Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing; Contradicting Stories on Comey. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired May 11, 2017 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:00:00] SEN. TOM COTTON (R), ARKANSAS: I've asked unanimous consent that it be included as part of the hearing transcript. And since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in the transcript.

Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Rory Godson (ph) testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments and the INF treaty in keeping with these past practices. To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?

MIKE POMPEO, CIA DIRECTOR: Yes.

COTTON: Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, the FY-17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be restarting that old active measures working group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United States. In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the FY-17 spending bill. I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community. Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: No, I'm not aware of any objection.

COTTON: Director Pompeo?

POMPEO: None.

COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.

COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation and I don't - I couldn't read - I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.

COTTON: Thank you.

I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law I know that you discussed earlier, section 702. Director Rogers, it's my understand that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques, is that correct?

ADM. MIKE ROGERS (RET.), NSA DIRECTOR: So we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organize.

COTTON: Would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?

ROGERS: That's part of the challenge, how do I generate insight that doesn't - in the process of generating insight violate the actual tenants that -

COTTON: Well, I was going to say, so we're - so we're - you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights but to produce that estimate you're going to have to violate the privacy rights? Is that -

ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.

COTTON: Seems hard to do.

ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.

COTTON: Is it - is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?

ROGERS: Probably not.

COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter Director McCabe in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general, come to your general counsel. I assume you have open door policies?

ROGERS: Whistle blower protections in addition, yes.

COATS: Yes, sir.

ROGERS: And they can come to you.

COTTON: And they - they could come to this committee.

ROGERS: They could come to the committee.

COTTON: The four - at least four different avenues, I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702 probe (ph).

ROGERS: And anyone in their chain of command.

COATS: Yes.

COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on American's privacy rights needlessly and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that Director McCabe, your predecessor last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must have program, not a nice to have program.

Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Senator Cotton.

Senator Harris.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you.

Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open hearing.

ANDREW MCCABE, ACTING FBI DIRECTOR: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?

MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016, so I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity, to include that investigation.

HARRIS: Including that one.

And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?

MCCABE: Very similar. Senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and make sure they have the resources they need and they're getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.

HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation in addition to your role?

[12:05:03] MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.

HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?

MCCABE: The deputy attorney general who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation, he's in charge.

HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you're been in this role?

MCCABE: I have, yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California. So my question is, who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that information came down that he had been fired?

MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.

HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am, I am.

HARRIS: It's been widely resourced - or reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources and I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?

MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.

HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?

MCCABE: I absolutely will.

HARRIS: Has - I understand that you've said that the White House - that you've not talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?

MCCABE: That's correct.

HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?

MCCABE: No, ma'am.

HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the department of Justice about the investigation?

MCCABE: I don't believe I have. Not - you know, not recently. Obviously not - not in the -

HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?

MCCABE: Not in this position, no, ma'am.

HARRIS: OK.

What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation? MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have a very active lines of communication

with the team that's working on this issue. They are - they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for and I am confident that those - that they understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators and analysts and professional staff are in everything we do every day.

HARRIS: And I agree with you, I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way, now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey has been fired, will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, you will find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Thank you.

And how do you believe we need to handle to the extent that it exists any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI given the firing of Director Comey?

MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. I suppose that's somewhat self-serving and I apologize for that. You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. And we expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director and we look forward to supporting whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director. This organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what they need to do.

HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of authority?

MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stayed focused on the threats, stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country, continue to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution and I will ensure that that happens.

HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

Senator King.

Second round. Five minutes each.

Senator Wyden.

SEN. RON WYDEN (D), OREGON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me and, of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians. And you said you didn't have any firsthand indication of it. Did you have any indication, secondhand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.

POMPEO: It's actually not a yes or no question, senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember, this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization and allowed only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "firsthand." I had no secondhand or third hand knowledge of that conversation either.

[12:10:11] WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussions with General Flynn at all?

POMPEO: With respect to what, sir? He was for a period of time the national security adviser.

WYDEN: This topics. Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well-being of the American people? I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security adviser.

POMPEO: No, I spoke with the national security adviser. He was the national security adviser. I - he was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the president about.

WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States?

POMPEO: Sir, I can't recall every conversation that I had with General Flynn during that time period.

WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon.

Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling, and that is the SF-7 question and the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with the signaling system seven. The report says that the department believes, and I quote, "that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits resulting in risk to the national security, the economy and the federal government's ability to reliably execute national security functions. These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists, and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations."

Do you all share the concerns of the Department of human - the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks? These are risks that we are going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats and I think the Federal Communications Commission has been trading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge of this and deal with what is an enormous vulnerability in the security of this country.

ROGERS: Sure. I share the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern. The Department of Homeland Security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private sector has overall responsibility here. We are trying to provide at the National Security Agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem, partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple specific things from a technology standpoint that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector. I'm not smart. I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.

WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know, Mr. Director, that I think it's critical that the American people know how many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy is, I think, a far-fetched argument that has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive, have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading people's privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number.

Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with those threats as part of 702, that we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up? We need that number. When will we get it?

COATS: Senator, as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would, if confirmed, and I was, go out to NSA, meet with Admiral Rogers, try to understand - better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific number.

I did go out to the NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I learned the complexity of reaching that number. I think the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to that.

[12:15:19] Clearly what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they've breached privacy. So it - there is an anomaly there. There are issues of duplication.

I know that the - that we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee, I believe in June, as early as June, to address - get into that issue and to address that and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say this is specifically when we can get you the number and what the number is. So I believe - I believe - we are committed - we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this particular issue. But I cannot give you a date because I - and number because I understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.

WYDEN: I'm well over my time. The point really is, privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it and the government is not saying it, something is really out of sync. You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, senator.

Senator King, I understand you have -

SEN. ANGUS KING (I), MAINE: Thank you, senator.

If this hearing had been held two weeks ago, we'd be spending the last two hours talking about North Korea. And I think we ought to pay some attention to that.

Director Pompeo and Director Cardillo (ph), could you give us an update on the North Korea situation, the nature of the threat, whether some of the pressure that we were feeling two and three and four weeks ago, I has relieved? Is there anything going on that should either concern or make us feel better about that situation?

Director Pompeo.

POMPEO: Senator, I don't see anything that should make any of us feel any better about this threat. We have a threat from flash points that something could spark and have a conventional war, right, wholly apart from the issues we talk about with ICBMs and nuclear. It's a well- armed adversary that our Department of Defense works hard to make sure -

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN ANCHOR: You're watching the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in the wake of President Trump firing the FBI director. The acting FBI director, one of the folks there on the hot seat.

We're back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:22:20] KEILAR: A discussion now during this Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about Russian hacking during the 2016 election. Let's listen.

COATS: Our own public, but throughout democratic nations that are facing this threat. The more we inform our people of what the Russians are trying to do and how they're trying to impact our thinking and our decisions relative to how we want to be governed and what kind of democratic institutions that we want to preserve, the better. So my hope is the Russians have overstepped here to the point where people will say, we absolutely have to do something about it and we absolutely have to prevent the torrent (ph) efforts in place, as well as potentially offensive efforts.

KING: Well, I think your point about open hearings and education is incredibly important. You and I were in the Ukraine and Poland just about a year ago and what they told us over there was that the best defense - they can't shut down their TV networks, they can't turn off the internet - the best defense is if the public knows what's happening and they say, oh, it's just the Russians again, and we have to reach that level of knowledge in this country. So I completely agree and hope that as much of our work as possible can be done in open hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Senator King.

Gentlemen, thank you so much. Thank you all for your service. Thank you to all the men and women of all 17 agencies for the incredible service they provide to the people of the United States keeping them safe, doing things that most people in America will never know, nor be able to fully appreciate.

Mr. McCabe, a special thank you for you to stepping up to the battlefield promotion and representing your agency quite well here.

This part of the hearing will be adjourned and, gentlemen, you have about an hour and six minutes and we'll see you in the other room. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

KEILAR: We have been watching the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on worldwide threats. It was previously scheduled. However, in the wake of President Trump's firing of FBI Director Jim Comey, that took center stage in the issues dealt with by these various agencies.

I want to bring in our panel now to talk about this. And as this has been going on, there was this interesting moment when you saw the chairman and the ranking member leave. And it now seems we know where he was going, to meet with Rod Rosenstein. We now know from a DOJ official that he, the deputy attorney general, was up there on Capitol Hill to meet with these folks. This is significant, Mark Preston.

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It's significant because there's been a lot of questions about whether he was the impetus to try to have Mr. Comey removed as the FBI director, a story that seems to be falling apart by the minute, if not by the second.

[12:25:03] KEILAR: Because, to remind folks, it was all hung by the White House on a letter that Rosenstein provided stating criticism of Comey and how he handled the investigation and really the - his public role in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private e-mail and private server while secretary of state.

PRESTON: Right. And timing is everything because we're talking about the chairman and the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee getting out of a hearing where these questions are being asked of other administration officials about why Mr. Comey was dismissed to now go up to a secure area to have a conversation with the acting attorney general.

KEILAR: So do you think, Nia, this is what they're talking about? Are they trying to say, hey, were you asked by the White House to provide some sort of rational, or even just asked to provide a recommendation maybe without knowing that this is what was going to be used as the justification for firing Comey?

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER: Yes, I'm sure they want to get to the bottom of what happened with the Comey firing. We saw today some testimony that contradicted some of the reasons that the White House has given in terms of why they fired Comey. The White House has said it was because morale was flagging at the FBI and then we saw McCabe say, no, morale was fine and that a lot of the 40,000 core of the FBI, a lot of those folks had deep respect and deep attachment to Comey. So I imagine that they're going to try to figure out what role Rob Rosenstein had in this because originally it was that he was the impetus for this. We were told initially by the White House that two weeks into this job, right, that Rod basically came to the White House, I mean almost like it was his idea to fire Comey even though in that letter he never specifically makes that recommendation that he should be fired. It's Sessions in a follow-up letter who recommends that he should be fired.

DAVID CHALIAN, POLITICAL DIRECTOR: And I -

KEILAR: And -

CHALIAN: Oh, sorry.

KEILAR: Go on.

CHALIAN: I think we understand why this story is changing because Evan Perez and Pam Brown have reported that Rod Rosenstein is unhappy.

KEILAR: Yes.

CHALIAN: He's telling people that he's very unhappy with the way the White House handled the firing of Comey . Well, if you're the guy being pinned with the full justification of the firing initially and you're unhappy about it, clearly you don't believe your letter that you were asked to put into writing after meeting with the president is the real reason of the firing, otherwise you'd be plenty happy with it.

KEILAR: You think - you think this is big league (ph). You think he's being manipulated in a way.

CHALIAN: Exactly.

HENDERSON: Yes.

CHALIAN: So it is really clear here that the White House had to change their story, which they did. The problem is, even as they're changing their story, it's falling apart because in the change story we learn that they're saying, well, he also - Comey didn't have a lot of support in the FBI, interesting (ph). Well, today we learned that McCabe thinks he had broad support. The nothing is holding together for the Trump White House on this firing of Comey.

KEILAR: It's been -

CHALIAN: Why it happened, how it happened, nothing they've offered yet is holding together.

KEILAR: Fascinating moments here on Capitol Hill as we're really getting a lot of questions answered. We're going to continue. Of course, the busy day is going to continue with these hearings on The Hill. We'll be back with CNN's special coverage in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)