>> MICHAEL SCHMIDT, PART OF "THE NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTING TEAM
THAT HAS BROKEN ANOTHER SCOOP ON
THIS STORY.
THIS STORY. THANK YOU FOR COMING.
IT’S REALLY GOOD TO HAVE YOU.
>>> I WANT TO BRING INTO THE
CONVERSATION CONGRESSWOMAN
CONVERSATION CONGRESSWOMAN JACKIE SPEIER, DEMOCRAT FROM
CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA. HE IS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. AS SUCH SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN
AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE
THIS COMPLAINT.
THIS COMPLAINT. CONGRESSWOMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR BEING HERE.
I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON,
RACHEL.
RACHEL. >> WERE YOU ABLE TO VIEW THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT TODAY?
I KNOW THAT IT WAS MADE
AVAILABLE TO MEMBERS OF YOUR
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. >> YES, I DID REVIEW IT IN ITS
TOTALITY.
TOTALITY. >> AND I KNOW THAT I AM NOT
GOING TO PUSH YOU AT ALL TO MAKE
YOU TALK ABOUT CLASSIFIED THINGS
THAT YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT.
BUT I WANT TO ASK YOUR OWN
PERSONAL REACTION TO LOOKING AT
THAT DOCUMENT, YOUR SENSE OF ITS
IMPORTANCE AND YOUR REACTION TO
IT.
IT. >> RACHEL, I CAN DESCRIBE THAT
COMPLAINT AS NOTHING SHORT OF
EXPLOSIVE.
EXPLOSIVE. IT IS SO MUCH MORE THAN THE
SUMMARY OF THE TELEPHONE CALL
THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY THE
WHITE HOUSE AS EVIDENCE, AND I’M
NOT EVEN IN A POSITION TO SAY
THAT THAT WAS AT ALL INVOLVED IN
THE COMPLAINT UNTIL IT IS
ACTUALLY DECLASSIFIED.
ACTUALLY DECLASSIFIED. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT I WAS
STUNNED BY THE BREADTH OF THE
COMPLAINT AND THE DETAILS WITH
WHICH THE WHISTLE-BLOWER
EXPRESSED HIS CONCERNS.
NOW, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DID
FIND THAT IT WAS BOTH CREDIBLE
AND URGENT AND IN THE 15 MONTHS
SINCE HE HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY
PRESIDENT TRUMP, HE HAS NEVER
FOUND A WHISTLE-BLOWER COMPLAINT
TO REACH THE STAGE OF BEING
URGENT.
URGENT. BUT HE HAS IN FACT TRANSFERRED
ALL OF THESE WHISTLE-BLOWER
COMPLAINTS TO THE COMMITTEE AS
HAVE PREVIOUS INSPECTOR GENERALS
AS WELL.
AS WELL. SO HE WAS HANDLING THIS BY THE
BOOK, AND IT WAS THE DIRECTOR OF
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE THAT
TURNED THE TABLES ON HIM.
>> IN TERMS OF THAT URGENT
DESIGNATION THAT YOU JUST
DESCRIBED THERE, THAT’S STRIKING
THAT THIS INSPECTOR GENERAL
HASN’T FOUND OTHER COMPLAINTS TO
DESERVE THAT SPECIFIC
DESIGNATION.
DESIGNATION. CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT
THAT MEANS.
THAT MEANS. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF THIS
COMPLAINT IS NOT ADDRESSED,
THERE IS AN URGENT RISK OF
NATIONAL SECURITY HARM TO THE
UNITED STATES?
UNITED STATES? IS THAT -- IS THAT WHAT THAT
MEANS?
MEANS? OR DOES IT HAVE SOME OTHER
TECHNICAL MEANING IN THIS
CONTEXT?
CONTEXT? >> NO, YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THE TERM IS DEFINED IN THE
STATUTE, BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO
THE IMPACT ON NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE RISK TO THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. SO IT MET THAT CLASSIFICATION.
>> YOU’LL HEAR FROM THE ACTING
DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE TOMORROW AT YOUR
COMMITTEE.
COMMITTEE. WE’RE ALL VERY MUCH LOOKING
FORWARD TO THAT LIVE TESTIMONY
AT 9:00 A.M.
FROM WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN AND FROM
WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT HOW TO
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THAT
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PHONE CALL,
THE NOTES FROM THE PHONE CALL WE
SAW TODAY, THE COMPLAINT THAT
YOU’VE SEEN, WHAT YOU’VE HEARD
ALREADY FROM THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL, THE EXPECTED TESTIMONY
FROM THE D.N.I., DO YOU EXPECT
THAT WE THE PUBLIC ARE EVER
GOING TO KNOW THE CONTOURS OF
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED HERE AND
WHAT THIS WHISTLE-BLOWER WAS
TRYING TO RAISE THESE RED FLAGS
ABOUT?
ABOUT? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS
ALWAYS GOING TO BE MOSTLY
CLASSIFIED AND WE’RE GOING TO
HAVE TO GUESS AT IT?
>> NO, I DON’T THINK IT WILL BE
MOSTLY CLASSIFIED BECAUSE, IN
FACT, MOST OF WHICH THE
WHISTLE-BLOWER DESCRIBED, HE
BELIEVED WAS UNCLASSIFIED.
SO I THINK A GOOD PORTION OF IT
WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE
REST OF THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
AND TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
IT’S REALLY IMPORTANT, THOUGH,
TO ASK THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
INTELLIGENCE, WHEN YOU HAVE A
STATUTE THAT REQUIRES YOU AFTER
SEVEN DAYS UPON RECEIVING FROM
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL A CREDIBLE
AND URGENT WHISTLE-BLOWER
COMPLAINT, WHY HE DIDN’T
AUTOMATICALLY SEND IT TO THE
HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE AND
THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE
COMMITTEE?
COMMITTEE? SOMEHOW WORD GOT TO THE WHITE
HOUSE OR TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND I GUESS ONE OF THE
QUESTIONS WE NEED TO ASK
TOMORROW IS WHY DID HE CONTACT
THEM OR WAS HE CONTACTED BY THE
WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE THEY HAD
SOMEHOW GOTTEN WIND OF THIS.
>> THAT SEEMS LIKE THE SORT OF
THING THAT SHOULD BE SORT OF
CLARIFIABLE AT THAT TESTIMONY.
CONGRESSWOMAN JACKIE SPEIER,