Sen. Mark Kelly's (D-AZ) questioning of CIA Dir. John Ratcliffe over a leak of war plans leads to a debate between Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to come back to the topic of the day here, the signal
00:08chain as reported by The Atlantic. Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Radcliffe, you each testified that
00:16there was no information operational in nature, no classified information. So I want to ask
00:23each of you just a series of, just respond yes or no. I'll start with Ms. Gabbard. In
00:31the signal chain that we have been talking about, was there any mention of a target in
00:37Yemen? I don't remember mention of specific targets.
00:47Any generic target? I believe there was discussion around targets
00:59in general. Mr. Radcliffe?
01:03I think that's consistent with my recollection. Again, I don't have access to that. Was there
01:09any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system?
01:17I don't recall specific weapons systems being named.
01:20I'm not talking about specific any weapon or weapons system.
01:25I don't recall specific names of systems or weapons being used or named within the chain.
01:31Well, I'm not asking whether, I don't want you to tell me what the specific weapon was,
01:36but any weapon at all. Mr. Radcliffe, same question.
01:39I don't recall. How about anything about timing?
01:45Ms. Gabbard? I don't recall specific timing.
01:50Was there any mention? I won't get into the detail of the conversation,
01:54but obviously there was a significant amount of planning and internal discussions that
02:01had occurred prior to and outside of this signal chat.
02:08Mr. Radcliffe, you're nodding your head. Any mention of any military unit whatsoever?
02:14Mr. Radcliffe? Not that I recall.
02:16Ms. Gabbard? Not that I recall.
02:18Okay. So I understand that DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called Controlled
02:25Unclassified Information, or CUI, on unsecured devices. Are both of you aware of that DOD
02:33policy?
02:37I haven't read that policy.
02:40Not familiar with the DOD policy, but I would say that the Secretary of Defense is the original
02:46classification authority for DOD in deciding what would be classified information.
02:52Ms. Gabbard, does the intelligence community have a policy that prohibits discussion of
02:58Controlled Unclassified Information?
03:01Yes.
03:03It does. Okay. Controlled Unclassified Information, according to DOD, includes information that
03:10is information that has not been approved for public release. Would you, of what's been
03:19disclosed publicly of the signal chain, would either of you feel that that would be approved
03:26for public release?
03:29Ms. Gabbard?
03:33The discussion that took place in that signal chat group was a conversation reflecting national
03:41security leaders and the Vice President around the President's objectives.
03:46So yes or no, would you approve that for public release?
03:51I don't feel I can answer that question here.
03:55Because of the nature of this hearing?
03:58Because of the nature of a private discussion that took place between individual leaders
04:06in our government.
04:07It would make sense that you would not approve it for public release, wouldn't it?
04:12There are other factors that would go into that consideration.
04:15Mr. Ratcliffe, yes or no?
04:18I wouldn't approve the release of classified information. Again, as I've said, my understanding
04:22is that
04:23I'm not talking about classified information, Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm talking about information
04:26that has not been approved for public release. That is information that is considered controlled,
04:32unclassified information.
04:35The principles that would have been on that would have been individuals capable of approving
04:40that for public release.
04:42Do you, let me, I've got 20 seconds. The deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike
04:50on another country. Would you consider that classified information, Ms. Gabbard?
04:58The information was not classified.
05:02This is, I'm not talking about this. I'm just talking about deliberation from principles
05:09as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country. Would you consider that
05:15classified information? I'm not talking about what happened this week.
05:19There are other factors that would go into determining that classification.
05:23Mr. Ratcliffe, the deliberation between principles in our national security apparatus about whether
05:29or not to strike another country, would you consider that to be classified information?
05:33Pre-decisional strike deliberation should be conducted through classified channels.
05:39Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:42If I may, I just want to return, Mr. Ratcliffe, to your answer there in part. Senator Kelly,
05:48it's been raised at several occasions now in this hearing about whether classified information
05:53was discussed in this chat. You mentioned about the Secretary of Defense being what
05:58you called, I think, the original classification authority.
06:01Correct. Correct.
06:04I think it's important for the public to understand that although you and Director Gabbard are
06:09original classification authorities on many matters, you're not that for all matters that
06:14might be classified in the government. Is that right?
06:16That's correct.
06:17So if the Secretary of State has classified sensitive diplomatic details, that's his authority.
06:25If the Secretary of Energy has sensitive classified information about our national laboratories,
06:29that's his authority. And the two of you can't speak to other departments who have their
06:35own original classification authority, in which, of course, as Director Gabbard said,
06:40ultimately rests with one person, the President of the United States. Is that correct?
06:44That's correct.
06:46I just wanted to clarify that. It looks like the Vice Chairman wants to weigh in as well.
06:50Just very briefly. I mean, I think it strains the audience and the watching public's credibility
07:00if we're talking about timing packages that somehow this would be okay to put out. Or
07:11just frankly, senior American officials trashing Europe. I've been around this for a while.
07:18This is not information you generally put out. And the notion there's not even acknowledgment
07:23of, hey, gosh, we screwed up, is stunning to me. And the idea somehow, well, none of
07:29this was classified, but we can't talk about it here. You can't have it both ways.
07:37I think the witness's point is that they can't speak for every official in the government
07:41who has original classification authority.
07:43Chairman, I don't, that's not what we're, I'm not trying to litigate that. I'm trying
07:49to litigate on the face unless, as Senator Bennet said, this reporter is somehow making
07:57this all up. And I think the White House has acknowledged that the text chain that he submitted
08:03was authentic. It strains my mind to think, you know, it strains my mind if the shoe had
08:10been on the other foot, what my colleagues would be saying about this. And again, we're
08:16going to get to the bottom of it. I appreciate your comments, but you guys have both testified
08:21under law. There's nothing classified in that information. There's nothing, in a sense,
08:25I've not heard either one of you say, gosh, we screwed up. So we'll find out. This is
08:30too important to our national security. And again, I know we've got more members to close.
08:36They testified, is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no intelligence
08:41community classified information. Is that correct?
08:43That's correct.
08:44Director Radcliffe, is that correct? Director Gabbard?
08:46Yes, Chairman.
08:47Well, again.
08:48That's not correct. She said repeatedly there's nothing classified. Period.
08:52Period. You can't have it both, and again, we'll see. I cannot believe this is not going
08:58to come out. And if it's not classified, again, we'd ask you to make it, give it to
09:02the public today. I'm sure some, one of your aides back there probably got it on paper.
09:09If you've got it here, it's not classified. Stand by your position. Or is this just one
09:15more example of a careless approach to how we keep our secrets in this administration?
09:21With apologies to Senator Moran.
09:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here. I want to explore
09:29a little bit of