVERSATION IS ABOVE THE LAW.
SO THAT IS A DILEMMA FOR A 

Spanish: 
LLEGAR AL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA PARA UNA INVESTIGACIÓN 
CRIMINAL.
ENTONCES ENTIENDO QUE ES UNA 
SOLICITACIÓN POR UN SENADOR PARA
QUE HAYA INTERFERENCIAS EN LA 
ELECCIÓN EN SU JURISDICCIÓN, 
CORRECTO?
SI CONGRESISTA. PERO DE NUEVO A 
PESAR DE QUE NO ES, EN CUANTO LA
RESPONSABILIDAD PENAL, SIGUIENDO
LA REFORMA INTELIGENCIA Y LA LEY
DE PROTECCIÓN DEL DELATOR EL 
ESTATUTO NO NOS PERMITE HACER 
ESO.
ESTOY EN DESACUERDO CON ESO. 
PERO EL DILEMA Y AHORA VAMOS A 
PODER SEGUIR CON ELLO PORQUE HAY
UN PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO. BAJO SU
ENFOQUE, COMO USTED LO VE, 
SIGNIFICA QUE NADIE MÁS 
INVESTIGADO BAJO SU CONDUCTA 

English: 
DEMOCRACY.
IS IT NOT?
>> THE COMPLAINT WAS SENT TO THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 
TOTALLY DISREGARDING ANY CONCERN
FOR EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE HERE.
>> BUT THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF 
INVESTIGATION NEVER DID A 
FOLLOWUP INVESTIGATION, RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE 
CONCLUDED THE INVESTIGATION.
I'M NOT SURE.
IN ADDITION TO BEING INVOLVED 
WITH THIS MATTER, I ALSO HAVE 
OTHER PRESSING MATTERS.
>> AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT 
LED BY MR. BARR, WHO WAS THE 
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT, IS THE
DEPARTMENT THAT PROVIDED THE 
OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ACTION 
TO BE TAKEN.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL WAS MENTIONED IN THE 
COMPLAINT, NOT NECESSARILY 
SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT, SIR.
>> HE WAS MENTIONED.
>> YES, SIR.
>> I YIELD BACK.
>> CONGRESSMAN WELCH, THANK YOU.
>> MR. MALONEY.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST DAY ON 

Spanish: 
PORQUE EN ESTE CASO EL 
PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO APLICA. Y 
LO SEGUNDO EL PRESIDENTE TUVO 
ESTA CONVERSACIÓN: ESTÁ POR 
SOBRE LA LEY. ES UN DILEMA PARA 
LA DEMOCRACIA NO LO CREE?
>>> EN CUANTO A LO QUE HIZO EL 
FBI NOS DIJO QUE NO DEBE LLENA 
DE PREOCUPACIONES EN CUANTO A LA
PRIVILEGIO EJECUTIVO
EL FBI NUNCA SIGUIÓ LA 
INVESTIGACIÓN NO ES ASÍ?
NO ESTOY SEGURO SI HABÍA ALGO 
INVESTIGADO EN CUANTO A ESTE 
TEMA Y ME DISCULPO POR ESO NO LO
SÉ.
EL FISCAL GENERAL, QUIEN ES 
PARTE DE ESTA QUEJA, APARECE 
MENCIONADO. DICE QUE NO SABE 
NADA
CREO QUE ES SÓLO FUE MENCIONADO 
EN LA QUEJA. NO ES PARTE DE LA 
QUEJA.

English: 
THE JOB?
>> MY FIRST DAY ON THE JOB WAS 
FRIDAY 16th OF AUGUST.
AND I THINK I SET A NEW RECORD 
FOR BEING SUBPOENAED BEFORE 
ANY -- 
>> YEAH, YOU HAD A HECK OF A 
FIRST WEEK.
THE COMPLAINT IS DATED AUGUST 
12th.
WHATEVER ELSE YOU'VE DONE RIGHT 
IN YOUR CAREER, SIR, YOUR TIMING
IS GOT TO BE SOMETHING THAT -- 
>> I THINK DAN COATS' TIMING IS 
BETTER THAN MINE.
>> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF TALK 
HERE ABOUT THE PROCESS.
I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE A 
COUPLE THINGS IF THAT IS OKAY.
SO IN YOUR FIRST COUPLE DAYS ON 
THE JOB, SIR, YOU'RE HIT WITH 
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 OPPONENT'S 
SON IN FACT.
THAT THAT PRESIDENT ASKED THE 
FOREIGN LEADER TO WORK WITH 
PRIVATE CITIZEN MR. GIULIANI AND

Spanish: 
SI FUE MENCIONADO. OK CEDO MI 
TIEMPO GRACIAS
-
DIRECTOR MAGUIRE, FUE SU PRIMER 
DÍA DE TRABAJO?
ESO FUE EN AGOSTO DEL 13, Y 
JAMÁS PENSÉ QUE IBA A SER CITADO
DE ESTA FORMA.
SI UNO NO PIENSAS A LA PRIMERA 
SEMANA NO?
CON ESTA QUEJA DEL 12 DE AGOSTO.
TODO LO QUE HA HECHO BIEN EN SU 
CARRERA EL MOMENTO EN EL QUE 
LLEGÓ ES BASTANTE EXTRAÑO NO.
SUPONGO QUE SUS MOMENTOS SON 
MEJORES QUE LOS MÍOS.
HABLEMOS DEL PROCESO PARA HACER 
UN RESUMEN. EN LOS PRIMEROS DÍAS
EN SU TRABAJO NUEVO LEÍ ESTA 
QUEJA, Y DICE QUE EL PRESIDENTE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS PRESIONÓ 
EXTRANJERO PARA QUE VIESE UN 

Spanish: 
POLPAL 
HIJO DE UN N
EL SEÑOR GIULIANI Y ES VITAL 
GENERAL DE ESTADOS UNIDOS 
ESTABAN METIDOS EN ESTO, EN ESTE
PLAN. EL PRESIDENTE EN ESE 
MOMENTO TENÍA RETENIDOS 
$3,000,000,000 PARA AYUDAR A 
UCRANIA. EL PRESIDENTE UCRANIANO
HABLEN ESTA CONVERSACIÓN SOBRE 
PEDIR ASISTENCIA MILITAR PARA 
DEFENDERSE. TIENE TROPAS RUSAS 
EN SU PAÍS, EL LOBO ESTÁ EN LA 
PUERTA. EL PRESIDENTE LE PIDO UN
FAVOR SOBRE UNA RECIPROCIDAD 
UCRANIANA. SABEMOS LO QUE ES ESO
DENOTAN ALGO ALGO. EL DA EL 
NOMBRE DE SU OPOSICIÓN POLÍTICA 

English: 
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 
UNITED STATES ON THAT SCHEME.
THE PRESIDENT AT THAT TIME NOT 
IN DISPUTE WAS WITH HOLDING $391
MILLION OF ASSISTANCE HOLDING 
THAT OVER THAT UKRANIAN 
PRESIDENT'S HEAD.
THAT UKRANIAN PRESIDENT RAISES 
IN THE CONVERSATION U.S. 
MILITARY ASSISTANCE, JAVELINS, 
DEFENSIVE WEAPONS.
HE HAS RUSSIAN TROOPS IN HIS 
COUNTRY.
THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR.
THE PRESIDENT ASKED FOR A FAVOR,
COMPLAINS ABOUT UKRANIAN 
RECIPROCITY, NOT GETTING ENOUGH 
FROM YOU, THAT IS WHAT 
RECIPROCITY IS, RIGHT?
WE HAVE TO GET SOMETHING FROM 
YOU IF WE ARE GIVING SOMETHING 
TO YOU.
HE NAMES THE POLITICAL OPPONENTS
BY NAME.
THE BIDENS.
UKRAINEIAN PRESIDENT SAYS HE'LL 
DO THE INVESTIGATION.
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE HIT WITH.
AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT 
COMPLAINT AND THAT IN THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH ALLEGES SERIOUS 

Spanish: 
LOS VIDEBIDEN. Y LE DICE QUE DE 
INVESTIGACIÓN. ES LO QUE ESTAMOS
VIENDO SI VEMOS LA QUEJA ES ESO 
Y EN EL SEGUNDO PÁRRAFO: EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTADOS UNIDOS LO 
PRIMERO QUE HACE VIVIR ES IR AL 
HOMBRE EN LA CASA BLANCA EL P
PRESIDENTE Y PREGUNTA: TENGO QUE
DAR AL CONGRESO?
Y TAMBIÉN SUGIERE QUE EL FISCAL 
GENERAL PODRÍA ESTAR METIDO, EN 
LO SEGUNDO QUE HACE ES IR A 
PREGUNTARLE: DEBO ENTREGÁRSELO 
AL CONGRESO? YO NO TENGO DUDAS 
SOBRE SU CARÁCTER SINO QUE SOBRE
SUS DECISIONES Y SU JUICIO D
DECDETOMA 
DE DECISIÓN.
CONGRESISTA TENGO MUCHA 
EXPERIENCIA Y FUE MUY TEMPRANO 
CUANDO YO LLEGUÉ A ESTO. EL 

English: 
WRONGDOING BY THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES AND THE FIRST 
THING YOU DO IS GO TO THE 
PRESIDENT'S MEN AT THE WHITE 
HOUSE AND WOMEN AND SAY SHOULD I
GIVE IT TO CONGRESS.
AND IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF 
THAT COMPLAINT, SIR, IT ALSO 
SUGGESTS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO
BE INVOLVED AND SECOND THING YOU
DO IS GO TO THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL'S PEOPLE AT THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AND ASK THEM IF YOU 
SHOULD GIVE IT TO CONGRESS.
SIR, I HAVE NO QUESTION ABOUT 
YOUR CHARACTER.
I'VE READ YOUR BIO.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR
DECISIONS.
AND THE JUDGMENT IN THOSE 
DECISIONS.
DID YOU SEE ANY CONFLICTS HERE?
>> CONGRESSMAN MALONEY, I HAVE A
LOT OF LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE.
I DO.
AND AS YOU SAID, IT CAME TO ME 
VERY EARLY ON IN THIS.
THE FACT THAT I WAS JUST-I'M THE
ACTING DNI AND STILL USING 
GARMIN TO GET TO WORK, THAT THIS
CAME TO MY ATTENTION INVOLVING 
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
STATES AND THE IMPORTANT MATTER 

English: 
OF THIS, IN THE PAST AS I'VE 
SAID, I'VE ALWAYS WORKED WITH 
LEGAL GNITUDE AND 
IMPORTANCE -- SIR, AS A NAVAL 
OFFICER FOR YEARS, I THOUGHT 
THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO -- 
SIR, IF I MAY, MY LIFE WOULD 
HAVE BEEN A HECK OF A LOT 
SIMPLER WITHOUT BECOMING THENESS
FAMOUS -- 
>> DON'T DOUBT THAT AT ALL.
WHEN YOU WERE CONSIDERING 
PRUDENCE, DID YOU THINK IT WAS 
PRE-DENT TO GIVE VETO POWER OVER
WHETHER CONGRESS SAW THE 
SERIOUSNESS OF THIS TO THE TWO 
PEOPLE IMPLICATED BY IT?
IS THAT PRUDENT?
>> I HAVE TO WORK WITH THE 
SITUATION AS IT IS, CONGRESSMAN.
ONLY THE WHITE HOUSE CAN 
DETERMINE OR WAIVE EXECUTIVE 
PRIVILEGE.
THERE IS NO ONE ELSE TO GO TO.
AND AS FAR AS A SECOND OPINION, 
MY ONLY AVENUE OF THAT WAS TO GO
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL.
>> AND YOU UNDERSTAND, SIR, IF 

Spanish: 
HECHO ES QUE YO SOY EL DIRECTOR 
INTERINO INTELIGENCIA. ESTO ME 
LLEGÓ EN CUANTO PRESIDENTE DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS LA IMPORTANCIA DE
ESTE ASUNTO. EN EL PASADO HE 
DICHO ANTES YA QUE HE TRABAJADO 
CON CONSEJOS DEBIDO A LA 
MAGNITUD DE LA DECISIÓN. COMO UN
OFICIAL SABÍA QUE ERA PRUDENTE. 
MI VIDA HUBIESE SIDO MUCHO 
SIMPLE SIN SER EL HOMBRE MÁS 
FAMOSO EN EL PAÍS
>>> MI PREGUNTA ES SI USTED 
CONSIDERA QUE ES PRUDENTE DARLE 
PODER DE VETO A ALGUIEN A LAS 
DOS PERSONAS IMPLICADAS EN ESTE 
ASUNTO PARA QUE EL CONGRESO VEA 
LAS PRUEBAS. ES ESO PRUDENTE?
>>> TENGO DE TRABAJAR CON ELLAS 
COMO FUNCIONEN
 NO HABÍA NINGÚN OTRO LUGAR AL 

English: 
UNCHALLENGED BY YOUR OWN 
INSPECTOR GENERAL YOUR DECISION,
THAT PRUDENCE, WOULD HAVE 
PREVENTED THESE SERIOUS 
ALLEGATIONS FROM EVER GETTING 
THE 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 SPEAK PERSONALLY TO
THE PRESIDENT AT ANY TIME ABOUT 
THIS COMPLAINT?
>> CONGRESSMAN, ONCE AGAIN, I AM
THE PRESIDENT'S INTELLIGENCE 
OFFICER.
I SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT -- I 
CANNOT SAY ONE WAY OR -- 
>> I KNOW YOU SPEAK TO THE 
PRESIDENT A LOT.
IT IS A SIMPLE QUESTION, SIR.
DID YOU SPEAK TO HIM ABOUT THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT, HE YES 
OR NO?
>> CONGRESSMAN, MY CONVERSATION 
WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES IS PRIVILEGED.
>> SO YOU ARE NOT DENYING THAT 
YOU SPOKE TO THE -- I'M NOT 
ASKING FOR CONTENT.
DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT SPEAK TO 
THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT?
>> I SPEAK TO THE PRESIDENT 
ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS AND 
ANYTHING THAT I SAY TO THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IN ANY FORM IS PRIVILEGED.
>> I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE 

Spanish: 
QUE IRMI ÚNICA VENIDA PARA ELLO 
ERA IR AL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA
SI USTED ENTIENDE QUE SI SU 
INSPECTOR GENERAL SUS DECISIONES
NO HUBIESEN DEJADO QUE ESTO 
LLEGAS AL CONGRESO PREGUNTA 
RÁPIDA:
CREO QUE DEJÓ LA PUERTA ABIERTA 
Y HABLÓ CON PRESIDENTE SOBRE 
ESTA QUEJA ASÍ QUE USTED HABLA 
DE MANERA PERS PERSONAL CON EL 
PRESIDENTE SOBRE ESTA QUEJA? NO 
NO PUEDO DECIRLO
>>> ES UNA SIMPLE PREGUNTA SEÑOR
>>> HABLÓ SOBRE ESTA QUEJA
>>> MI CONVERSACIÓN CON EL 
PRESIDENTE ES PRIVADA
>>> NO LE ESTÉ VIENDO EL 
CONTENIDO
>>> HABLÓ SOBRE ESTA QUEJA ?

Spanish: 
>>> HABLE CON ÉL SOBRE MUCHAS 
COSAS, Y TODO LO QUE YO LE DIGA 
ES PRIVADA
>>> ES TODO CONFIDENCIAL
>>> GRACIAS
>>> NO LE ESTAMOS PREGUNTANDO 
SOBRE SU CONVERSACIÓN CON EL 
PRESIDENTE Y SOBRE LOS ASUNTOS 
DE DE SEGURIDAD NACIONAL, 
QUEREMOS QUE USTED DISCUTA ESTE 
TEMA CON RESPECTO AL CONFLICTO, 
DISCUTIÓ ESTE TEMA ?
>>> EL NO TRAICIONÓ NINGÚN 
PRIVILEGIO ?
>>>  NO LE ESTAMOS PIDIENDO LOS 
CONTENIDOS DE LA CONVERSACIÓN
>>> UNA VEZ MÁS, MI CONVERSACIÓN

English: 
CONTENTS.
>> ANYTHING I SAY TO THE 
PRESIDENT IS CONFIDENTIAL.
THAT IS THE WAY IT IS.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
THANK YOU.
>> DIRECTOR, YOU UNDERSTAND 
WE'RE NOT ASKING ABOUT THE 
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT NATIONAL 
SECURITY, ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY, 
ABOUT THE NATIONAL 
COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER.
WE JUST WANT TO KNOW DID YOU 
DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT WITH THE 
PRESIDENT.
YOU CAN IMAGINE WHAT A PROFOUND 
CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WOULD 
BE.
DID YOU DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT, 
THIS WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM WITH 
THE PRESIDENT?
YOU CAN SAY I DID NOT DISCUSS IT
WITH HIM, IF THAT IS THE ANSWER.
THAT DOESN'T BE TREY PRIVILEGE 
AND YOU CAN SAY I DID DISCUSS IT
BUT I'M NOT GOING FORGET INTO 
THE CONTENTS OF THOSE 
CONVERSATIONS.
THAT QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER.
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, ONCE AGAIN, 
MY CONVERSATION NO MATTER WHAT 
THE SUBJECT IS WITH THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
IS PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION 
BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL

Spanish: 
NO IMPORTA CUÁL SEA EL TEMA CON 
EL PRESIDENTE ESTADOS UNIDOS ES 
PRIVADA
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS MUCHAS 
GRACIAS POR ESTAR AQUÍ, SE QUE 
USTED EMPEZÓ HACE MUCHO TIEMPO Y
DEBE ESTAR ORGULLOSO CREO QUE 
FUE EN 1982 AGRADEZCO MUCHO POR 
ESTAR EN SERVICIO PÚBLICO EN EL 
CUAL PODEMOS CONFIAR PORQUE A 
PESAR DE LAS CIRCUNSTANCIAS, Y 
QUIEN ESTÁ INVOLUCRADO ES EL 
SECRETO DE CONFIANZA

English: 
INTELLIGENCE AND THE PRESIDENT.
>> MS. DEMMINGS.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
DIRECTOR MAGUIRE, THANK YOU FOR 
BEING WITH US HERE TODAY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
I KNOW THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU 
TOOK YOUR FIRST OATH IN 1974.
>> YES, MA'AM.
>> A LONG TIME TO BE PROUD OF 
THE SERVICE.
I MY FIRST OATH IN 1984 WHEN I 
WAS SWORN IN AS A LAW 
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND I THANK 
YOU SO MUCH FOR SAYING PUBLIC 
SERVICE IS A SACRED TRUST 
BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF THE 
CIRCUMSTANCES OR WHO IS 
INVOLVED, PUBLIC SERVICE IS A 
SACRED TRUST.
I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AS A LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I'M A MEFB 
CONGRESS NOW, BUT TO VERY GATE 
INTERNAL CASES AND INVOLVING 
OTHER PERSONNEL.
I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
INVESTIGATE NUMEROUS OTHER 
CASES.
CRIMINAL CASES.
AND NEVER ONCE JUST FOR THE 
RECORD DIRECTOR MAGUIRE DID I 

English: 
EVER GO TO THE SUSPECT OR THE 
DEFENDANT OR THE PRINCIPAL IN 
THOSE CASES TO ASK THEM WHAT I 
SHOULD DO IN THE CASE THERE HAS 
BEEN A LOT OF TALK THIS MORNING,
THE WHOLE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE,
CENTERS AROUND THE U.S. 
RELATIONSHIP WITH UKRAINE.
I THINK THAT YOU WOULD AGREE 
UKRAINE IS VERY DEPENDENT ON THE
UNITED STATES IN TERMS OF 
ASSISTING THEM AND DEFENDING 
THEMSELVES.
COULD YOU BASED ON YOUR MANY 
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE 
MILITARY AND NOW IN YOUR NEW 
POSITION TALK ABOUT THAT 
RELATIONSHIP AND HOW IMPORTANT 
ITS FOR THE UNITED STATES TO 
ASSIST UKRAINE IF THEY ARE EVER 
GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND 
THEMSELVES?
>> YES, CONGRESSWOMAN, I THINK 
THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN 
EXTREMELY SUPPORTIVE OF UKRAINE.
I WOULD SAY THAT THEY ARE 
RELYING ON US AS THEY RELY ON 
OTHER PEOPLE IN EUROPE.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THE 
UNITED STATES IS PROBABLY PAYING
MORE OF THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR THE
SUPPORT OF UKRAINE THAN THE 
OTHERS.

Spanish: 
>>> LAS INVESTIGACIONES 
INVOLUCRAN OTROS ASUNTOS, CASOS 
CRIMINALES NUNCA AQUÍ VIMOS QUE 
EL DIRECTOR THOR FUERA A TRAVÉS 
DEL SOSPECHOSO, Y PEDIRLE LO QUE
DEBO HACER EN EL CASO
>>> SE HA HABLADO MUCHO ESTA 
MAÑANA, HA HABIDO TODA UNA 
DISCUSIÓN, CON RESPECTO A LA 
RELACIÓN DE ESTADOS UNIDOS CON 
UCRANIA, LA CUAL ES MUY 
DEPENDIENTE ESTADOS UNIDOS PARA 
DEFENDERSE
>>> PODRÍA BASAR SUS AÑOS DE 
EXPERIENCIA PARA HABLAR UN POCO 
DE ESA RELACIÓN Y QUE TAN 
IMPORTANTE ES PARA ESTADOS 
UNIDOS ASISTIR A UCRANIA PARA 
QUE SE PUEDA DEFENDER

Spanish: 
>>> ESTADOS UNIDOS APOYA MUCHO 
UCRANIA, CONFÍAN EN NOSOTROS Y 
EN EUROPA, ESTAMOS PAGANDO MUCHO
POR ESO, LA REAL AMENAZA PARA 
UCRANIA Y PARA LIBERTAD, Y PARLE
DEMOCRACIA NOS PREOCUPA MUCHO
>>> UCRANIA  NUNCA PODRÍA HABER 
LLEGADO ESTÁ Y NO FUERA POR EL
APOYO DE ESTADOS UNIDOS ?
>>> CREO QUE NO PODRÍAN O 
PODRÍAN HABERLO HECHO OTRA F
FORMA,
>>> PARA UCRANIA FUE DIFÍCIL 
DEFENDERSE SIN OTRO POLLO
>>> ESTA PREOCUPACIÓN SOBRE LA

English: 
THE THREATS ARE REAL FOR THE 
UKRANIAN PEOPLE.
AND THE STAKE OF FREEDOM AND 
DEMOCRACY IS ALSO EVEN THOUGH IT
IS IN THE UKRAINE IS ALSO VERY 
MUCH A CONCERN.
>> BASED ON THAT, YOU WOULD SAY 
UKRAINE PROBABLY COULD NEVER GET
THERE WITHOUT THE SUPPORT AND 
ASSISTANCE OF THE UNITED STATES 
OR FROM 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 ARE NOT AND WE 
ARE -- WE'RE THERE.
AND SO I THINK THAT YOU HAVE 
SAID THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT 
FOR UKRAINE TO MEET THAT GOAL OF
DEFENDING THEMSELVES WITHOUT YOU
OUR SUPPORT.
CORRECT?
>> I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE A 
CHALLENGE, YES.
>> THIS COMPLAINT OUTLINES A 
SCHEME BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, AND I'M NOT 
REALLY SURE WHAT TO CALL RUDY 
GIULIANI THESE DAYS, WHAT HIS 
ROLE IS, MAYBE HE IS THE NEW 
FIXER, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT EITHER WAY, IT INVOLVES A 
SCHEME TO COERCE UKRAINE, THE 
COUNTRY THAT YOU SAY IS SO VERY 
DEPENDENT ON THE UNITED STATES 

Spanish: 
PIEL DEL PRESIDENTE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS, Y YA NO SABEMOS COMO 
LLAMAR A RUBÉN ILYA NI, ESTE 
PAÍS ESTÁN DEPENDIENTE ESTADOS 
UNIDOS PARA DEFENDERSE, ASISTIÓ,
EN LA TRANSCRIPCIÓN QUE SE LE 
ENVIÓ DEL 18 JULIO SE LE OFRECÓO
PRESUPUESTO AL PRESIDENTE, LA 
PROCEDENCIA ESE DINERO SE SUS 
SUSPENDIÓ LA ASISTENCIA DE 
ESTADOS UNIDOS, DURANTE UNA 
REUNIÓN EL 23 Y EL 26 DE JULIO 
SE PIDIÓ EXPLÍCITAMENTE LA 
INSTRUCCIÓN DE SUSPENDER LA 
ASISTENCIA QUE VINO DIRECTAMENTE

English: 
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, TO COERCE 
UKRAINE INTO ASSISTING THE 
PRESIDENT'S RE-ELECTION EFFORTS 
IN 2020.
IN THE REPORT FROM YOUR 
INSPECTOR GENERAL, THE MEMO THAT
WAS SENT TO YOU, IT SAYS ON JULY
18th, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT 
AND BUDGET OFFICIAL INFORMED THE
DEPARTMENT AND AGENCIES THAT THE
PRESIDENT EARLIER THAT MONTH HAD
ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO SUSPEND 
ALL U.S. SECURITY ASSISTANCE TO 
UKRAINE NEITHER OMB NOR THE NFC 
STAFF KNEW WHY THIS INSTRUCTION 
HAD BEEN ISSUED.
DURING INTERAGENCY MEETINGS ON 
THE 23rd OF JULY AND 26th OF 
JULY, OMB OFFICIALS AGAIN STATED
EXPLICITLY THAT THE INSTRUCTION 
TO SUSPEND THIS ASSISTANCE HAD 
COME DIRECTLY FROM THE PRESIDENT
BUT THEY WERE NOT -- THEY WERE 
STILL UNAWARE OF A POLICY 

Spanish: 
DEL PRESIDENTE PERO AÚN ELLOS NO
ESTABAN CONSCIENTES DE LA 
POLÍTICA, EL 23, Y EL 26 EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTABA SUSPENDIENDO
LA AYUDA QUE USTEDES DICEN QUE 
UCRANIA NECESITA TAN D
DESESPERADAMENTE CREO QUE SE 
INSPECCIÓN GENERAL SE INSTRUYE 
EN EL INFORME, EL PRESIDENTE SE 
ESTABA INVOLUCRADO EN UNA 
INVESTIGACIÓN ILEGAL USTED CREE 
ESO, AL SUSPENDER SU APOYO 
UCRANIA ?

English: 
RATIONALE.
SO THE 18th, THIS ISSUE FIRST 
CAME UP WHERE THE PRESIDENT 
SUSPENDING THAT ASSISTANCE THAT 
YOU SAID UKRAINE SO DESPERATELY 
DEPENDS ON.
WE DEAL WHY WHAT IS REASONABLE 
HERE.
AND I BELIEVE YOUR INSPECTOR 
GENERAL INCLUDED THAT IN THE 
REPORT BECAUSE THIS WHOLE ISSUE 
IS ABOUT UKRAINE'S POSITION, 
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED 
STATES, THEIR DEPENDENCY ON THE 
UNITED STATES AND THE 
PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO COERCE 
UKRAINE INTO ENGAGING IN AN 
ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER 
INVESTIGATION.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IS WHY YOUR 
INSPECTOR GENERAL ADDED THAT 
ABOUT SUSPENDING THE SUPPORT TO 
UKRAINE?
>> I THINK THAT MICHAEL ATKINSON
FOUND TO BE CREDIBLE AND HE 
VIEWED THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF 
URGENT CONCERN TO FORWARD TO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
WHICH DO YOU THINK IT IS 
REASONABLE FOR THE AMERICAN 
PEOPLE AND THIS COMMITTEE ON 
BOTH SIDES TO BELIEVE THAT THERE

English: 
IS A CORRELATION OR A NEXUS 
BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT SUSPENDING
THE AID AND THE CONVERSATION 
THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE -- THE 
FOLLOWUP CONVERSATION?
>> YES, THAT IS THE ALLEGATION 
THAT IS MADE.
AND I DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE
TRANSCRIPTS.
MY ONLY INFORMATION WAS THE 
ICIG'S COVER LETTER AND THE 
ALLEGATION, WHISTLEBLOWER 
ALLEGATION.
THE OTHER INFORMATION COMING TO 
LIGHT YESTERDAY AS RELEASED BY 
THE PRESIDENT CHANGES THINGS IN 
A DIFFERENT LIGHT.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK ONE 
MORE QUICKLY?
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE 
INSPECTOR GENERAL IS A CAREER 
INTELLIGENCE PERSON, HE'S WORKED
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HE
HAS RECEIVED NUMEROUS AWARDS FOR
OUTSTANDING EXEMPLARY 
PERFORMANCE.
DID YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO DENY 
OR NOT BELIEVE HIS CONCLUSIONS 
IN EVERY AREA OF THIS REPORT 
THAT HE WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED 
IN?

Spanish: 
>>> CREO QUE ERA UN ASUNTO DE 
URGENCIA
>>> USTED CREE ES IMPORTANTE 
SABER SI UNA CORRELACIÓN O NEXO 
ENTRE LA SUSPENSIÓN DE LA AYUDA 
Y LA CONVERSACIÓN QUE TUVO LUGAR
EN LA EN LO QUE HAY EN LA 
SIGUIENTE CONVERSACIÓN
>>> CREO QUE NO TUVE ACCESO A LA
TRANSCRIPCIÓN MI ÚNICA 
INFORMACIÓN ERA SOBRE CUBRIR EL 
ASUNTO Y CUBRIR EL ALEGATO,
>>> PUEDO HACER UNA PREGUNTA
>>> Y ENTENDIMIENTO CON RESPECTO
AL ABOGADO UTIEL Y DEL INSPECTOR
GENERAL, ES QUE TRABAJA EN EL 
DEPARTAMENTO JUSTICIA RECIBIENDO

English: 
>> CONGRESSWOMAN, MICHAEL AT KIN
ON IS A VALUED AND TRUSTED. 
>> Caller: LEAGUE.
I RESPECT HIM TREMENDOUSLY.
THE QUESTION CAME DOWN TO AS WE 
JUST OVER AND OVER AGAIN URGENT 
CONCERN AND WHETHER OR NOT THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY 
WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT AS 
WRITTEN ALLOWS ME TO FORWARD TO 
THIS COMMITTEE.
THAT IS WHERE I GOT STUCK, 
MA'AM, AND I'M SORRY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> MR. MURPHY.
>> MR. MAGUIRE, THANK YOU SO 
MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR 
COUNTRY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR 
PATRIOTISM.
I WANT TO ASK YOU A COUPLE 
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIME 
SURROUNDING JULY 25th TO THE 
TIME THAT YOU CAME INTO OFFICE 
AS DNI.
AS YOU KNOW, THE PHONE CALL 
BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE 
UKRANIAN PRESIDENT HAPPENED ON 
JULY 25th OF THIS YEAR.
CORRECT?
>> I BELIEVE JULY 25th, SIR.
>> AT LEAST ONE OF THEM HAPPENED
ON JULY 25th.

Spanish: 
NUMEROSAS ADVERTENCIAS, TIENE 
ALGUNA RAZÓN RENEGAR O NO CREER 
SUS CONCLUSIONES EN CADA ÁREA DE
ESTE INFORME EN EL QUE ESTABA 
DIRECTAMENTE INVOLUCRADO ?
>>> EL ES 1 BAR UN COLEGA QUE YO
RESPETO, LA PREGUNTA LA 
RESPONDIÓ MUCHAS VECES, TENÍA 
CARACTER DE URGENCIA, EL ACTO DE
PROTECCIÓN FUE PERMITIDO, Y LO 
SIENTO
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU 
SERVICIO, SU PATETISMO, PERO 
PEDIRLE O HACERLE ALGUNAS 
PREGUNTAS SOBRE LO QUE SUCEDIÓ 

Spanish: 
EL 25 DE JULIO. COMO USTED SABE 
LA LLAMADA ENTRE LOS PRESIDENTES
SUCEDIÓ EL 25 JULIO ESTE AÑO, EN
ESE MOMENTO EL DE N A COMO 
SABEMOS EL INFORMANTE HABLÓ EL 
12 DE AGOSTO, DÁNDOLE PRIORIDAD 
A SU NUEVO TRABAJO USTED DI
DISCUTIÓ LA LLAMADA O LA QUEJA 
CON LAS CÓDIGOS DEL DNA
>>> NO, UTILIZAR Y MEJORES 
HABILIDADES
>>> USTED DISCUTIÓ DE UCRANIA 
CON EL PRESIDENTE DE OTRA ANTES 

English: 
AT THAT TIME THE DNI WAS DAN 
COATS AND HIS DEPUTY WAS SUE 
GORDON.
THE WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIM WAS 
FILED ON AUGUST 12 AND THIN YOU 
TOOK OFFICE ON AUGUST 16 FOUR 
DAYS LATER.
>> YES, SIR.
>> PRIOR TO TAKING YOUR NEW JOB,
OR SINCE, DID YOU DISCUSS THE 
JULY 25th CALL OR THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WITH DNI
COATS?
>> I WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN THE JOB
IF I DID.
NO, SIR.
>> AND HOW ABOUT WITH SUE 
N
GORDON?
>> NOT AT ALL.
TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, I DO 
NOT THINK THAT EITHER DIRECTOR 
COATS OR PRINCIPAL DEPUTY SUE 
GORDON HAVE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER
ABOUT THIS WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT OR THAT MICHAEL AT KIN
SON HAD IT.
>> BEFORE YOUR CURRENT ROLE, DID
YOU DISCUSS UKRAINE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?>> BEFORE YOUR D
YOU DISCUSS UKRAINE WITH 
PRESIDENT TRUMP?
>> NO, CONGRESSMAN, I HAVEN'T 
DISCUSSED UKRAINE WITH ANYBODY, 
LET ME PUT TO YOU THAT WAY.
>> YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED UKRAINE
WITH ANYBODY IN YOUR CURRENT 
ROLE AS THE ACTING DNI?

English: 
>> AS WE GET INTELLIGENCE 
REPORTS, WE'VE GOT ABOUT 190 
COUNTRIES OUT THERE, SO WHATEVER
THE PRESIDENT'S DAILY BRIEF IS 
AND MATTERS THAT PERTAIN TO 
THAT.
BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW TELL 
AGAINST EQUITIES IN THAT REGION 
RIGHT NOW, THIS HAS NOT BEEN 
SOMETHING THAT HAS COME TO MY 
ATTENTION IN THE SIX WEEKS THAT 
I'VE BEEN ACTING DNI.
>> TURNING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
AND THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, YOU 
DON'T KNOW THE IDENTITY OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER, RIGHT?
>> I DO NOT AND I'VE MADE IT MY 
BUSINESS TO MAKE SURE THAT I DO 
NOT.
>> AND YOU DON'T KNOW HIS 
POLITICAL AFFILIATION OR HER.
>> I DO NOT.
>> AND OF COURSE YOU BELIEVE 
THAT THE WHISTLEBLOWER WAS 
OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH.
>> I DO.
>> AND WITHOUT BIAS.
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT.
I DO BELIEVE THAT -- 
>> YOU HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE
THAT HE OR SHE WAS ABLGTING WITH
BIAS 1234. 
>> YOU I JUST BELIEVE THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER WAS ACTING IN GOOD
FAIR.
I WOULD NOT KNOW BIAS OR NOT 
BIAS.
I DON'T KNOW.
>> AND OF COURSE YOU WILL DO 
EVERYTHING THAT YOU CAN TO 
PROTECT THE WHISTLEBLOWER FROM 

Spanish: 
DE ESTO
>>> NO HA DISCUTIDO SOBRE 
UCRANIA CON NADIE ?
>>> HEMOS HABLADO SOBRE INFORME 
DE INTELIGENCIA, Y ASUNTOS 
POTENCIALES, EQUIDAD ES, ESTO ES
LO QUE HA LLEVADO MI ATENCIÓN
>>> LOS ABOGADOS DEL INFORMANTE 
USTED NO CONOCE LA IDENTIDAD DEL
INFORMANTE ?
>>> Y TAMPOCO CONOCE SUS 
AFILIACIONES POLÍTICAS ?
>>> NO
>>> CREE QUE ESTÁ ACTUANDO UN 
BUENA FE ?
>>> SI
>>> SIN CONSEJO ?
>>>
>>> NO LO SÉ
>>> NO TIENE RAZÓN PARA CREERLO

Spanish: 
>>> CREO SOLAMENTE QUE ESTABA 
ACTUANDO UN BUENA FE ?
>>> USTED POR SUPUESTO HARÁ LO 
QUE SEA PARA PROTEGERLO DE 
CUALQUIER INTENTO DE DAÑARLO ?
>>> ESTOY ABSOLUTAMENTE 
COMPROMETIDO
>>> USTED CONOCE AL DIRECTOR 
GENERAL EL INFORMANTE Y EL 
DIRECTOR GENERAL TAMBIÉN O 
PERMANECER
>>> EL SEÑOR ATKINSON FUE 
NOMBRADO POR EL PRESIDENTE
>>> SI, Y ÉL REALMENTE CREE QUE 

English: 
ANY ATTEMPTS TO RETALIATE 
AGAINST HIM OR HER, CORRECT?
>> I WILL NOT PERMIT THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER TO BE SUBJECT TO 
ANY RETALIATION.
>> AND UNLIKE THE WHISTLEBLOWER,
YOU DO KNOW THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL P.
>> YES, I HOLD HIM IN HIGHEST 
DEAL.
>> AND HE ALSO OPERATED IN THE 
HIGHEST FAITH, RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT MICHAEL 
ATKINSON -- YES.
>> AND INTERESTINGLY, MR. 
ATKINSON WAS ACTUALLY APPOINTED 
BY PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, 
RIGHT?
>> YES, HE WAS.
HE IS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE.
>> AND WHAT LENDS REAL 
CREDIBILITY TO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER'S COMPLAINT IS THE
FACT THAT MR. ATKINSON, AN 
APPOINTEE OF THE PRESIDENT, 
WOULD ACTUALLY BRING FORWARD A 
COMPLAINT AGAINST HIS BOSS.
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS 
ESPECIALLY COURAGEOUS.
WHAT I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU 
THAT YOU WILL ALSO DO WHATEVER 
YOU CAN TO PROTECT MR. ATKINSON 

Spanish: 
ESTA ES UNA QUEJA CONTRA SU 
JEFE, LO QUE QUIERO SABER ES QUE
USTED TAMBIÉN HARÁ LO QUE SEA 
POR PROTEGER AL SEÑOR ATKINSON ?
>>> POR SUPUESTO
>>> SE LIBERÓSE LIBERÓ 
INFORMACIÓN NUEVA, ES CORRECTO ?
>>> ES LA PRIMERA VEZ QUE VEO
UNA CONVERSACIÓN PRESIDENCIAL
>>> USTED HA TOMADO PARTE EN UNA
CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE EL PRESIDENTE
Y OTRA PERSONA ?

English: 
FROM POTENTIAL RETALIATION.
>> CONGRESSMAN, ABSOLUTELY.
>> VERY GOOD.
THE WHITE HOUSE RELEASED A 
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE 
CONVERSATION FROM THE JULY 25th 
CALL, RIGHT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT WAS 
TRANSMITTED YESTERDAY MORNING, 
SIR.
>> AND THEY CALL THAT TEL CON.
>> I'M UNFAMILIAR, THIS IS THE 
FIRST TIME THAT I'VE SEEN THE 
TRANSCRIPT OF A PRESIDENTIAL 
CONVERSATION WITH A FOREIGN 
LEADER.
>> HAVE YOU BEEN -- 
>> TEL CON WOULD BE JOINTLY 
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION.
>> AND HAVE YOU BEEN A PARTY TO 
A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 
PRESIDENT AND A FOREIGN LEADER 
ON A PHONE CALL?
>> WHEN I AM IN THE OFFICE TO 
PROVIDE THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEF 
TO THE PRESIDENT, SOME FOREIGN 
HEAD OF STATE MIGHT CALL IN.
THE PRESIDENT MAY EITHER ASK US 
TO LEAVE OR JUST STAY THERE FOR 
A BRIEF CALL FROM TIME TO TIME, 
YES, SIR.
>> AND THERE ARE NOTE TAKERS WHO
ACTUALLY SCRIBBLE DOWN FURIOUSLY
WHAT IS BEING SAID ON THOSE 
CALLS?
>> IF THEY ARE NOTE TAKER, THEY 
WOULD NOT BE IN THE OVAL OFFICE 
WITH US.

English: 
THEY MIGHT BE LISTENING 
SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> LIKE FROM THE SITUATION ROOM.
>> OR I DON'T KNOW, BUT 
SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
>> AND IN THIS PARTICULAR 
SITUATION, MAYBE MORE THAN A 
DOZEN PEOPLE WERE ON THE PHONE 
CALL?
>> THAT IS THE ALLEGATION.
>> AND THEY WERE ALL TAKING 
NOTES PRESUMABLY.
>> IF THEY ARE GOOD PUBLIC 
SERVANTS, YES.
>> AND WERE YOU EVER A PARTY TO 
A CALL WHERE THE NOTES THAT YOU 
TOOK WERE THEN GIVEN TO SOMEONE 
AT THE WHITE HOUSE FOR KEEPING?
>> I HAVE NEVER BEEN PARTY TO 
ANY CALL OTHER THAN MY OWN.
I WOULD TAKE NOTES FOR MY OWN.
AT MY LEVEL.
BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN PRIVY TO A 
CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT 
WHERE I WOULD BE INVOLVED IN 
TAKING NOTES.
IT WOULD JUST BE HAPPEN STANCE, 
I HAPPENED TO BE THERE AND HE 
FELT COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO LEAVE
ME FOR A BRIEF CONVERSATION.
BUT IT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT I 

Spanish: 
>>> EL PRESIDENTE ME HA PEDIDO 
QUE ME VAYA,
>>> SI NO HAY NINGÚN ASUNTO YO 
NO HE TENIDO QUE ESTAR EN LA 
OFICINA OVAL
>>> Y DENTRO DE ESTA SITUACIÓN 
ESPECIAL TAL VEZ MÁS DE UNA D
DOCENA DE PERSONAS EN UNA 
LLAMADA TELEFÓNICA
>>> ALGUNA VEZ FUE PARTE UNA 
LLAMADA EN QUE USTED NOTARA QUE 
SE LE PIDIÓ ALGUIEN DE LA CASA 
BLANCA QUE SE QUEDARA ?

Spanish: 
>>> QUE TOMABA NOTAS POR MISMO, 
PERO NUNCA ESTABA INVOLUCRADO EN
TOMAR NOTAS NO ME SIENTO CÓMODO 
EN LAS CONVERSACIONES PRIVADAS
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS POR SU 
SERVICIO
>>> GRACIAS
>>> MUCHAS GRACIAS, QUIERO 
AGRADECERLE POR SOBREVIVIR AL 
DESAFÍO DE HOY, ESPERO QUE 
CUANDO ALGO SE TENGA QUE HACER 
HECHO PORTE CERRADA SE HAGA
>>> LA COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA NO
ESTÁ EN UN LUGAR APROPIADO EN UN
JUICIO POLÍTICO, UN PROCESO DE 

English: 
WOULD BE IN THAT OFFICE 
PARTICULARLY FOR THAT MATTER.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.
>> THANK YOU, CONGRESSMAN.
>> I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE RANKING
MEMBER FOR ANY FINAL QUESTIONS 
THAT HE WOULD HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
MR. MAGUIRE, I WANT TO THANK YOU
FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE HERE.
CONGRATULATIONS FOR SURVIVING 
LEGAL WORD CHALLENGE CHARADE.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE YOU BEHIND 
CLOSED DOORS LIKE THIS IS 
SUPPOSED TO BE DONE AND I WOULD 
JUST URGE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE 
OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE IF THEY 
WOULD LIKE TO IMPEACH THE 
PRESIDENT, THEY NEED TO GO TO 
THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND 
ACTUALLY CALL FOR A ROTE.
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE IS 
NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO TRY
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.
SO THERE IS A PROCESS IN THE 
CONSTITUTION THAT I WOULD ADVISE
YOU ALL FOLLOW.
IN THE MEANTIME, DIRECTOR 
MAGUIRE, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO 
YOU FOR BEING ACCUSED OF CRIMES 
THAT YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED.

Spanish: 
JUSTICIA DE JURISDICCIÓN, QUIERO
DISCULPARME CON USTED SEAN POR 
SER ACUSADO DE CRÍMENES QUE NO 
HA COMETIDO, TOTALMENTE 
INAPROPIADO, ESPERO QUE NO TENGA
QUE CONTINUAR MÁS CON ESTO
>>> GRACIAS
>>> UNAS PREGUNTAS MÁS SÓLO 
CONTINUAREMOS NO TIENE 
COMUNICACIÓN CON EL PRESIDENTE 
ENTIENDO ESTO ?
>>> NO TENÍA NINGUNA 
CONVERSACIÓN EN PARTICULAR CON 
NADIE, CON RESPECTO AL ASUNTO 
UCRANIA, NI CON RESPECTO A LA 
QUEJA, NO SE ME HA DADO CO

English: 
IT IS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE 
BEHAVIOR FOR ANYONE TO ACCUSE 
SOMEONE THAT SERVED FOUR 
DECADES
LIKE YOU AND I HOPE YOU DON'T 
HAVE ON GO THROUGH ANY ANY 
LONGER.
>> THANK YOU, RANKING MEMBER.
>> DIRECTOR, I HAVE A FEW MORE 
QUESTIONS.
JUST TO FOLLOW UP BECAUSE I 
THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY A MOMENT
AGO THAT YOU HAD NO 
COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT
ON THE SUBJECT OF UKRAINE.
DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY 
THAT?
>> I HAVE NOT PARTICULARLY HAD 
ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYONE ON
THE SUBJECT OF UKRAINE THAT 
DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE MATTER THAT
WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IN REGARD TO 
THE WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
SO NOT PARTICULARLY WITH THE 
OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL OR AS 
FAR AS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
ALL I DID WAS SEND THE DOCUMENTS
FORWARD, THE ALLEGATIONS ARE IN 
THERE AND I'VE JUST LET THE 
DOCUMENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU DID

English: 
NOT HAVE ANY CONVERSATION ON THE
SUBJECT OF UKRAINE THAT DID NOT 
INVOLVE THIS COMPLAINT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN ACTING DNI FOR
SIX WEEKS.
I HAVE -- 
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND
BECAUSE THAT IS SUGGESTING THAT 
YOU DID HAVE A CONVERSATION 
INVOLVING THE COMPLAINT WITH THE
PRESIDENT.
>> NO, NO.
THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID, SIR.
>> DIRECTOR, YOU MENTIONED 
EARLIER ON WHEN WE WERE ON THIS 
SUBJECT OF WHAT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL WAS ABLE TO INVESTIGATE 
OR NOT INVESTIGATE, WHETHER THE 
PRESIDENT IS WITHIN THE 
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY OR 
SUBJECT TO THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY AND BY THE WAY THE 
STATUTE DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE
SUBJECT OF THE CAN'T BE WITHIN 
THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, IT 
REQUIRES THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO BE
AN EMPLOYEE OR DETAILEE, DIDN'T 
REQUIRE THAT THE SUBJECT OR 
PERSON COMPLAINED OF BE AN 
EMPLOYEE OF THE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMUNITY.

Spanish: 
CONSEJOS, NI TAMPOCO TENIDO 
RELACIÓN CON EL DEPARTAMENTO DE 
JUSTICIA, CREO QUE LOS 
DOCUMENTOS HABLAN POR SÍ MISMOS
>>> USTED NO ESTÁ INVOLUCRADO EN
ESTA QUEJA ?
>>> ES CORRECTO, ESTADO 
TRABAJANDO DURANTE SEIS SEMANAS
>>> NO, NO ES LO QUE YO DIJE
>>>  ESTAMOS HABLANDO DE DECIR 
INSPECTOR GENIAL EL PUEDE O NO 
INVESTIGAR MÁS ALLÁ DE LA 
COMUNIDAD INTELIGENCIA, SI EL 
ESTATUTO LO DE RED DE ADQUIERE, 
DENTRO DE LA COMUNIDAD 

Spanish: 
INTELIGENCIA, NO SE REQUIERE UN 
INFORMANTE, NO SE REQUIERE 
ALGUIEN QUE SE QUEJE, ADAPTÓ LA 
INTERPRETACIÓN POR EL DEP
DEPARTAMENTO DE JUSTICIA QUE 
ESENCIALMENTE DICE QUE EL 
PRESIDENTE ESTÁ SOBRE EL 
DIRECTOR, POR ENDE NO ES SUJETO 
DE SU JURISDICCIÓN, POR ENDE NO 
SE INVESTIGARÁ MÁS AL DIRECTOR 
GENERAL, NO SE LE PERMITE MÁS 
INVESTIGAR SOBRE EL TEMA, LA 
RESPONSABILIDAD
>>> EL PRESIDENTE ESTÁ MÁS ALLÁ 
DE LA LEY
>>> NADIE EN ESTE PAÍS ESTÁ
>>> NO DEBERÍA SER

English: 
BUT YOU HAVE ADOPTED AN 
INTERPRETATION BY THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS
THE PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE 
DIRECTOR, THEREFORE THE 
PRESIDENT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE 
JURISDICTION OF THE DIRECTOR, 
THEREFORE IT DOESN'T MEET THE 
DEFINITION OF URGENT CONCERN, 
THEREFORE
IS DONE.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN'T 
INVESTIGATE ANY MORE.
THAT'S THE INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 
READING OF THE OPINION THAT HE 
IS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO 
INVESTIGATE THIS.
IS THAT YOUR READING, AS WELL.
>> NOT NECESSARILY THE 
PRESIDENT, BUT THE ALLEGATION 
HAS TO RELATE TO THE FUNDING, 
ADMINISTRATION AND INTELLIGENCE 
ACTIVITY WITHIN THE 
RESPONSIBILITY AND THE AUTHORITY
OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE.
>> WELL, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET 
TO WHETHER THE PRESIDENT IS 
SOMEHOW BEYOND THE REACH OF THE 
LAW.
>> NO, SIR.
NO PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY IS 
BEYOND THE REACH OF THE LAW.
>> WELL, THAT'S THE WAY IT 
SHOULD BE, BUT I'M TRYING TO 

English: 
FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT'S THE 
WAY IT IS AS A PRACTICAL FACT.
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BELIEVES 
BASED ON THE OPINION THAT YOU 
REQUESTED HE IS NO LONGER 
ALLOWED TO LOOK INTO THIS 
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE 
DEFINITION OF AN URGENT CONCERN 
BECAUSE IT INVOLVES THE 
PRESIDENT.
IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF 
THE DEPARTMENT'S OPINION, AS 
WELL, THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NO LONGER HAS JURISDICTION TO 
LOOK INTO THIS?
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING -- 
>> AS WE LOOK INTO ACTING DNI 
JOSEPH McCHOIR, WE WANT TO SHOW 
YOU THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT 
SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN.
THAT'S PRESIDENT TRUMP DEPARTING
MARINE ONE ABOUT TO BOARD AIR 
FORCE ONE FOR THE TRIP BACK TO 
WASHINGTON AT THE JFK.
HE'S BEEN IN NEW YORK FOR THE 
OPENING SESSION OF THE GENERAL 
ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO BE TAKING
ANY QUESTIONS HERE AS HE BOARDS 
THE AIRCRAFT, BUT LIKELY WELL 
AWARE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT
NOW IN WASHINGTON, THIS HEARING 
WITH THE ACTING HEAD OF THE DNI 

English: 
WHO IS DEFENDING HIS HANDLING OF
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
THAT WAS MADE PUBLIC TODAY, THAT
PRESIDENT TRUMP IS USING THE 
POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO SOLICIT 
INTERFERENCE FROM A FOREIGN 
COUNTRY.
ANDREA MITCHELL IS HERE WITH US,
AS WELL.
>> MOST OF THIS WAS NOT ABOUT 
THE COMPLAINT WHICH WAS RELEASED
ALONG WITH THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL'S COVER LETTER WHICH IS 
QUITE LONG.
THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE 
SHOULD HAVE JUST TURNED IT OVER 
AS THE LAW REQUIRES ACCORDING TO
THE DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE 
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS AUTOMATICALLY 
ONCE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAD 
SAID THAT THE WHISTLE-BLOWER'S 
COMPLAINT WAS OF URGENT CONCERN 
AND WAS CREDIBLE.
INSTEAD, WHAT HE ACKNOWLEDGES 
NOW HE DID, AND THIS IS NEW 
TODAY, HE CONSULTED THE WHITE 
HOUSE.
HE TURNED TO THE WHITE HOUSE 
FIRST, BEING THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL AND ANY OTHER OFFICIAL 
OF THE WHITE HOUSE AS WELL AS 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
WE DID KNOW THAT AND THE OFFICE 

English: 
OF LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT RULED THAT THERE IS A
MATTER OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE 
HERE, THAT IT IS THEREFORE NOT 
AN URGENT CONCERN AND IT DOES 
NOT HAVE -- THAT THE INSPECTOR 
GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE THE 
AUTHORITY TO TURN IT OVER.
>> AND WHAT WE ALSO LEARNED IN 
THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT IS
THAT IT POTENTIALLY IMPLICATES 
NOT ONLY THE PRESIDENT, BUT THE 
ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR.
SO THE QUESTION IS IF YOU GIVE 
THAT MATERIAL TO THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE 
COMPLAINT.
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CHAIRMAN
ADAM SCHIFF AND ALL THE OTHER 
DEMOCRATS ARE SAYING, IT IS WHAT
THEY SAY AS AN ASSUMPTION FOR A 
COVER UP AND THAT COULD 
POTENTIALLY LEAD TO AN ARTICLE 
OF IMPEACHMENT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DETAILS NOW 
IN THE WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT 
INVOLVING THE ALLEGATIONS THAT 
THERE WAS CONCERN THAT MEMBERS 
OF THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF, THE 
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL STAFF 
HAVE TAKEN THE TRANSCRIPT OR 

English: 
NOTES THEREOF OF THAT PHONE CALL
AND PLACED IT IN A CODE WORD 
HIGHLY SECRET CLASSIFIED 
COMPUTER FROM WHICH IT COULD NOT
BE OBTAINED AND INAPPROPRIATELY 
PUT IT IN A PLACE RESERVED FOR 
COVERT ACTION, THE HIGHEST 
CLASSIFIED SECRETS AS A MATTER 
OF COVERING UP POLITICALLY 
SENSITIVE CONVERSATIONS RATHER 
THAN SOMETHING INVOLVING A TOP 
COVERT OPERATION.
>> AND WE SHOULD NOTE THIS IS 
THE LAST QUESTIONING HERE.
I BELIEVE -- YEAH, I BELIEVE 
WE'RE HEARING THE LAST QUESTIONS
OF THIS HEARING.
LET ME GO TO CHUCK TODD RIGHT 
NOW, MODERATOR OF "MEET THE 
PRESS."
I THINK WE KNOW THIS IS SECOND 
AND THIRD HAND INFORMATION.
DOES THAT MAKE IT ANY LESS OF A 
BOMBSHELL, HOWEVER?
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOES.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, IF SOME OF 
THE DEMOCRATIC QUESTIONING TODAY
WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY BASED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WEREN'T -- 
WE WEREN'T GOING TO YET HAVE THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S ACTUAL REPORT 

English: 
IN OUR HANDS TO READ.
SO I THINK I WAS SURPRISED AT 
TIMES AT THE MISSED 
OPPORTUNITIES.
I THOUGHT A FEW TOOK 
OPPORTUNITIES TO GET SOME OF THE
DETAILS SURFACED UP INTO THIS 
HEARING.
AGAIN, IT WAS AT TIMES THERE WAS
A BIG FOCUS AND UNDERSTANDABLY 
SO IT SEEMS AS IF ADAM SCHIFF 
AND THE DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THERE 
WAS A COVER UP GOING ON AND THAT
IS WHERE THEY FOCUSED WHAT TOOK 
SO LONG, WHY DID HE GO TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE?
BUT YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE 
DECISION TO PUT THIS ON NATIONAL
TELEVISION CERTAINLY WAS AN 
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE ACTUAL --
MORE OF THE ACTUAL COMPLAINT 
FRONT AND CENTER.
AND I JUST WAS SURPRISED AT HOW 
MUCH OF THE DETAILS THE 
CAMPAIGNANT WE DIDN'T HEAR 
ABOUT -- ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS 
WHO AT TIME READ FROM THE CALL 
ITSELF AND READ FROM THERE.
SO ON THAT SCORE, IT SEEMS AS IF
IT'S ALMOST AS IF THEIR GAME 
PLAN FOR HOW THEY WERE GOING TO 
QUESTION MR. McGUIRE WAS BASED 
ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE 
WOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE WHISTLE 

English: 
BLOWER COMPLAINT -- 
>> CHUCK, WE'RE GOING TO GET 
BACK INTO THE HEARING FOR A 
MOMENT.
>> AND YOU TOLD US THAT YOU HAVE
NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE.
AM I RIGHT?
>> I HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT A 
CAREER INSPECTOR GENERAL LAWYER 
IN HIS DETERMINATION ON WHETHER 
OR NOT IT WAS CREDIBLE.
THAT IS SOMETHING FOR MICHAEL TO
DETERMINE.
>> AND LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SAYS OVER THE
PAST FOUR MONTHS, MORE THAN HALF
A DOZEN U.S. OFFICIALS INFORMED 
ME OF VARIOUS FACTS RELATED 
THOUGH EFFORT TO SEEK FOREIGN 
INTERFERENCE.
YOU WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD 
SPEAK TO THOSE HALF A DOZEN U.S.
OFFICIALS.
WOULD YOU NOT?
>> I THINK YOU HAVE ALL THE 
MATERIAL THE COMMITTEE NEEDS AND
I THINK IT'S UP TO THE COMMITTEE
HOW THEY THINK THEY NEED TO 
PROCEED.
>> I'M ASKING YOUR OPINION AS 
THE HEAD OF OUR INTELLIGENCE 
AGENCY.
DO YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD TALK
TO THOSE OTHER PEOPLE AND FIND 
OUT WHETHER THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
IS RIGHT?
>> MY RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GET 
YOU THE WHISTLE-BLOWER LETTER, 
THE COMPLAINT OF THE INFORMATION
RELEASED.
I HAVE DONE MY RESPONSIBILITY.
THAT IS ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE 
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THIS 
COMMITTEE.

English: 
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS, 
DIRECTOR. 
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SAYS I AM 
CONCERNED THAT THESE ACTIONS 
POSE RISKS TO U.S. NATIONAL 
SECURITY AND UNDERMINE THE U.S. 
GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS TO DETER 
AND COUNTER FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
IN U.S. ELECTIONS.
YOU WOULD AGREE IF THERE'S A 
CREDIBLE ALLEGATION ALONG THOSE 
LINES THAT WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE
IT?
>> I AGREE IF THERE'S ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE -- THE COMPLAINT IS
NOT ABOUT ELECTION INTERFERENCE.
IT WAS ABOUT A CLASSIFIED 
CONFIDENTIAL DIPLOMATIC 
CONVERSATION -- 
>> INVOLVING ELECTION 
INTERFERENCE BY THE PRESIDENT, 
SOUGHT BY THE PRESIDENT.
THAT DOESN'T TAKE IT OUT OF THE 
REALM OF SEEKING FOREIGN 
ASSISTANCE.
IT MAKES IT ALL THE MORE 
PERNICIOUS.
WOULDN'T YOU AGREE.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE 
IGIC'S ASSESSMENT THAT IT WAS A 
CREDIBLE MATTER.
>> THE WHISTLE-BLOWER NEXT SAYS 
NAME LE HE, THE PRESIDENT, 
SOUGHT TO PRESSURE THE UKRAINIAN

English: 
LEADER TO TAKE ACTIONS TO HELP 
THE PRESIDENT'S 2020 RE-ELECTION
BID.
YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THAT SHOULD
BE INVESTIGATED?
>> NOT NECESSARILY, SIR.
IT WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE 
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
>> NO, IT WASN'T.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
CONCLUDED THAT THIS WOULDN'T 
VIOLATE THE ELECTION LAWS.
NOW, NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND HOW 
THEY COULD REACH THAT CONCLUSION
AFTER THE TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN 
THROUGH, BUT NONETHELESS, THEY 
DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THE FBI TO 
INVESTIGATE IT.
YOU WOULD AGREE SOMEONE SHOULD 
INVESTIGATE THIS, WOULDN'T YOU?
>> I REFERRED IT.
IF I DIDN'T, I WOULD NOT HAVE 
REFERRED IT TO THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT AND TO THE FBI.
>> WELL, THEN I'M GLAD THAT 
WE'RE IN AGREEMENT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SAYS THEY 
TOLD ME THAT THERE WAS ALREADY A
DISCUSSION ONGOING WITH WHITE 
HOUSE LAWYERS ABOUT HOW TO TREAT
THE CALL BECAUSE OF THE 
LIKELIHOOD AND THE OFFICIALS 
RETELLING THEY HAD WITNESSED THE
PRESIDENT ABUSE HIS OFFICE FOR 
PERSONAL GAIN.
YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THAT SHOULD
BE INVESTIGATED, WOULDN'T YOU?
>> ALL I KNOW IS THAT THAT IS 
THE ALLEGATION.
>> AND IT'S CREDIBLE AND 

English: 
THEREFORE SHOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED, RIGHT?
>> WELL, AGAIN, IT IS HEARSAY 
SECOND HAND INFORMATION.
IT SHOULD COME TO THIS COMMITTEE
FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND YOU HAVE IT.
YOU HAVE THE DOCUMENTS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT
WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT YOU 
THINK THE COMMITTEE SHOULD 
INVESTIGATE IT.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER SAYS DONALD 
TRUMP EXPRESSED HIS CONVICTION 
THAT THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT WILL BE ABLE TO 
QUICKLY IMPROVE UKRAINE'S IMAGE 
AND COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION 
OF CASES THAT HAVE HELD THAT 
COOPERATION BETWEEN UKRAINE AND 
THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS THE WHISTLE-BLOWER 
CITING UKRAINIAN READ OUT.
YOU WOULD AGREE IF THEY'RE 
TALKING ABOUT INVESTIGATING 
BIDEN AND HIS SON AND THAT THAT 
IS HELD BACK -- THE FAILURE TO 
DO THAT HAS HELD BACK 
COOPERATION BETWEEN OUR TWO 
COUNTRIES, THAT SHOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED, RIGHT?
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, I DON'T 
AGREE WITH ANY OF THAT.
I DID NOT AGREE THAT IT SHOULD 
BE INVESTIGATED.
WHAT I SAID WAS I COMPLIED WITH 
MY REQUIREMENT TO SEND YOU THE 
DOCUMENTS.

English: 
>> I UNDERSTAND -- 
>> THIS COMMITTEE AND THEN IT IS
UP TO THE CHAIR, THE RANKING 
MEMBER AND THESE COMMITTEE 
MEMBERS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO 
WITH THAT INFORMATION.
I'M IN NO POSITION TO TELL THE 
CHAIR OR THE COMMITTEE TO DO AN 
INVESTIGATION OR NOT DO AN 
INVESTIGATION.
>> OKAY.
I FIND IT REMARKABLE THAT THE 
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL 
INTELLIGENCE DOESN'T THINK 
CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS OF SOMEONE 
SEEKING FOREIGN ASSISTANCE IN A 
U.S. ELECTION SHOULD BE 
INVESTIGATED.
LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FURTHER SAYS 
IN THE DAYS FOLLOWING THE PHONE 
CALL I LEARNED FROM MULTIPLE 
U.S. OFFICIALS THAT SENIOR WHITE
HOUSE OFFICIALS HAD INTERVENED 
TO LOCKDOWN ALL THE RECORDS OF 
THE PHONE CALL.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REASON TO 
BELIEVE THAT THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER'S ALLEGATION 
THERE IS INCORRECT?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER IT IS 
CORRECT OR INCORRECT.
>> SOMEONE SHOULD FIND OUT, 
THOUGH, RIGHT?
>> EXCUSE ME?
>> SOMEONE SHOULD FIND OUT IF 
IT'S CORRECT, THOUGH, SHOULDN'T 
THEY?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN 
INCORRECT ALLEGATION.
I DO NOT KNOW.
AGAIN, THAT IS THE WORK, THAT IS
THE BUSINESS OF THE EXECUTIVE 
BRANCH OF THE WHITE HOUSE AND 

English: 
THE OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE --
>> CORRUPTION IS NOT THE 
BUSINESS OR IT SHOULD NOT BE -- 
>> NO, THE WHITE HOUSE DECIDES 
TO DO WITH THEIR PRIVILEGED 
COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION, 
I BELIEVE, IS THE BUSINESS OF 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
>> DO YOU BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE 
EVEN IF THAT COMMUNICATION 
INVOLVES CRIME OR FRAUD?
>> ANY CRIME OR FRAUD -- 
>> ANY CRIME OF FRAUD OR 
INSTANCES OF WRONGDOING SHOULD 
BE REFERRED TO THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT FOR INVESTIGATION.
AS I DID.
>> THE WHISTLE-BLOWER FURTHER 
ALLEGES THAT WHITE HOUSE 
OFFICIALS TOLD THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER THEY WERE 
DIRECTED BY WHITE HOUSE LAWYERS 
TO REMOVE THE ELECTRONIC 
TRANSCRIPT THAT IS OF THE CALL 
FROM THE COMPUTER SYSTEM IN 
WHICH SUCH TRANSCRIPTIONS ARE 
TYPICALLY STORED.
AND INSTEAD IT WAS LOADED INTO A
SEPARATE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM THAT 
IS USED -- OTHERWISE USED TO 

English: 
STORE AND HANDLE CLASSIFIED 
INFORMATION OF A SPECIALLY 
SENSITIVE NATURE.
ONE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL 
DESCRIBED THIS ACT AS AN ABUSE 
OF THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
I DO NOT KNOW WHETHER SIMILAR 
MEASURES WERE TAKEN TO RESTRICT 
ACCESS TO OTHER RECORDS OF THE 
CALL SUCH AS CONTEMPORANEOUS 
HANDWRITTEN NOTES TAKEN BY THOSE
WHO LISTENED AND WE SHOULD FIND 
OUT, SHOULDN'T WE?
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, WHEN I 
RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM MICHAEL
ATKINSON ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 
HE CONCURRENTLY SENT A LETTER TO
THE OFFICE OF WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL ASKING THE WHITE HOUSE 
COUNSEL TO CONTROL AND KEEP ANY 
INFORMATION THAT PERTAINED TO 
THAT PHONE CALL ON THE 25th.
IT WAS A LENGTHY LETTER.
MICHAEL WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS
IT BETTER, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT
THE ICIG -- I KNOW THAT THE ICIG
SENT A LETTER TO THE WHITE HOUSE
COUNSEL REQUESTING THAT THEY 
KEEP ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.
>> BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IF 
THERE'S A CREDIBLE ALLEGATION 
FROM THIS CREDIBLE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER, THAT IF WHITE 

English: 
HOUSE OFFICIALS WERE MOVING 
THESE RECORDS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT 
PURPOSE IN AN EFFORT TO COVER UP
ESSENTIALLY POTENTIAL 
MISCONDUCT, THAT OUGHT TO BE 
LOOKED INTO.
YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, 
WOULDN'T YOU?
>> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, 
WHEN THIS ALLEGATION CAME 
FORWARD, THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER 
COMPLAINT ON THE 12th OF AUGUST,
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE TIMELINE
WAS AS FAR AS WHETHER OR NOT THE
WHITE HOUSE, THE NATIONAL 
SECURITY COUNCIL OR ANYBODY 
INVOLVED IN THAT CONVERSATION, 
WHAT THEY DID WITH THE 
TRANSCRIPTS, WHERE THEY PUT 
THEM.
I JUST HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO 
KNOWLEDGE NOR THE TIMELINE OF 
THAT, CHAIRMAN.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD 
BE UNDER MY AUTHORITY OR 
RESPONSIBILITY.
>> THE WHISTLE-BLOWER MAKES A 
SERIES OF ALLEGATIONS INVOLVING 
MR. GIULIANI, CITES THE REPORT 
IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES" ABOUT 
HIS PLANNED TRANSCRIPT TO 
UKRAINE TO PRESS THE UKRAINIAN 
GOVERNMENT TO PURSUE 
INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD HELP 
THE PRESIDENT IN HIS 2020 

English: 
RE-ELECTION BID.
YOU WOULD AGREE IF THE PRESIDENT
WAS INSTRUCTING HIS PERSONAL 
LAWYER TO SEEK, AGAIN, FOREIGN 
HELP IN THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL 
ELECTION, THAT THAT WOULD BE 
IMPROPER, I BELIEVE MUELLER 
DESCRIBED SUCH EFFORTS TO SEEK 
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AS UNETHICAL,
UNPATRIOTIC, WOULD YOU AGREE 
THAT TO SEEK FOREIGN ASSISTANCE 
THAT WAY WOULD BE UNITHICCAL, 
UNPATRIOTIC AND POSSIBLY A 
VIOLATION OF LAW?
>> I BELIEVE THAT MR. GIULIANI 
IS THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL 
LAWYER.
AND WHATEVER CONVERSATION THAT 
THE PRESIDENT HAS WITH HIS 
PERSONAL LAWYER, I WOULD 
IMAGINE, WOULD BE BY 
CLIENT-ATTORNEY PRIVILEGE.
I HAVE IN NO POSITION TO 
CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
UNITED STATES ON HOW HE WANTS TO
CONDUCT THAT AND I HAVE NO 
KNOWING OF WHAT MR. GIULIANI 

English: 
DOES OR DOES NOT DO.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE LAST
COUPLE OF ALLEGATIONS OF THE 
WHISTLE-BLOWER.
I LEARNED FROM U.S. OFFICIALS 
THAT ON OR AROUND 14 MAY THE 
PRESIDENT STRENGTHED VICE 
PRESIDENT PENCE TO CANCEL HIS 
PLANNED TRAVEL TO UKRAINE TO 
ATTEND PRESIDENT
ACCORDING TO THESE OFFICIALS IT 
WAS MADE CLEAR TO THEM THAT HE 
DIDN'T WANT TO MEET WITH 
ZELENSKY UNTIL ZELENSKY CHOSE 
HOW TO ACT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE.
UNCLASSIFIED LETTER OR MEETING 
WITH A PHONE CALL PRESIDENT 

English: 
ZELENSKY WOULD DEPEND ON WHETHER
ZELENSKY SHOWED WILLINGNESS TO 
PLAY BALL.
DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IT WAS 
PULLED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR 
NOT ZELENSKY WOULD, QUOTE, PLAY 
BALL?
>> NO, I DO NOT.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SITUATION 
AWARENESS, NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY 
OF THOSE FACTS. 
>> WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IF THE 
VICE PRESIDENT'S TRIP WAS 
CANCELED IN ORDER TO PUT 
PRESSURE ON UKRAINE TO 
INVESTIGATE MR. BIDEN THAT THAT 
WOULD BE UNETHICAL AND 
POTENTIALLY A CRIME?
>> I DO NOT KNOW WHY THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
DID NOT DO THAT.
I DO KNOW WHAT THE ALLEGATION 
WAS WITHIN THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT AND I DON'T KNOW 
WHETHER THAT INFORMATION IS 
ACCURATE OR NOT, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> FINALLY THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
SAYS ON JULY 18, INFORMED 

English: 
DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES THAT 
THE PRESIDENT EARLIER THAT MONTH
HAD ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO 
SUSPEND ALL U.S. SECURITY 
ASSISTANCE TO UKRAINE.
NEITHER OMB OR NOR NSC STAFF 
KNEW WHY THIS INSTRUCTION HAD 
BEEN ISSUED.
SENATOR McCONNELL SAID THE OTHER
DAY HE SPOKE WITH THE SECRETARY 
OF DEFENSE AND SECRETARY OF 
STATE AND HE DIDN'T KNOW WHY THE
INSTRUCTION HAD BEEN GIVEN.
DOESN'T THAT STRIKE YOU AS 
SUSPICIOUS, DIRECTer, THAT NO 
ONE ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY 
STAFF, NO ONE IN THE SENIOR 
LEADERSHIP, APPARENTLY, OF THE 
PARTY HERE IN CONGRESS THAT 
APPROVED THE AID UNDERSTOOD WHY 
THE PRESIDENT WAS SUSPENDING 
AID, DOESN'T THAT STRIKE YOU AS 
JUST A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS?
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, I'M JUST 
UNAWARE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, 
HOW THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE.
AND ONCE AGAIN, NO SITUATION 
AWARENESS OF WHAT HAPPENED, 
WITHHOLDING FUNDING OF MILITARY 
AID. 
>> AS A MILITARY MAN, IF THIS 
MILITARY AID WAS HELD FROM AN 
ALLY THAT IS FIGHTING OFF 

English: 
PUTIN'S RUSSIA AND WAS DONE SO 
TO BE USED AS LEVERAGE TO GET 
DIRT IN A U.S. POLITICAL 
CAMPAIGN, DON'T YOU THINK THAT 
SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED?
>> I HAVE NO REASON TO 
BELIEVE -- I DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
I HAVE NO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
IF THAT WAS WHEN WOULD OR WHY IT
WAS WHEN WOULD, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
>> I CAN TELL YOU, WE ARE GOING 
TO FIND OUT.
DIRECTOR, I WANT TO THANK YOU 
FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE TODAY AND 
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR SERVICE
AS MY COLLEAGUE UNDERSCORED, MR.
WELCH, AND I COMPLETELY SHARE 
HIS SENTIMENT.
NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
YOUR DEVOTION TO THE COUNTRY.
NO ONE HAS ANY QUESTION ABOUT 
YOUR ACTING IN GOOD FAITH.
I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR.
I THINK YOU'RE A GOOD AND 
HONORABLE MAN.
LIKE MY COLLEAGUES, I DON'T 
AGREE WITH THE DECISIONS YOU 
MAY.
I AGREE WITH THE INSPECTOR 

English: 
GENERAL'S VIEW OF THE LAW.
AND I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT 
THE MESSAGE THIS HAS SENT TO 
OTHER WHISTLE BLOWERS ABOUT 
WHETHER THE SYSTEM REALLY WORKS.
IF SOMEONE CAN STOP THE 
COMPLAINT FROM GETTING TO 
CONGRESS THEN THE MOST SERIOUS 
COMPLAINTS MIGHT NEVER GET HERE.
I WANT TO THANK THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER FOR THEIR COURAGE.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO STEP 
FORWARD.
INDEED, WE KNOW FROM THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT THERE 
WERE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT HAVE 
NONL OF MANY OF THE SAME EVENTS.
AND I WOULD JUST SAY TO THOSE 
SEVERAL OTHERS THAT HAVE 
KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE EVENTS, I 
HOPE THAT THEY, TOO, WOULD SHOW 
THE SAME KIND OF COURAGE AND 
PATRIOTISM THAT THIS 
WHISTLEBLOWER HAS SHOWN.
WE ARE DEPENDENT ON PEOPLE OF 
GOOD FAITH TO STEP FORWARD WHEN 
THEY SEE EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING.
THE SYSTEM WON'T WORK OTHERWISE.
AND I HAVE TO SAY TO OUR FRIENDS
IN UKRAINE WHO MAY BE WATCHING 
JUST HOW DISTRESSING IT IS, THAT
AS THEIR COUNTRY FIGHTS TO 

English: 
LIBERATE ITSELF FROM RUSSIAN 
OPPRESSION, AS IT FIGHTS TO ROOT
OUT CORRUPTION IN THEIR OWN 
COUNTRY THAT WHAT THEY WOULD BE 
TREATED TO BY THE PRESIDENT OF 
THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE THE 
HIGHEST FORM OF CORRUPTION IN 
THIS COUNTRY.
THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES WOULD BE, INSTEAD OF A 
CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN 
RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW, 
WOULD INSTEAD BE REINFORCING A 
MESSAGE WITH THE NEW UKRAINIAN 
PRESIDENT WHO WAS ELECTED TO 
ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.
THAT INSTEAD THE MESSAGE WOULD 
BE YOU CAN USE YOUR JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT, CALL BILL BARR.
YOU CAN USE OUR JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT TO MANUFACTURE DIRT 
ON AN OPPONENT.
THAT THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.
YOU CAN USE FOREIGN MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE, VITAL MILITARY 
ASSISTANCE AS A LEVER TO GET 
ANOTHER COUNTRY TO DO SOMETHING 
UNETHICAL.
THE IDEA THAT A FELLOW 
STRUGGLING DEMOCRACY WOULD HEAR 
THOSE MESSAGES FROM THE 
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, 

English: 
I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE PEOPLE
OF UKRAINE, WE SUPPORT YOU IN 
YOUR FIGHT WITH RUSSIA.
WE SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR STRUGGLE 
FOR DEMOCRACY.
WE SUPPORT YOU IN YOUR EFFORTS 
TO ROOT OUT CORRUPTION.
AND WHAT YOU ARE WITNESSING AND 
WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN THE 
ACTIONS OF THIS PRESIDENT IS NOT
DEMOCRACY.
IT IS THE VERY NEGATION.
WHAT YOU SAW ON THIS COMMITTEE 
IS DEMOCRACY, AS UGLY AS IT CAN 
BE, AS PERM AS IT CAN BE, AS 
INFURIATING AS IT CAN BE.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY.
THIS IS DEMOCRACY.
THANK YOU, DIRECTOR.
WE'RE ADJOURNED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. 
CHAIRMAN.
>> CHAIRMAN SCHIFF, CONCLUDING 
THAT SESSION ABOUT 2 1/2 HOURS 
LONG, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE.
QUESTIONS FOR JOSEPH MAGUIRE, 
THE ACTING DNI.

English: 
THERE IS A LOT TO DIGEST HERE.
IT BEGAN A FEW HOURS AGO WITH 
THE RELEASE OF THAT 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER IS, EVEN THE 
GENDER, BUT THE INFORMATION 
CONTAINED IN THE REPORT IS 
COMPELLING AND HAS LED TO A LOT 
OF QUESTIONS, AMONG THE 
CONCLUSIONS OR AMONG THE 
COMPLAINTS THAT THE PRESIDENT 
USED THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE TO 
SOLICIT INTERFERENCE FROM A 
FOREIGN COUNTRY, THAT THERE'S AN
EFFORT BY A WHITE HOUSE TO LOCK 
DOWN THE CONVERSATION WITH THE 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT, TO LOCK 
DOWN THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE JULY 
PHONE CALL.
THE COMPLAINER SAID TRUMP'S 
ALCOHOS POSED A RISK TO 
NATIONAL SECURITY.
KNOWING MUCH OF THIS CAME FROM 
THIRD HAND, THE COMPLAINANT 
HEARING FROM OTHER STAFFERS WHO 
HAD THIS INFORMATION.
SO, LET'S WALK THROUGH IT HERE A
LITTLE BIT.
I'VE GOT ANDREA MITCHELL HERE.
CHUCK TODD, LET ME GO TO YOU 
FIRST.
THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE 
MUELLER CASE IN THAT THE 
INFORMATION HAS COME VERY 
QUICKLY.

English: 
ARE DEMOCRATS SITTING IN A PLACE
RIGHT NOW WHERE THEY'RE SAYING 
WE'VE GOT IT, WE'VE GOT THE 
CASE?
>> I THINK THEY THINK THEY 
HAVE -- I THINK THEY FEEL LIKE 
THEY HAVE SOME BREAD CRUMBS TO 
BUILD A CASE.
I WANT TO FOLLOW UP, THOUGH, ON 
SOMETHING WE SAID WHEN WE CUT IN
JUST BEFORE THE END OF THE 
HEARING AND I MADE AN 
OBSERVATION, THAT THEY SPENT 
MORE TIME ABOUT HOW THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT WAS 
HANDLED VERSUS WHAT WAS IN THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT.
CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF WAS OBVIOUSLY
NOT HEARING US AT THE TIME BUT 
IT MIGHT HAVE FELT THAT WAY TO 
SOME.
IT WAS FASCINATING THE LAST 20 
MINUTES THAT HE USED HIS 
CHAIRMAN'S PREROGATIVE THERE AND
SURFACED UP SOME OF THE 
WHISTLEBLOWER REPORT, KNOWING 
THAT MR. MAGUIRE COULDN'T SAY 
ANYTHING BEYOND WHAT HE SAID BUT
GETTING THAT OUT THERE, SORT OF,
FRANKLY, EXPLAINING WHY THEY'RE 
THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, IF YOU
WILL, THE CHIEF ALLEGATION.

English: 
NOW HERE IS WHAT I TALK ABOUT, 
THE BREAD CRUMBS.
I MEAN, LOOK, THE PERSON IN THE 
HOTTEST OF ALL WATER TODAY 
BESIDES A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL IS
CONCERNED IS THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL.
THAT IS WHERE I THINK THE MOST 
SKEPTICISM IS THERE.
OKAY, THEY WENT TO -- SOMEHOW 
WENT TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS REFERRED TO THE JUSTICE 
DEPARTMENT FOR A POSSIBLE 
CRIMINAL VIOLATION.
THAT JUST DEPARTMENT THEN 
DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO 
CRIME COMMITTED.
AND THEN WE FIND OUT, WAIT A 
MINUTE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS
NAME DROPPED QUITE A BIT BY THE 
PRESIDENT IN THE PHONE CALL 
ITSELF.
SO I DO THINK THAT THIS IS GOING
TO INVITE A LOT MORE SCRUTINY 
FROM CONGRESS ON THE ROLE BILL 
BARR PLAYED AND I THINK THEY'LL 
SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO 
SAY NO INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN 
DONE, TWO WEEKS BY AN IG IS NOT 
AN INVESTIGATION.
ALL THAT SIMPLY IS, IS AN 
ATTEMPT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE NOT
MAKING IT UP.
OVER TWO WEEKS, HE WAS ABLE TO 
SEE THAT THE ACCUSATION WAS 
CREDIBLE AND WORTHY OF MORE 

English: 
INVESTIGATION HERE, BUT I'LL 
TELL YOU THIS.
I THINK THE ODDITIES OF THE 
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S ROLE IN ALL
OF THIS AND THE ATTORNEY 
GENERAL'S ROLE IN ALL OF THIS, I
THINK, PROVIDES THIS -- PROVIDES
THE TRAIL THE DEMOCRATS, I 
THINK, ARE GOING TO GO DOWN AND 
FRANKLY MIGHT FIND THE MOST 
FRUITFUL. 
>> LET ME GO TO HALLIE JACKSON 
RIGHT NOW, WHO HAS RETURNED TO 
THE WHITE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT EN ROUTE TO THE 
WHITE HOUSE AS WELL. 
>> Reporter: YEAH. 
>> HALLIE, WHAT'S THE BUZZ 
AROUND THE WHITE HOUSE?
>> Reporter: COUPLE OF THINGS, 
LESTER.
LET'S SET THE STAGE HERE.
THE PRESIDENT, IT'S A QUICK 
FLIGHT FROM NEW YORK TO 
WASHINGTON.
WE'LL BE HEARING FROM HIM 
DIRECTLY FOR-TO-WHAT MAYBE IS 
HIS FIRST REACTION TO WHAT WE'VE
SEEN THE PAST FEW HOURS OR SO, 
IF THE PRESIDENT DOES DECIDE TO 
STOP HERE AT THE WHITE HOUSE AND
TAKE QUESTIONS FROM REPORTER, AS
HE OFTEN DOES.
THE BUZZ, I CAN TELL YOU, JIVES 
SO FAR WITH WHAT WE'VE HEARD IN 
THE LINE OF QUESTIONS FROM SOME 
OF THOSE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS ON 

English: 
THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE 
COMMITTEE, TRYING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
OR PORTRAY THIS AS ESSENTIALLY A
WITCH HUNT IN THE WORDS OF THE 
PRESIDENT, AN UNFAIR ATTACK, 
ESSENTIALLY, ON PRESIDENT TRUMP.
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'VE HEARD 
NOW, OFFICIALLY, FROM FOLKS HERE
AT THE WHITE HOUSE.
THAT IS THAT THERE'S NOTHING TO 
SEE IN THIS WHISTLE BLOWER 
COMPLAINT, ESSENTIALLY CALLING 
IT A COBBLED TOGETHER NARRATIVE 
OF THIRD-HAND ACCOUNTS AND OTHER
NEWS SOURCING.
LET ME SAY THIS, THOUGH, LESTER,
THERE ARE PIECES THAT HAVE BEEN 
REVEALED AND YOU HEARD 
CONGRESSMAN SCHIFF GET TO SOME 
OF THEM IN THAT LAST PIECE, THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED.
OTHER PHONE CALLS, BESIDES THIS 
ONE BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND 
UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY HAS
BEEN SHIFTED INTO THIS OTHER 
ELECTRONIC SYSTEM MEANT FOR 
STROEMLY SENSITIVE NATIONAL 
SECURITY CALLS.
THAT'S AT THE CRUX AT WHAT 
DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING A OFFER-UP
BY THE WHITE HOUSE AND PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
ACCORDING TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER 
COMPLAINT THE ALLEGATION IS THAT
IT IS NOT JUST THIS CALL.

English: 
THERE ARE OTHERS INVOLVED IN AS 
WELL.
THAT, I THINK, WILL BE ONE OF 
THE DISCUSSION POINTS AND ONE OF
THE KEY QUESTIONS THAT FOLKS 
WILL BE DRIVING AT HERE OVER THE
NEXT SEVERAL DAYS.
THAT'S NOT GOING AWAY ANY TIME 
SOON, LESTER. 
>> DO YOU GET ANY SENSE OF 
WEARINESS AT WHITE HOUSE FROM 
STAFFERS IN GENERAL THAT HERE WE
ARE AGAIN ON THE DEFENSE?
>> Reporter: IT'S INTERESTING, 
LESTER.
THEY HAVE SPENT TWO YEARS ON THE
DEFENSE AS IT RELATED TO THE 
SPECIAL COUNSEL'S INVESTIGATION.
THE PRESIDENT IS ACKNOWLEDGING, 
WE NOW HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE 
PHONE CALL WITH PRESIDENT 
ZELENSKY, THE PRESIDENT 
ACKNOWLEDGING THIS CAME UP IN A 
CONVERSATION.
IN SOME WAYS THE UNDERLYING 
FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED ARE NOT 
IN DISPUTE.
ON THAT, PRESIDENT TRUMP, 
DEMOCRATS CAN AGREE.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT BLACK AND 
WHITE, THE SAME THING.
IT'S A FUNCTION OF HOW THEY 
INTERPRET IT.
WHEN YOU TALK TO SOME FOLKS 
BEHIND THE SCENES PRIVATELY, 
ALLIES OF THE PRESIDENT, PEOPLE 
IN THE PRESIDENT'S ORBIT, 
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF 
TREPIDATION HERE.
THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT WANT TO 
BE IMPEACHED.
THERE'S BLUSTER YOU'LL SEE 

English: 
PUBLICLY FROM THE PRESIDENT AND 
HIS TEAM.
HE DOESN'T WANT THIS.
THERE IS CONCERN THAT'S BUILDING
PRIVATELY, NOT PUBLICLY, ABOUT 
WHAT THIS COULD MEAN FOR 
PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS 
POLITICAL PROSPECTS. 
>> HALLIE, IF HE STEPS IN AND 
OUT FRONT OF THE ACCURACY, WE'LL
CERTAINLY SWITCH BACK YOUR WAY.
LET ME BRING UP ANDREA MITCHELL 
NOW.
LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WAS 
MENTIONED THERE.
ARE TENTACLES ALREADY GROWING 
FROM THIS SINCE YESTERDAY?
>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.
CHUCK MENTIONED WILLIAM BARR, 
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CLEARLY 
AND BARR'S LEADERSHIP OF IT AND 
DECISIONS IN THIS CASE AS WELL 
AS HIM BEING MENTIONED.
EVEN IF HE SAYS HE DID NOT DO 
ANYTHING ABOUT THE PRESIDENT'S 
PROMISES TO ZELENSKY OR 
INSTRUCTIONS OF ZELENSKY THAT 
HE, BARR, AND GIULIANI, COULD 
BOTH BE IN TOUCH ABOUT THIS 
CONSPIRACY.
EVEN IF BARR DID NOT DO 
ANYTHING, HE'S MENTIONED IN THAT
CALL AND SHOULD NOT, ARGUABLY, 
ACCORDING TO THE DEMOCRATS ON 
THIS COMMITTEE HAVE BEEN AT ALL 
IN MAKING A DECISION ABOUT 
WHETHER THIS COMPLAINT WENT 

English: 
FORWARD.
HE'S INVOLVED.
POMPEO IS INVOLVED, SECRETARY OF
STATE.
HE'S APPARENTLY ADDRESSING THIS 
NOW IN A NEWS CONFERENCE.
THE U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UKRAINE 
WAS FORCED OUT OF OFFICE IN 
APRIL AND MAY OF LAST YEAR, 
RECALLED AND THEN BASICALLY 
REMOVED FROM OFFICE AFTER 
OBJECTING, APPARENTLY, TO RUDY 
GIULIANI BEING INVOLVED IN ALL 
OF THIS. 
>> RUDY GIULIANI'S NAME IS 
PROMINENT IN THIS. 
>> HE IS INVOLVED IN THIS.
MIKE PENCE DIDN'T GO TO THE 
INAUGURAL OF ZELENSKY WHEN ALL 
OF THIS WAS TAKING PLACE.
HE WAS YANKED FROM THE OFFICIAL 
INAUGURAL DELEGATION AND RICK 
PERRY WAS SENT IN HIS PLACE.
MIKE PENCE WAS CLEARLY INVOLVED 
IN DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE IN 
THE WHITE HOUSE ABOUT PULLING 
HIM BACK.
A LOT OF TOP OFFICIALS ARE 
IMPLICATED. 
>> ANDREA THERE, AS WE SAID, A 
LOT TO DIGEST.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR COVERAGE FOR 
NOW.
WATCH FOR CONTINUING 
DEVELOPMENTS ON MSNBC AND NBC 
NEWS.COM AND, OF COURSE, I'LL BE
BACK WITH A COMPLETE WRAP-UP 
TONIGHT ON "NBC NIGHTLY NEWS" 

English: 
OR, AS EVENTS WARRANT, WE'LL 
JUMP ON THE AIR.
I'M LESTER HOLT, NBC NEWS, NEW 
YORK.
GOOD DAY, EVERYONE.
