Two of the Trump Administration’s top intelligence officials defended the use of a group chat for high-level military planning during a contentious Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday, as Democrats questioned the national security implications of discussing sensitive war plans on a commercial messaging app.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration, and according
00:07to reports, two of our witnesses here today were members of a group chat that discussed
00:16highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included weapons packages,
00:27and included the name of an active CIA agent. Putting aside for a moment that classified
00:35information should never be discussed over an unclassified system, it's also just mind
00:44boggling to me that all these senior folks were on this line and nobody bothered to even
00:48check Security Hygiene 101. Who are all the names? Who are they? Well, it apparently included
00:56a journalist. There's plenty of declassified information that shows that our adversaries
01:02China and Russia are trying to break in to encrypted systems like Signal. I can just
01:10say this, if this was the case of a military officer or an intelligence officer and they
01:20had this kind of behavior, they would be fired. I think this is one more example of the kind
01:30of sloppy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information.
01:39But this is not a one-off or a first-time error. Director Gabbard, did you participate
01:44in the group chat with Secretary of Defense and other Trump senior officials discussing
01:49the Yemen war plans? Senator, I don't want to get into the specifics.
01:53Ma'am, were you on? You're not going to be willing to address. So you're not? Are you
01:56denying? Ma'am, will you answer my question, ma'am? You were not TG on this group chat?
02:04I'm not going to get into the specifics. So you refuse to acknowledge whether you were
02:07on this group chat? Senator, I'm not going to get into the specifics.
02:11Why are you going to get into the specifics? Is it because it's all classified?
02:15Because this is currently under review by the National Security Council.
02:18Because it's all classified? If it's not classified, share the text now.
02:24As the White House previously stated, I can confirm.
02:25Is it classified or non-classified information on this text? Director Radcliffe, were you
02:29on the group chat? Senator, I was on a signal messaging group.
02:37So you were the John Radcliffe on that chat? I was.
02:39Thank you. Thank you. My communications, to be clear, in a signal
02:43message group were entirely permissible and lawful and did not include classified information.
02:49Well, we will make that determination because if it's not classified, share the text with
02:55the committee. Both the mishandling of classified information
02:58and the deliberate destruction of federal records are potential crimes that ought to
03:03be investigated immediately. And I want to make clear that I'm of the view
03:07that there ought to be resignation, starting with the National Security Advisor and the
03:11Secretary of Defense. Did Jeff Goldberg somehow, was it a, did he
03:17create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this signal thread?
03:22Please answer the question. You don't, don't, don't insult the intelligence
03:28of the American people. Did he invite himself to the signal thread?
03:35I don't know how he was invited, but clearly he was added.
03:40Clearly it was. Finish your sentence, please.
03:44Clearly he was added to the signal group. I, your question is.
03:48You don't know that the, that the, that the President's National Security Advisor invited
03:55him to join the, the signal thread? Everybody in America knows that.
03:59Does the CIA director not know that? I've seen conflicting reports about who added
04:06the reporter to the signal messaging group. You think that it's perfectly appropriate
04:10that there, there was a reporter added, especially one that the, that the Secretary of Defense
04:17says is deceitful, highly discredited, a so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling
04:22hoaxes over and over again. Do you, is your testimony that it was appropriate
04:27that he was added to this signal thread? No, of course not.
04:31Why, why did you not call? Hold on, Senator, let me, you're mischaracterizing
04:36my testimony. You answered the question. Let me ask you.
04:41When he was added to the thread, you're the CIA director.
04:45Why didn't you call out that his, he was present on the signal thread?
04:51I don't know if you use signal messaging app.
04:53I do, I do. Not for classified information, not for targeting, not for anything remote.
04:59Neither do I, Senator. Well, that's what your testimony is today.
05:02It absolutely is not, Senator. Were you not listening at the beginning when
05:07I said that I was using it as permitted and it is permissible to use?
05:11I agree that it's this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and
05:18the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable.
05:23It's an embarrassment. Senator, you need to do better.
05:28You need to do better. Thank you, I'm being gaveled.
05:32In the signal chain that we have been talking about, was there any mention of a target in
05:38Yemen? I don't remember mention of specific targets.
05:44Any generic target? I believe there was discussion around targets
05:52in general. Mr. Brackleff?
05:56I think that's consistent with my recollection. Again, I don't have access to that.
06:02The deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country, would
06:09you consider that classified information, Ms. Gabbard?
06:14The information was not classified. I'm not talking about this. I'm just talking
06:21about deliberation from principals as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another
06:29country. Would you consider that classified information?
06:33I'm not talking about what happened this week. There are other factors that would go into
06:36determining that classification. Mr. Brackleff, the deliberation between principals
06:43in our national security apparatus about whether or not to strike another country, would you
06:47consider that to be classified information? Predecisional strike deliberations should
06:52be conducted through classified channels. This was a huge mistake, correct?
07:02No. No, no, Director Brackleff, I asked you a
07:10yes or no question, and now you'll hold on. A national political reporter was made privy
07:17to sensitive information about imminent military operations against a foreign terrorist organization,
07:25and that wasn't a huge mistake? That wasn't a huge mistake?
07:28This is an embarrassment. This is utterly unprofessional. There's been
07:34no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error. And by the way,
07:41we will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully
07:46against its content.