Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

Good morning. In a little under an hour at 9AM ET the House Intelligence Committee will hear testimony from acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire.
My live-tweet thread begins here.
#WhistleblowerComplaint

@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews "This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's main
domestic political rivals. The President's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. AG Barr appears to be involved as well."

Whistleblower complaint available here: documentcloud.org/documents/6430…
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Maguire is seated.
#WhistleblowerComplaint

@CourthouseNews And away we go.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff will deliver opening remarks. The presidential oath of office requires POTUS to do two things: faithfully execute oath of office and protect the constitution.

But that can't be done if POTUS leaves his office undefended.

Trump betrayed his oath of office, his duty bound in the Constitution. Trump "sacrificed our national security and our constitution for his personal political benefit," Schiff says.

Ukraine was invaded by its neighbor, Russia, has remained occupied. Ukraine has "desperately" needed our help and for years we have given it, on a bipartisan basis. Until two mos. ago when it was held up "inexplicably" by Trump admin.

Zelensky was eager to establish himself as a new president and wanted two things: meet with Trump, get military help. So, what happened on the call?
Zelensky ingratiates himself says his nation wants more weapons to defend itself, Schiff says.

What does Trump say?
Schiff says it reads like a shakedown.
"We've been very good to your country..."
But Trump failed to see the reciprocity from Ukraine. Thus, the ask re: Bidens.

Had the whistleblower not come forward, Schiff says, perhaps no one would have ever realized this solicitation was happening again.

Schiff to Maguire - I was pleased you were chosen, your credentials are impressive, you have struck me as a good and decent man which makes your actions over the last month all the more bewildering

Why did Maguire need a second opinion on the word "shall" in context of "shall release"?
Why did he choose to allow the subject of the complaint to decide if he would play a role in releasing the complaint to Congress?

Ranking Republican Rep Devin Nunes thanks Schiff for propagandizing and collaborating with the media to push the impeachment of Trump.
Says media and democrats are drumming up whatever they want in order to do it.

Nunes says the whistleblower was found to have political bias against Trump.
True, that was determined by ICIG, but, it did not stop the same claims made by that same whistleblower from being found credible by ICIG.
Nunes did not address that. But he has said fake news 3x.

Maguire is sworn in.

FYI:

https://twitter.com/CourthouseNews/status/1177213681203142656

Maguire delivers opening remarks, speaks of 4 decades of public service.
"I am not partisan and I am not political. I believe in a life of service. I served under 8 presidents and I've taken the oath to the Constitution 11 times.... I come from a long line of public servants...

His credibility has never been questioned until today but says he will continue to defend the Constitution and uphold his responsibility to follow the law every step of the way.

Says he has respect for whistleblowers and the system, knows reporting waste, fraud and abuse is critical and should be brought fwd to Congress, always.

Now, to the complaint.

The complaint raised an urgent concern - a legally defined term in terms of Whisteblower Act - but before we get to whether it met that definition, Maguire says upon initial review, they were struck that the convo went on between POTUS and foreign leader.

Much of the info in the complaint was subject to exec privilege, a privilege he does not have authority to waive. Because of that, they were unable to immediately shrare details of the complaint with the committee.

He was required to fwd with 7 days of rec'ing it. But as previously explained, "urgent concern" is statutorily defined. Allegations must : assert flagrant, serious problem, abuse or violation of law and related to funding, administration of intel activity

The allegation didn't fall within that framework, so his office consulted with DOJ Office of Legal Counsel and they determined the same. He was not "legally required" under Whistleblower Act to transmit info to committee.

POTUS is not legally defined as a member of intel community and communication with foreign leader involved no intel information or activity aimed at collecting info, Maguire claims.

So, Maguire says he didn't have to legally turn it over. It was up to his discretion. But because he believed it was subject to exec privilege, that's why he held back at first.

"I believe I handled this matter in full compliance of the law at all times."

Schiff: Does he believe the whistleblower complaint alleged wrongdoing by POTUS?
Maguire says i's not up to him to make judgment calls on admin's foreign policy decisions
Schiff: But is that what the complaint alleged - that there was wrongoding?

Maguire says yes, thats what it says.
Did Maguire find the allegations credible?
That wasn't up to him, Maguire repeats. Only thing left to him was to decide: should I submit this within the 7 day timeline?

Schiff: Can we at least agree the whistleblower's complaint was credible?
Maguire concedes yes it was credible.
Schiff: Can we agree it was urgent, given that the aid was being withheld at the time of the call?

"It was urgent and important but my job is to comply with the Whistleblower Act and adhere to those terms" - Maguire

The complaint appeared to have matters of executive privilege. He wasn't authorized to waive matters involving that.

Schiff: Did WH assert executive privilege?
Maguire: They were working through exec priv procedures to decide whether to exert it.
Schiff: But they never did?
Maguire: if they did, we would not have released the letters yesterday.

Schiff is trying to nail down the sequence of events.
First party outside of his office to seek counsel about the complaint the White House?
Maguire; I have consulted with WH counsel and DOJ legal counsel.
But who did he go to first? OLC or WH first?

Maguire: Went to OLC first to see if it might meet exec priv. They reviewed it and they said it appears to be and until it was cleared, he did not have authority to send it forward to the committee. He worked with OLC for several weeks to get resolution.

Now Maguire says he went to the WH first.

Schiff says: were you aware that the WH counsel has taken the position that privilege applies to president when he wasn't POTUS, when he is, applies to people he talks to, people who talk about him.
Asks Maguire again why he went there first if he knew this?

Maguire says it seemed prudent that he go to a member of the executive branch because it concerned executive matters.

So Schiff says, OK, so Barr was also mentioned in the complaint. When you took it to the DOJ, run by Barr - why would you do that?
Maguire says the statutes were binding, no choice
Schiff: is it appropriate to go to the dept run by a person who is the subject of a complaint?

"When I saw this complaint, I knew it was a serious matter. I just thought it would be prudent...I had to be sure." - Maguire

Schiff again: Didn't the conflict of interest strike you?

Maguire says because it didn't rise to the level of "urgent concern" under statute, he had no choice to handle it other than how he did.

Why when POTUS called whistleblower a political hack, why did he remain silent? Maguire said he issued a statement to his work force ensuring he would provide protection to anyone who comes forward.

But the way things were blowing up, he says, he didnt think it was approp. to issue a press statement.
Schiff says, literally, nothing would have made people in his work force more confident than issuing a public statement condemning comments caling whistleblowers hacks etc.

Nunes asks Maguire if he is aware of any former DNIs who have testified publicly about whistleblower complaints? Or cases that were put into the spotlight? Is this the way to handle it?
Maguire; Unaware but "we're here today because this case is unique and unprecedented."

It involved individual who is not member of IC, involved exec privilege, Maguire says

Nunes sees that line of questioning doesn't have much growth, so now he's asking Maguire about media conspiracies.

Nunes could ask a lot of questions about the nature of the complaint, but he isn't. He's pedaling a theory that there are leaks inside the govt that purposefully disseminate information to the media.

Nunes to Maguire about the media: "Be careful what you say because they could use your words against you."

Michael Atkinson, Maguire's IG, - a Trump appointee - came forward about the complaint.
Maguire: But the question is did it rise to urgent concern...
Rep Himes interrupts and explains that he's underlining a critical point here - this wasn't a never-Trumper that brought it fwd

So, who brought it? Who decided?
Maguire then concedes: "Yes, this is still Atkinson's decision."

Himes: Did you or your office ever speak to POTUS about this complaint?
Maguire: Um... I'm the POTUS intelligence officer, I speak with him every week.

Maguire: My conversations with POTUS are privileged and it would be inappropriate for me, because it would destroy my relationship on any intel matters, to disclose conversations with POTUS.

Rep Terri Sewell: Does he understand how his own actions could trigger a chilling effect on other whistleblowers?
Maguire says he understands + says he tried to emphasize to those in his office. Adds not much is being done in his office today probably, ppl are watching this

Sewell agrees, in a nutshell says, yes, that's the point.. That's the problem. The fact that we are sitting here at a congressional hearing because of his actions in the run up.

Sewell: Will the whistleblower be able to come before the committee and congress and have full protections of Whistleblower Act?
Maguire: I'll do everything I can to ensure that.

Schiff: But do I have your assurance that the whistleblower could testify fully and freely and without "some minder" from the WH sitting behind them?
Maguire, quietly, "Yes, Congressman."

Republican Rep Mike Turner of Ohio: The conversation was "not okay" he says, wagging his finger, repeats "It was not OK"
But says we've seen this movie before, long before the July 25 call Trump had with Ukraine, he says. "The complaint we now have is based on hearsay. "

Again, yes, it is secondhand account but it was also found to be CREDIBLE by the departments that reviewed it.

Turner asks Maguire to explain Whistleblower Protection Act as it applies to IC. And how he is stuck in the middle of that statute and exec privilege.

Maguire: The IC cannot report any wrongdoing that comes from anywhere in the federal govt only inside IC with that, it was the "best vehicle" whistleblower had to use.
It was found to be credible and of urgent concern, he adds, but Maguire wanted a second opinion.

I must pause live-tweeting for a moment but I will resume shortly.

I'm back!

Maguire says though he doesnt know identity of whistleblower, he knows that Atkinson discussed he allegations with the WB who found them to be credible, and Maguire says he trusts Atkinson's judgment. But unaware whether Atkinson has completed an investigation into complaint

Rep Swalwell is up. He says in the complaint, the whistleblower immediately alleges that WH lawyers moved quickly to direct WH officials to move electronic transcripts to a secret classified system.

Maguire: All I know is that was the allegation
Swalwell: You know that and the first people you go to is the WH, yes or no?
Maguire: Yes

As director of national intel, wouldn't he want to know if records were being transferred because POTUS is trying to cover up something? Swalwell asks.
Maguire; "How the executive office or POTUS or nat sec council conducts their business - is their business."

Swalwell: Isn't protecting America's secrets your business?
It's all of our business, Maguire shoots back.

Is he responsible for preventing election interference by a foreign government?

Maguire: It's a top priority of the intel community.
Swalwell: Is it yours though?

Maguire says he believes it is, but "this call focused on a conversation with a foreign leader not election security."
Schiff: And if the convo involved asking a foreign leader for help, is that not interference?

Maguire hedges.

Rep Will Hurd, R-TX: Was ODNI aware of a decision to suspend Ukrainian aide as alleged in the complaint?
Maguire; No knowledge, unaware if anyone at ODNI was aware of that

Moments later, responding to Q. by Rep Will Hurd of Texas re: what he thinks the most important focus for intelligence community is:

Maguire: Protecting the sanctity of US elections is perhaps the most important job the IC has.

Rep Joaquin Castro of Texas now up. The complaint has been reviewed, the transcript reviewed. Is the complaint consistent with the transcript?
Maguire: yes, it is in alignment with what was released by president.

Castro reading from the complaint, on p.2:
"According to WH officials with direct knowledge of call, POTUS pressured Zelensky to initiate or continue investigation into activities of Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden, meet or speak with 2 people he named ...

explicitly as personal envoys (Giuliani and Barr)..."
Following along at home:
documentcloud.org/documents/6430…

Does Maguire have reason to doubt these things?
Maguire: As DNI, it is not my place to make sure it is credible. That is Atkinson's job. My only trouble is that it involves someone who is not in the intel community

But he admits it involved intel matters, involved matter including persons like pres and former VP. Does that qualify as an intelligence matter?
Maguire: I dont mean to say its a hypothetical question but... (he trails off for a moment)

Castro: But it's not hypothetical That's what Trump is asking Zelensky to do. Does it qualify as an intel matter the CIA would want to know about?
Maguire: The conversation...(Cross talk)

Castro: But that cannot be an ultimate shield against accountability or responsibility. The POTUS is not above the law. If you can't investigate, then who can?

"The complaint did not come to committee it did go to criminal division at DOJ for investigation. It was not swept under the rug," Maguire says.

Rep John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, has spent the first two minutes of his time for questions bashing the media and Democrats, saying that Maguire deserves an apology from Pelosi who "publicly accused him of a crime"

Ratcliffe says the whistleblower is "wrong." - has yet to explain why this is so.

But if Ratcliffe knows something about the call or the complaint, maybe he could share it with the class.

He's hinging his position on the whistleblower's information being secondhand.

Ratcliffe says the transcript is the best evidence the people have. The U.S. can solicit help from a foreign govenment when it pertains to an ongoing investigation therefore Trump's conduct was lawful, Ratcliffe says.

Rep Denny Heck - let's talk about May 7 2019. FBI dir. Wray testified before Senate: any public official or member of any campaign should immediately report to FBI any conversations with foreign actors about influencing or interfering with our election.

Does Maguire agree?
Yes, he says, and it was referred to the FBI.
Heck says: Oh? Who sent it? The president? Did he send it to the FBI? No. he didn't.

Rep Peter Welch, D-VT - Under Maguire's approach, no one would be investigating underlying conduct because in this case he believed executive privilege may have applied and the president, who had the conversation is above the law. Is that not a dilemma for the democracy?

Maguire: It was sent to the FBI
Welch: But did the FBI do a follow up?
Maguire doesn't know.
Welch: But Barr, one of the subjects mentioned in the complaint, has said no need to investigate further.

I'm paraphrasing here but Welch wrapped up basically saying "Seems legit"

Rep Maloney D-NY, I know your credibility is good, I know your background. But can you see why I question what happened here?
Maguire: Sir, this complaint came to me while I was still using Garmin to go to work.

Maloney: But when you were considering prudence, did you think it was prudent to give veto power to the two people implicated in complaint?
Maguire: I have to work with the situation as it is. Only the WH can determine exec priv.

Maloney: but you understand, if unchallenged, these allegations would have never made it to Congress?

Now, again, Maguire refuses to say whether or not he's discussed this directly with POTUS. It's protected, he repeats 3x during Maloney's questioning.

Schiff: You can say you did not discuss it. It doesn't get into the subject matter for you to say 'I did not discuss it'
Maguire: My conversation, no matter what the subject is, is privileged.

Maguire - US paid more than its fair share to protect the Ukraine. If others were willing to step up, US wouldn't have to defend as closely. Concedes hey need US aid
Rep Demings: The complaint outlines a scheme by POTUS to coerce Ukraine to do US bidding in exchange for aid

This whole issue is about Ukraine's position, their dependency on the U.S. and Trump's efforts to coerce them in an illegal and improper investigation, Demings says.
Does Maguire believe that's why the IG connected the information about suspended support for Ukraine?

Maguire will only say he believes IG Atkinson is respected and trustworthy, but the question for him boils down to where "he got stuck" - whether it had exec privilege.
"And I'm sorry," he says.

Story will update.
courthousenews.com/intelligence-c…
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews Maguire says he does not believe Sue Gordon or Dan Coats had any idea about the whistleblower complaint, not involved.

Nunes final remarks: says if Dems want to impeach, they need to vote on the floor. Apologizes to Maguire for being accused of crimes he hasnt committed.