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.
Comments