At a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) questioned DNI Tulsi Gabbard about a leaked Signal chat that included an Atlantic journalist.
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
00:00Time's for five minutes.
00:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
00:03If there's something I care as much about
00:05as the national security of the United States,
00:07it's the powers and prerogatives of this Congress
00:09and its oversight duties.
00:11So I want to spend a minute or so
00:12on yesterday's testimony in front of the Senate
00:15and direct these questions in particular
00:16to Director Patel and Director Gabbard.
00:20Yesterday, Senator Heinrich asked,
00:22did this conversation, referring to the signal chat,
00:25include information on weapons packages,
00:28targets, or timing?
00:30Director Patel, you said, not that I'm aware of.
00:33Director Gabbard, you said, same answer.
00:36This morning, we learned that the signal chat
00:41included the following update,
00:43forward-looking update from the Secretary of Defense.
00:46Time now, 11.44 Eastern time, weather is favorable.
00:49Just confirmed with CENTCOM, we are go for mission launch.
00:5212.15 Eastern time, F-18 launch, first strike package.
00:5513.45, trigger-based F-18, first strike window starts.
00:58Target terrorist is at his known location,
01:01so should be on time.
01:02Also, strike drones launch MQ-9s.
01:0514.10, more F-18s launch, second strike package.
01:11Do either of the directors want to reflect
01:14on their testimony yesterday
01:15in the context of what I just read?
01:17Sure, one, I was not on that signal chat.
01:19Two, I have not reviewed it.
01:20And three, as you just indicated,
01:23that was made public this morning.
01:24But, Director, you didn't, prior to yesterday's Senate,
01:28you were on the signal chat, correct?
01:30No.
01:31Okay, but did you review the material on the signal chat?
01:34No, I wasn't on it.
01:35Director Gabbard?
01:38Yes, Ranking Member, my answer yesterday
01:40was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof,
01:44on the details that were posted there.
01:49What was shared today reflects the fact
01:51that I was not directly involved
01:52with that part of the signal chat,
01:55and replied at the end, reflecting the effects,
02:00the very brief effects,
02:01that the National Security Advisor had shared.
02:04So it's your testimony that, less than two weeks ago,
02:07you were on a signal chat that had all of this information
02:10about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers and targets on strike,
02:13and you, in that two-week period,
02:16simply forgot that that was there.
02:17That's your testimony?
02:18My testimony is I did not recall the exact details
02:21of what was included there.
02:24That was not your testimony.
02:26Your testimony was that you were not aware
02:28of anything related to weapons packages,
02:30targets, and timing.
02:33As the testimony yesterday continued on,
02:36there were further questions related to that,
02:39where I acknowledged that there was
02:41a conversation about weapons,
02:44and I don't remember the exact wording that I used,
02:48but I did not recall the specific details
02:52that were included.
02:53Director Gabbard, you've reasserted
02:56that there was no classified information.
02:59I think we can all agree that that information
03:00shouldn't have been out there,
03:02but let me ask you this.
03:03Are you familiar with the ODNI's classification guidance?
03:07I'm familiar with it.
03:08I've actually got a copy right here.
03:11If I read you a part of that guidance,
03:14I wonder if you could tell me
03:15what the level of classification indicated is.
03:18I'm reading from your classification guidance,
03:21and the criteria is information providing indication
03:26or advanced warning that the U.S. or its allies
03:29are preparing an attack.
03:31Do you recall what your own guidance would suggest
03:34that that be classified?
03:36I don't have the specifics in front of me,
03:38but it would point to what was shared
03:41would fall under the DOD's classification system,
03:45and the Secretary of Defense's authority
03:48to determine what is classified and what is not.
03:48Let me help you, because there's a very clear answer.
03:51I guess you don't have it, but information providing,
03:54this is the ODNI guidance,
03:56information providing indication or advanced warning
03:58that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack
04:01should be classified as top secret.
04:04Do you disagree with that?
04:06I don't disagree with that.
04:07I just point out that the DOD classification guidance
04:11is separate from the ODNI's classification guidance.
04:16Do you think it would be materially different?
04:18Ultimately, the Secretary of Defense
04:20holds the authority to classify or declassify.
04:24Do you think it's likely the DOD guidance
04:26is materially different from what I just read?
04:29I haven't reviewed the DOD guidance, so I can't comment.
04:38Director Gabbard, a lot of this suggests
04:42sort of a lack of sobriety.
04:44When there's punch emojis and fire emojis,
04:46it's a lack of sobriety.
04:48I don't mean that literally.
04:51But I have one last question for you
04:53because I think people really listen
04:55to what you have to say.
04:58You, on March 15th, as DNI,
05:01retweeted a post from Ian Miles Chong,
05:04who is listed on RT, that's Russia Today's website,
05:07as, quote, a political and cultural commentator
05:10who has contributed content to RT since at least 2022.
05:16Director Gabbard, do you think that it's responsible
05:19for you as head of the intelligence community
05:21and the principal presidential intelligence advisor
05:25to retweet posts from individuals
05:27affiliated with Russian state media?
05:31That retweet came from my personal account,
05:34and I would have to go back to look
05:35at the substance of the tweet.
05:38Can I, just so that we don't have a lack of confusion
05:41amongst our allies and enemies and us,
05:43can I act, perhaps, that you not think
05:45that you should be saying one thing
05:46on your personal account than you say officially?
05:50I maintain my First Amendment rights
05:52to be able to express my own personal views
05:54on different issues.
05:55Thank you, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
05:57Chairman yields now.