Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Joseph Maguire, Acting D.N.I., Holds His Ground

Mr. Maguire became the acting director of national intelligence last month. Almost immediately, a whistle-blower complaint plunged him into crisis.

Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, prepared to testify before the House Intelligence Committee Thursday on Capitol Hill.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — For days, the nation’s top intelligence official found himself wedged between lawmakers eager to see a potentially explosive whistle-blower complaint and other Trump administration officials who deemed it off-limits.

Senior intelligence officials described Joseph Maguire, who became acting director of national intelligence last month, as reeling from accusations that he broke the law by keeping the complaint from Congress. Mr. Maguire, a retired three-star admiral who friends and allies say did not want the job and was unprepared to wage a political battle, now finds himself trying to protect his reputation, former officials familiar with the workings of his office said.

Video
bars
0:00/3:31
-0:00

transcript

‘Totally Unprecedented’: Key Moments From the Acting Intelligence Chief’s Testimony

Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, appeared before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the handling of a whistle-blower complaint against President Trump.

“You don’t believe the whistle-blower is a political hack do you, Director?” “I believe that, as I said before Mr. Chairman, I believe the whistle-blower is operating in good faith.” “Well, then they couldn’t be —” “Has followed 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 that I support and defend that person.” “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.” “I’m just asking about the whistle-blower, right now.” “I think the whistle-blower did the right thing.” “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 met urgent concern or whether it was serious. 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’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 turned into a political weapon to attack the president. And now today, the whistle-blower process is the casualty. 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.” “Director, did you or your office ever speak to the President of the United States about this complaint?” “Um — Congressman, I’m the president’s intelligence officer. I speak with him several times throughout the week —” ”Sir, let me repeat my question: Did you ever speak to the president about this complaint?” ”My conversations with the president, because I am the director of national intelligence, are privileged and it would be inappropriate for me because it would destroy my relationship with the president in intelligence matters, to divulge any of my conversations with the President of the United States.” “But 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, is that I will not divulge privileged conversations that I have as the director of national intelligence with the president.” “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 or not, whether or not it meets the urgent concern and the seven-day time frame that would follow—” “But my question Director —” “I have no, 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 job —” “It is for you to judge, apparently. I mean, 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.”

Video player loading
Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, appeared before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the handling of a whistle-blower complaint against President Trump.CreditCredit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times

But he is learning as he goes, friends said. And he faced his most public test yet on Thursday when he testified before lawmakers about his refusal to hand over the complaint, which is said to sound an alarm about President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and has seized Washington in recent days, prompting Democrats to announce a formal impeachment inquiry.

Mr. Maguire, 68, has confided to friends and colleagues that he feels his once-sterling reputation is under attack, a risk he accepted with the job but a turn that few predicted would happen so fast. He does not want to resign and leave behind colleagues and instead is committed to finding a solution to the crisis, people close to him said. He prepared intensely ahead of his scheduled testimony and made his case that he had not defied Congress.

“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,” Mr. Maguire said on Thursday. “I want to also state my support for the whistle-blower and the rights and the laws.”

Mr. Maguire later added under oath that he had not threatened to resign, denying a previous media report.

Indeed, Mr. Maguire appears to have succeeded in navigating the crux of his crisis when Mr. Trump relented this week and allowed administration officials to turn over the complaint to lawmakers conducting oversight, as an intelligence whistle-blower law calls for. Mr. Maguire had refused on the advice of administration lawyers who determined that it fell short of a legal requirement to turn it over to Congress.

When the Department of Justice said the whistle-blower complaint could not go to Congress, the career lawyers in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence agreed, giving Mr. Maguire confidence in the ruling.

“I have every reason to believe that they have done everything by the book and follow the law, respecting the privileged nature of the information and patiently waiting while the executive privilege issues were resolved,” Mr. Maguire said Thursday.

But his decision to embrace that legal analysis brought him in the cross hairs of Democrats. And after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested this week that he had ignored the law, Mr. Maguire reacted with barely concealed anger.

“I have upheld my responsibility to follow the law every step of the way,” he said in a statement on Tuesday. He had struggled to find a compromise that would allow Congress to get the information but take into account the legitimate legal concerns of the Department of Justice and allow the White House to protect material it viewed as privileged.

Mr. Maguire, who is among a handful of top intelligence officials who know about the complaint’s contents, said he was committed to protecting whistle-blowers and appeared to defend the current complainant. All intelligence officials and officers “have a solemn responsibility to do what is right, which includes reporting wrongdoing,” he said.

A former Navy SEAL who rose to three-star admiral and leader of the Naval Special Warfare Command over a 36-year career, Mr. Maguire has faced tough leadership challenges. A graduate of Manhattan College and a longtime Yankees fan, he has commanded at every level.

Friends and former colleagues described him as a dedicated public servant who tends to cajole friends and foes alike toward a solution, often with a joke.

“Joe’s life is about service,” said Michael Leiter, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, where Mr. Maguire served as deputy while in active service and later as director. “And there is no way Joe is going to walk out on an incomplete mission.”

For all the pressure Mr. Maguire has confronted in his first month on the job, he has told friends that he has faced worse. At the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most deadly time for special operators, Mr. Maguire and his wife went to funeral after funeral to pay their respects and to represent the United States.

Last year, Mr. Maguire left a job that he loved as president and chief executive of the Special Operations Warrior Foundation to run the counterterrorism center. While important in the intelligence community, the post usually draws little public attention or political fire.

Though he was reluctant, then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, convinced him. “He is not the kind of guy who says ‘no’ when called upon to serve,” said Nicholas J. Rasmussen, Mr. Maguire’s predecessor at the counterterrorism center.

Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, blocked Mr. Maguire’s nomination for months, seeking information on the targeting of Islamic State militants. By the time the Senate approved the nomination at the end of 2018, Mr. Mattis was gone from government.

Mr. Maguire has been “unflappable” through the current crisis, Mr. Rasmussen said.

“That comes from being someone who has been in much more consequential and stressful situations,” Mr. Rasmussen said. “The idea he would be shaken to the core by a controversy like this I find not credible. Knowing Joe, he’s focused simply on doing the right thing as he understands it.”

Mr. Maguire was not the president’s first choice when his first director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, decided to step down after his relationship with Mr. Trump frayed. The president said this summer that he intended to nominate Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, to fill the job.

But Mr. Ratcliffe was seen as highly partisan and had exaggerated parts of his resume. Republicans were also cool to his nomination and Mr. Ratcliffe withdrew. Instead, the White House, which had also forced out Mr. Coats’ deputy, Sue Gordon, turned to Mr. Maguire to serve on an acting basis.

Mr. Trump’s advisers saw him as a safe, experienced choice.

“Everyone who has served with Joe holds him in the highest regard because he is a person of uncompromising integrity,” said William H. McRaven, former special operations commander who is a longtime friend of Mr. Maguire. “He knows that his loyalty is to the Constitution and the people of this country.”

Mr. Maguire won praise within the intelligence agencies for comments praising Ms. Gordon and saying she had deserved the post.

Almost immediately, he was swept up in a brewing political firestorm. He received the whistle-blower complaint the day after Mr. Coats stepped down, Mr. Coats said at an event in Indiana this week.

“I feel so bad for Joe,” he said. “He is caught in a squeeze here, and the lawyers are divided.”

Many retired military officers who have worked for Mr. Trump have seen their reputations battered. Mr. Maguire knew of that risk but friends said that he felt that when the White House asked him to serve, he had little choice.

“Joe has never been a creature of politics, but he is not an idiot,” Mr. Leiter said. “Of course he knew he was going to a tricky place.”

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.

Follow Julian E. Barnes and Adam Goldman on Twitter: @julianbarnes and @adamgoldmanNYT.

Julian E. Barnes is a national security reporter based in Washington, covering the intelligence agencies. Before joining The Times in 2018, he wrote about security matters for the Wall Street Journal. More about Julian E. Barnes

Adam Goldman reports on the F.B.I. from Washington and is a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. More about Adam Goldman

A version of this article appears in print on  , Section A, Page 20 of the New York edition with the headline: Intelligence Chief Says He Followed the Law ‘Every Step of the Way’. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT