Ratcliffe Asked: 'Who Determined That The Content Of This Discussion On Signal Was Not Classified?'

3 days ago

At today's Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) grilled top Trump Administration intel officials about the leaked group chat about Yemen war plans.

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

Transcript

00:00Director Ratcliffe, I want to start with you.

00:04Who determined that the content of this discussion on Signal

00:09was not classified?

00:14Senator, I guess I'm not.

00:18Well, for example, I can speak to my personal knowledge.

00:21There was no classified agent mentioned

00:24as part of this story.

00:25Normally, that would be classified information.

00:27So I guess what I'm asking is.

00:29Did you just determine it was not classified?

00:32Or was there any declassification

00:34after the fact?

00:36So to be clear, so everyone understands the process,

00:39as we talked about, Signal is a permissible use.

00:43I understand that.

00:43That the CIA has been approved by the White

00:45House for senior officials.

00:48And appropriate for many conversations.

00:50And recommended by CISA for high-level officials

00:54who would be targeted by foreign adversaries

00:56to use end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible,

01:00like Signal.

01:02In this case, what the National Security Advisor did

01:08was to request, through a Signal message,

01:12that there be coordination.

01:14So you mentioned the name of a CIA active officer, correct?

01:22So I didn't mention the name.

01:24You didn't mention the name.

01:25I mentioned the existence of that.

01:26And in the article, the implication

01:28was that somehow that was improper.

01:30That was not the case.

01:31So a CIA officer was not operating undercover.

01:35So the request for coordination was for a staff member

01:39to coordinate on the high side.

01:41So I communicated the name of a CIA officer not operating

01:46undercover, completely appropriate,

01:48who does openly and routinely coordinate with the White

01:52House as a member of my staff.

01:55So the intimation there that there

01:57was something inappropriate was clearly incorrect.

02:00Did it occur to you that, given the sensitive nature

02:04of this discussion, that it could just

02:06move to the high side?

02:07So that was clearly, Senator, I think

02:10the intent was that this was initially set up

02:16by the National Security Advisor with the instruction

02:21that send a point of contact.

02:23And then you will be provided with information

02:26further on the high side for high side communication.

02:29So I think clearly it reflects that the National Security

02:32Advisor intended this to be, as it should have been,

02:36a mechanism for coordinating between senior level officials,

02:39but not a substitute for using high side

02:42or classified communications for anything

02:45that would be classified.

02:47And I think that that is exactly what did happen.

02:50So I'm curious, did this conversation at some point

02:54include information on weapons packages, targets, or timing?

03:01Not that I'm aware of.

03:04Director Gabbard, same question.

03:08Same answer, and defer to the Department of Defense

03:11on that question.

03:13Well, those are two different answers.

03:15But you're saying that was not part of the conversation?

03:19To my knowledge.

03:19Precise operational issues were not part of this conversation.

03:23Correct.

03:25I want to ask you, Director Gabbard,

03:31something on a very different track here,

03:33which is I very much agree with the conclusion of the ATA

03:39that foreign illicit drug actors are a major threat

03:43in the United States.

03:44And many of you have spoken to this today.

03:46Is the IC wrong in its omission of Canada

03:50as a source of illicit fentanyl in the ATA?

03:55I was surprised, given some of the rhetoric,

03:57that there is no mention of Canada in the ATA.

04:02Senator, the focus in my opening and the ATA

04:06was really to focus on the most extreme threats in that area.

04:12And our assessment is that the ATA

04:15and our assessment is that the most extreme threat related

04:18to fentanyl continues to come from and through Mexico.

04:22So the president has stated that the fentanyl coming

04:25through Canada is massive, and actually

04:28said it was an unusual and extraordinary threat.

04:32And that was the language that was used to justify

04:36putting tariffs on Canada.

04:38I'm just trying to reconcile those two issues.

04:41Is it an unusual and extraordinary threat?

04:44Or is it a minor threat that doesn't even

04:48merit mention in the annual threat assessment?

04:55Senator, I don't have the numbers related to Canada

04:58in front of me at this time.

04:59I'd like to get back to you on the specifics of that answer.

05:02It's less than 1% of the fentanyl

05:05that we are able to interdict.

05:10But if you have different information,

05:11I would very much welcome that.

05:14Senator Budd.

Ratcliffe Asked: 'Who Determined That The Content Of This Discussion On Signal Was Not Classified?'

Category

Transcript

Recommended