Return to Transcripts main page
AT THIS HOUR
Continuing Coverage of the House Jusiciary Committee Hearing. Aired 11:30a-12p ET
Aired September 26, 2019 - 11:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MAGUIRE: I agree that our elections are sacred and we -- any interference from an outside source is -- is just -- not what we want to do.
HECK: And to solicit or accept it is illegal?
MAGUIRE: I don't know about that, I'm not a lawyer, sir. I don't mean to be evasive, but I can't --
HECK: So, you think it is OK for a public official to solicit or maybe OK? You do no know the law in this regard? You think it may be OK for a candidate or an elected official to solicit foreign interference in our election? I can not believe you're saying that. You're not really saying that, right?
MAGUIRE: I'm not saying that Congressman Heck, at all.
HECK: So, we should note that the FEC Chair was prompted to say this because it was just literally -- 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'd be -- he would consider accepting foreign help, and, of course, yesterday we learned that the president did, in fact -- did, in fact, do exactly that, solicited that help.
Director, whether it's this president or any president, do you believe it is OK for the President of the United States to pressure a foreign country into helping him or her win an election?
MAGUIRE: Congressman Heck, I believe that no one is above the law and we've discussed what we think applies to the law.
HECK: So, it is illegal to solicit?
MAGUIRE: No, I can't answer that. That's, again sir --
HECK: I can't reconcile your two statements. Is it OK for a president to pressure -- any president to pressure a foreign government for help to win an election?
MAGUIRE: It is unwarranted, it is unwelcome, it is bad for the nation to have outside interference, any foreign --
SCHIFF: Thank you.
HECK: And by extension, it would be equally unacceptable to extort that assistance as well?
MAGUIRE: I mean, all I know is that I have the transcripts, as you have. I have the whistleblower complaint as you have and --
HECK: I wasn't referring to the whistleblower complaint, but if any president were to do this, and I accept you answer, I think it's (inaudible) unacceptable, Director.
MAGUIRE: Yes sir.
HECK: I think it's wrong and I think we all know it. I think we were taught this at a very young age, and there's a voice within most of us, unfortunately, evidently, not all of us, that suggests that it is wrong. It is illegal and it is wrong. And I think you sir. And with that, I yield back.
MAGUIRE: But, Congressman, if I many just ask -- answer, once again --
HECK: I've run out of time, sir.
MAGUIRE: Sir, no you've got -- oh --
SCHIFF: Director, you may answer.
MAGUIRE: Thank you.
SCHIFF: Director, go ahead. Feel free to respond.
MAGUIRE: Once again, it was referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
HECK: Not by the president.
MAGUIRE: No. By the -- by this office --
MAGUIRE: -- and by the Office of Legal -- by the ICI (ph) --
HECK: Director Wray said that any candidate or elected official should immediately report it. He didn't say that the Director of ONI should report it, although you should and you did, thank you. But the person involved did not do what Director Wray said should occur, period.
MAGUIRE: Thank you Congressman.
HECK: Thank you, sir.
SCHIFF: Mr. Welch.
WELCH: Thank you. Director, I want to say thank you. There's nobody in this room who can claim to have served their country longer and more valiantly than you. And I heard in your opening remarks that your family, before you, has been committed to this country. And I say, thank you.
Second, I appreciated your candor when, in your opening statement, you acknowledged that the whistleblower acted in good faith. And third, I appreciated your acknowledgement that the Inspector General also acted in good faith and according to his view of the law.
And I want to say this, when you said you were in a unique position, that's an understatement. You've got a complaint involving the President of the United States and also the United States Attorney General. I disagree with some of the decisions you made, but I have no doubt, what so ever, 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.
But I want ask a few questions about the extraordinary document that came to your attention. The DNI has jurisdiction over foreign interference in our elections, correct?
MAGUIRE: That's correct.
WELCH: And of course, you're aware, as we all are, of the Mueller Report and his indictments against 12 foreign nationals, Russians, who actively interfered in our election, correct?
MAGUIRE: I have read the report, yes Congressman.
WELCH: So, it's just a huge responsibility that your agency has. Correct? And in this case, because of the two things you mentioned, that the president is the one person that's above the Intelligence Community and your sense about executive privilege, you didn't -- you did not forward the complaint to us, correct?
MAGUIRE: I did not -- yes, Congressman Welch, because I was still working with the White House --
WELCH: No, I understand that. You -- you've been very clear on that.
MAGUIRE: Yes sir.
WELCH: But, let me just 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 access to and had a conversation, as a result of that, with a foreign -- the leader of a foreign country, and asked that person for a favor, of the U.S. Senator, let's say, of providing dirt on a political opponent. Is that something that you would see that should be forwarded to this committee?
MAGUIRE: Congressman I don't mean to be disrespectful but it's very difficult to answer hypothetical questions but I'm -- I'm not sure I understand --
WELCH: Well I won't make it hypothetical, let's say instead of being a conversation between President and the President of Ukraine, who is a U.S. Senator who, let's say was the head of the Foreign Relations Committee and was asking for the foreign leader --
MAGUIRE: I understand, Sir.
WELCH: So would you forward that to our committee?
MAGUIRE: Sir, that would not be -- once again I think I mentioned that a little bit early 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 investigations.
WELCH: Well, I'd respectfully disagree with you because obviously that would be a solicitation by that U.S. Senator for interference in our elections and that's in your jurisdiction, correct?
MAGUIRE: Well, it -- election -- election interference as a date (ph) yes Congressman Welch.
WELCH: OK, and --
MAGUIRE: Well once again congressman, although it is as far as what the legal responsibility to do in compliance with the intelligence reform -- act, the whistle blowing protection act, it does not -- the statute does not allow for that to be done.
WELCH: Well, I disagree with that --
MAGUIRE: Yes sir. (ph)
WELCH: But here's the dilemma that you are in and we're in, but we're going to now be able to follow up because executive privilege if it existed was waved. 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's a dilemma for a democracy, is it not?
MAGUIRE: The complaint was sanctioned the (ph) Federal Bureau of Investigation, totally disregarding any concern for --
WELCH: No. (ph)
MAGUIRE: -- executive privilege.
WELCH: I understand -- but the -- the Federal Bureau of Investigation never did a follow up investigation, right?
MAGUIRE: I -- I believe that they have concluded the investigation, I'm not sure in addition to being involved with this matter here, I also have other pressing matters --
WELCH: -- And --
MAGUIRE: -- director (ph) I apologize.
WELCH: -- in (ph) the Justice Department, but by Mr. Barr who is a subject of the complaint is the department that provided the opinion that there's no action to be taken.
MAGUIRE: I believe that the Attorney General was mentioned in the complaint --
MAGUIRE: -- not necessarily subject of the complaint, sir.
WELCH: You know, well, he was --
WELCH: -- he was mentioned.
MAGUIRE: Yes sir.
WELCH: Alright, I yield back, thank you.
MAGUIRE: Congressman Welch, thank you.
WELCH: Thank you.
SCHIFF: Mr. Maloney.
MALONEY: Director Maguire, what was your first day on the job?
MAGUIRE: My first day on the job was Friday the 16th of August, and I think I set a new record in the administration for being subpoenaed before any other --
MALONEY: Yes, you had a -- you had a heck of a first week, didn't you sir?
MAGUIRE: Not (ph) that much going for me sir.
MALONEY: The complaint is dated August 12th. Whatever else you've done right in your career sir; your timing is -- is -- it's got (ph) to be something you worried (ph) about.
MAGUIRE: Congressman, I think that Dan Coats timing is better than mine.
MALONEY: Sir, look, there's been a lot of talk here today about the process, I -- I -- I just want to just summarize a couple of things, if that's OK?
MAGUIRE: Yes sir.
MALONEY: And so your -- your -- in your first couple days on the job, sir, you're -- you're hit with this complaint. And -- and it says that the President of the United States pressured a foreign leader to help him investigate a political opponent and -- and that political opponents son, in fact. That that president asked the foreign leader to -- to work with private citizen Mr. Giuliani and the Attorney General of the United States, Bill Barr, on that scheme.
And the president at that time, not in dispute, was withholding $391 million of assistance, holding over that Ukrainian president's head. That Ukrainian president raises in the conversation how -- U.S. military assistance, javelins (ph), defensive weapons. He's got Russian troops in his country. The wolf is at the door.
The president asks for a favor, complains about Ukrainian reciprocity, not getting enough from you, that's what reciprocity is, right? We've got to get something from you if we're giving something to you. He names the political opponents by name, the Bidens.
The Ukrainian president says he'll do it, that he'll do the investigation. That's what you're hit with. And you're looking at that complaint, that in the second paragraph alleges serious 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 compliant, sir, it also suggests the Attorney General could be involved. And the 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 decision and the judgment in those decisions. See any conflicts here?
MAGUIRE: Congressman Maloney, I've -- 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 am the acting DNI and I was still using Garmin to get to work, that this came to my attention involving the President of the United States and the important matter of this. In the past, as I said before, I have always worked with legal counsel, because of the magnitude and the importance of this decision --
MALONEY: But sir, if I may --
MAGUIRE: -- I just -- sir, as a -- as a -- as a Naval Officer for years, I just thought it would be prudent --
MALONEY: I understand the prudent point.
MAGUIRE: And I also want to say, sir, if I may, my life would have been a heck of lot simpler without becoming the most famous man in the United States. MALONEY: Don't doubt that at all, sir. My question, sir, is when you were considering prudence, did you think it was prudent to give a veto power over whether the Congress saw this serious allegation of wrongdoing to the two people implicated by it? Is that prudent?
MAGUIRE: I have to work with the situation as it is, Congressman Maloney. 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 Cousel.
MALONEY: And you understand -- you understand, sir, that if unchallenged by your own Inspector General, you decision, that prudence would have prevented these serious allegations from ever reaching 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 of the United States at any time about this complaint?
MAGUIRE: Congressman, once again, I am the president's Intelligence Officer. I speak to the president. I can -- I cannot say one way --
MALONEY: Mr. Director, I know you speak to the president a lot, it's a simple question, sir. Did you speak to him about this whistleblower complaint, yes or no?
MAGUIRE: Congressman Maloney, my conversation with the President of the United States is privileged.
MALONEY: So, you're not denying that you spoke to the president? I'm not asking for the contents, sir. I don't want the content. Did you or did you not speak to the president about this whistleblower complaint?
MAGUIRE: 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 --
MALONEY: Not asking for the content. Are you denying that you spoke to the president?
MAGUIRE: I am just telling you once again, I speak to the president, and anything I say to the president is confidential.
MALONEY: Thank you, sir.
MAGUIRE: Sir -- that's the way it is.
MALONEY: I understand. Thank you.
SCHIFF: And Director, you understand, we're not asking about your conversations with the president about national security, about foreign policy, about the National Counter Terrorism Center? We just want to know, did you discuss this subject with the president? And 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's the answer, that doesn't portray any privilege. And you can say, I did discuss it with him, but I'm not going to get into the content of those conversations. That question you can answer.
MAGUIRE: Chairman Schiff, once again, you know, my conversation, no matter what the subject is, with the President of the United States is privilege conversation between the Director of National Intelligence and the president.
SCHIFF: Ms. Demings.
DEMINGS: Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and Director Maguire, thank you for being here with us today. Thank you for your service.
MAGUIRE: Good morning, Congresswoman.
DEMINGS: I know you said that you took your first oath in 1974.
MAGUIRE: Yes ma'am.
DEMINGS: That's -- that's a long time, but a long time to be proud of the service. I took my first oath in 1984, when I was sworn in as a law enforcement officer, and I thank you so much for saying that public service is a sacred trust, because regardless of the circumstances or who's involved, public service is a sacred trust.
I've had an opportunity, as a law enforcement officer, I'm a member of Congress now, but to investigate internal cases 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 ever go to the suspect or the defendant of the principle in those cases to ask them what I should do in the case.
There's been a lot of talk this morning, the whole discussion, the whole reason why we're here centered around -- centers around the U.S. relationship with Ukraine. I think you would agree that Ukraine is very dependent on the United States, in terms of assisting them in defending themselves.
Could you, based on your many years of experience in the military, and now in your new position, talk a little bit about that relationship and how important it is for that United States to assist Ukraine if they're ever going to be able to defend themselves.
MAGUIRE: Yes, Congresswoman, I think that the United States has been extremely supportive of the Ukraine. I would say that they are relying on us, as they rely on other people in Europe, and I -- I would also say that the United States is probably paying more of their fair share for the support of Ukraine than the others.
The threats are real for the Ukrainian people and the stake of freedom and democracy is also, even though it's in the Ukraine, is also very much a concern -- DEMINGS: So, based on that, you would say, Ukraine probably could never get there without the support and the assistance of the United States or from the United States of America?
MAGUIRE: I would say, that if others were willing to step up and support, they might be able to get there.
DEMINGS: But, they are not. We are -- we are -- we're there, and so, I think you've said it would be difficult for Ukraine to meet that goal of defending themselves without our support, correct?
MAGUIRE: I would say it would be a challenge, yes Congresswoman.
DEMINGS: 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's the new fixer, I'm not sure, but either way, it involves a scheme to coerce Ukraine, this country that you say is so very dependent on the United States to defend themselves, to coerce Ukraine into assisting the president's reelection efforts in 2020. And the report from your inspector general, the memo that was sent to you, it says on July 18 the Office of Management and Budget official informed the departments and agencies that the president earlier that month had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.
Neither OMB, nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued. During interagency meetings on the 23rd of July and the 26th of July, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend this assistant had come directly from the president.
But they were not -- but they were still unaware of a policy rationale. So the 23, 26 -- on the 18th this issue first came up where the president was -- or resending -- or suspending that assistance that you said Ukraine so desperate depends on.
Director Maguire, we deal in what's reasonable here. And I believe you 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 Untied States and the president's efforts to coerce Ukraine into engaging in an illegal and improper investigation. Do you believe that's why your inspector general added that about suspending their support to Ukraine?
MAGUIRE: I think that Atkinson found it to be credible and he viewed that it was a matter of urgent concern to forward to this committee.
DEMINGS: Do you think it's reasonable for the American people and for this committee on both sides to believe that there is a correlation or a nexus between the president suspending the aid and the conversation that took place on the -- the follow up conversation.
MAGUIRE: Congresswoman -- yes, Congresswoman, that is the allegation that is made and I did not have access to the transcripts. My only information was the ICIGs 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.
DEMINGS: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask one -- just quickly very -- one more quick question.
SCHIFF: Without objection.
DEMINGS: My understanding is that the attorney -- the inspector general is a career intelligence person. He's worked in the Department of Justice, he's received numerous awards for outstand 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?
MAGUIRE: Congresswoman, Michael Atkinson is a valued and trusted colleague. 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 it to this committee. That's where I got stuck, ma'am, and I'm sorry.
DEMINGS: Thank you, Direct (ph).
MAGUIRE: Thank you, Congresswoman.
SCHIFF: Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: 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 25 to the time that you came into office as DNI.
As you know the phone call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president happened on July 25 of this year, correct.
MAGUIRE: Right. (Inaudible) of July 25, I believe, sir.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: At least one of them happened on July 25. At that time the DNI was Dan Coats and his deputy was Sue Gordon. As you know, the whistleblower claim was filed on August 12 of this year and then you took office on August 16, four days later.
MAGUIRE: Yes, sir.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Prior to taking your new job or since, did you discuss the July 25 call or the whistleblower complaint with DNI Coats?
MAGUIRE: I wouldn't have taken the job if I did. No, sir.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And how about with Sue Gordon?
MAGUIRE: No, not at all. I don't believe -- to the best of my ability I do not think that either Director Coats or our principal deputy, Sue Gordon, have any sense what so ever about this whistleblower complaint or that Michael Atkinson had it.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Before your current role did you discuss Ukraine with President Trump?
MAGUIRE: No, Congressman. I haven't discussed -- I haven't discussed Ukraine with anybody. Let me put it to you that way.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: You haven't discussed Ukraine with anybody in your current role as the acting DNI.
MAGUIRE: Well, as we -- intelligence reports, you know, we -- 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 intelligence equities in that region right now, this has just not been something that has come to my attention in the six weeks that I've been the acting DNI.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Now turning to the whistleblower and the inspector general, you don't know the identity of the whistleblower, right.
MAGUIRE: Congressman, I do not and I've made it my business to make sure that I do (ph).
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Correct. And you don't know his political affiliation, obviously.
MAGUIRE: I do not. I do not know this individual.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Or her political affiliation. And of course you believe that the whistleblower was operating in good faith.
MAGUIRE: I do.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And without biased.
MAGUIRE: I don't know about that. I do not know about that. I do believe that ...
KRISHNAMOORTHI: But you have no reason to believe that he or she was acting with biased, correct?
MAGUIRE: I just believe that the whistleblower was acting in good faith.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: But you have no reason to believe that the person was biased.
MAGUIRE: I would not know whether biased or not biased, sir. I just don't know.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And of course you will do everything you can to protect the whistleblower from any attempts to retaliate against him or her, correct.
MAGUIRE: I will not permit the whistleblower to be subject to any retaliation or adverse consequences for going to the I.G. I am absolutely committed to that. Yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And unlike the whistleblower you do know the inspector general, obviously.
MAGUIRE: Yes. And I hold him in high esteem.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And like the whistleblower, he also operated in the highest faith, right?
MAGUIRE: I believe that Michael Atkinson -- yes. Yes. Yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And -- and interestingly Mr. Atkinson was actually appointed by President Donald Trump, right.
MAGUIRE: Yes, he was. He's a president (inaudible) appointee.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And what lends real credibility to the whistleblowers complaint is the fact that Mr. Atkinson, an appointee of the president, would actually bring forward a complaint against his boss.
And that's something that is especially courageous. What I want to hear from you is that you will also do everything you can to protect Mr. Atkinson from potential retaliation.
MAGUIRE: Congressman, absolutely.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Very good. Now the White House released a memorandum of telephone conversation from the July 25, 2019 call; right?
MAGUIRE: I believe that was what was transmitted yesterday morning, sir.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And they call that a telcon (ph) in the jargon of his (ph) memoranda. Is that right?
MAGUIRE: I -- I -- I'm familiar at this -- the first time I've seen the -- the transcript of a presidential conversation with a foreign leader.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: OK. Have you been ...
MAGUIRE: Telcon would be short for telephone conversation though.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Exactly. And have you been a party to a conversation between the president and a foreign leader on a phone call.
MAGUIRE: 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.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And there are note takers who actually scribble down furiously what's being said on those calls.
MAGUIRE: If -- if -- if they are note takers they would not be in room -- Oval Office with us. They might be listening somewhere else.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Like from the situation room?
MAGUIRE: Right. I don't know where, but somewhere in the White House, yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: In this particular situation, maybe more than a dozen people were on the phone call?
MAGUIRE: That's the allegation, yes.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: They were all taking notes presumably?
MAGUIRE: If they're good public servants, yes, congressman.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: And were you ever a party to a call in which the notes that you took were then given to someone at the White House for keeping?
MAGUIRE: I have never been party to any call other than my own. I would take notes for my own -- at my level or as the director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, but I have never been privy to a conversation of the president where I would be involved in taking notes. It would just be happenstance, I happened to be there and he felt comfortable enough to leave me more a brief conversation. But it's not anything that I would be in that office particularly for that matter.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you for your service.
MAGUIRE: Thank you, congressman, very much. Thank you.
SCHIFF: I'd like to recognize the ranking member for any final questions he would have.
NUNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Maguire, I just want to thank you for your attendance today. Congratulations for surviving legal word charade today. I expect hopefully we'll see you behind closed doors like this is 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 vote.
The Intelligence Committee is not an appropriate place to try articles of impeachment. So there is a process in the constitution that I would advise you all follow. In the meantime, Director Maguire, I want to apologize to you for being accused of crimes that you have not committed. It's totally inappropriate behavior for anyone to accuse someone that's served four decades like you. I hope you do not have to go through this any longer. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
MAGUIRE: Thank you, ranking member, I appreciate it, sir.
SCHIFF: 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?
MAGUIRE: I have not particularly had any conversation 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 as far as mentioning Ukraine or as far as the Justice Department. All I did was send the documents forward. The allegations are in there. I've just let the documents speak for themselves.
SCHIFF: So you're saying you did not have any conversation on the subject of Ukraine that did not involve this complaint?
MAGUIRE: That is correct, sir. I've been the acting DNI for six weeks.
SCHIFF: I'm just trying to understand, because that is suggestive that you did have a conversation involving the complaint with the president.
MAGUIRE: No, no, no. That is not what I said.
SCHIFF: Okay. Director, you mentioned early on when we were on the subject of what the inspector general was able to investigate or not investigate, whether the president is within the intelligence community or is subject to the intelligence community -- and by the way the statute doesn't require that the subject of the complaint be within the intelligence community. It requires a whistle-blower to be an employee or detailee, it doesn't require that the subject, the person complained of be an employee of the intelligence community.