Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Intel Officials Testify after stunning National Security Blunder; CIA Director on Whether Adding Journalist to Group Chat was Appropriate: Of Course Not; Senator Warner: "Lives Could Have Been Lost" Because of Chat; Text Exchange Gives Unfiltered Look at Conversation Between Top Trump Officials. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired March 25, 2025 - 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. JACK REED (D-RI): The CIA has warned recently retired personal about vulnerabilities signal and other encrypting message applications. Is that the case why were you discussing these issues on signal?

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: Senator, signal use, as I said repeatedly, is permissible for work purposes. I've never said that end to end encryption apps like signal are a substitute for classified systems, and I was not discussing classified information in this -- in this setting.

REED: But as you've indicated previously, perhaps the Secretary of Defense was discussing classified information, and only he can be held accountable in terms of whether it was classified or declassified at the point we spoke. Is that accurate?

RATCLIFFE: Well, I didn't say it that way. I said the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority, and my understanding is that his comments are that any information that he shared was not classified.

REED: But you have no way to verify that.

RATCLIFFE: I don't.

REED: Again, this is a very troubling example and a great lapse in our intelligence and our discussion. One further point, if you are not aware of any classified information on the discussions back and forth, would it be appropriate for the author to release the entire text of what he heard or transcribe?

RATCLIFFE: I think the author has released my understanding, essentially, almost all of the information as it's been related to me. I don't know what calculation the author made with regard to what information would be released or not.

REED: Well, he can -

RATCLIFFE: -- I can -- I can again confirm that with respect to the communications that were related as to me, there was no classified information.

REED: According to the article quote, the message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations, and the author did not disclose that information. So, the question would be, if he disclosed everything he heard, in your view -

RATCLIFFE: That wouldn't be classified information. I know the context of what that is. And I think the author said might be interpreted as related to intelligence information. It was not classified information.

REED: So, it goes back to my point, if you released all this information, he did not release. He could do so without any liability at the federal level.

RATCLIFFE: I think you're asking for a legal -- legal answer I'm not able to give you, but.

REED: Mr. Patel (ph), can you opine you're a lawyer and you're Director to the FBI. Would he face any legal liability if he released the information?

UNIDENTFIED MALE: Because of the questions you and the Vice Chairman have put to me, I'm not going to prejudge the situation, and that legal goal is ultimately for the Department of Justice.

REED: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator Ossoff.

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for joining us and for your service. Just to make sure I understand some of the basics here. So, Director Ratcliffe, you were a member of the Houthi PC Small Group Signal Chain, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I was.

OSSOFF: Yeah. And so, were the Vice President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security Advisor and Ms. Gabbard, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I believe so. I don't have a list of who was invited to be -

OSSOFF: So -- and so was National Political Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't know that.

OSSOFF: Yes, you do.

RATCLIFFE: I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg and I don't have already testified. I don't know whether or how he was added.

OSSOFF: OK, well, he was a member of the signal chain, and the discussion included the vice president's private opinion on the wisdom of proposed U.S. strikes in Yemen, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

OSSOFF: Vance quote, I think we are making a mistake. I am not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There was a strong argument for delaying this a month. You don't recall.

RATCLIFFE: I don't -- as you -- as you -

OSSOFF: You don't recall seeing that?

RATCLIFFE: Read that. I don't.

OSSOFF: It included the private opinions of the Secretary of Defense on the timing of strikes in Yemen, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

OSSOFF: Director Ratcliffe, surely you prepared for this hearing today. You are part of a group of principles senior echelons of the U.S. government, and now a widely publicized breach of sensitive information. You don't recall whether the vice president opined on the wisdom of the strikes that your testimony today under oath.

RATCLIFFE: In that setting I don't recall.

OSSOFF: Here's what Secretary Hegseth said, quote, waiting a few weeks or months does not fundamentally change the calculus two immediate risks on waiting. One, this leaks, and we look indecisive. Two Israel takes an action first, or Gaza ceasefire falls apart, and we don't get to start this on our own terms. Your testimony. You don't recall the Secretary of Defense sending that message or reading it.

RATCLIFFE: I recall there being an exchange. I don't recall the specifics as you're reading it.

[12:05:00]

OSSOFF: Well, let's put it this way, Director Ratcliffe a discussion by senior U.S. officials on the timing and risks of a proposed military campaign and disagreements between the president and the vice president about U.S. plans and intentions would be of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services, would it not?

RATCLIFFE: Yes.

OSSOFF: And they were discussing the timing of sending U.S. air crews into enemy airspace where they faced an air defense threat, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I'm going to Senator defer to the other principles that you're referring to about what the meaning and the context of what -

OSSOFF: -- timing of U.S. air strikes, correct?

RATCLIFFE: Yes, yes. OSSOFF: And therefore, the timing of sending U.S. air crews into

hostile airspace, correct?

RATCLIFFE: Yes.

OSSOFF: And therefore, the time period during which enemy air defenses could target U.S. air crews flying in enemy airspace, correct?

RATCLIFFE: I don't know that.

OSSOFF: You do know that. Let me ask this question. General Hawk (ph), you lead America's signals intelligence collection with the private deliberation of foreign senior officials about the wisdom and timing of potential military action be a collection priority for you and the U.S. intelligence community?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Senator, it's our job to do indications and warning for both the plans and intentions of adversary leaders and for military commanders.

OSSOFF: And would not information about the timing of air strikes allow a military to pre-position or cue air defense systems to shoot down enemy aircraft.

RATCLIFFE: I think Senator the -- from our perspective, any advance warning is something that we certainly are trying to protect.

OSSOFF: Director Ratcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?

RATCLIFFE: No.

OSSOFF: A national -

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: No, no -

OSSOFF: -- you may answer no, no question, and now you hold on. A national political reporter.

(CROSSTALK)

RATCLIFFE: You -

OSSOFF: -- was made privy the White House sensitive information about military operations, foreign terrorist administration -

RATCLIFFE: -- of adding a report -

OSSOFF: -- and that wasn't a huge mistake, that wasn't a huge mistake?

RATCLIFFE: Well, I think -- they characterize -

OSSOFF: This is embarrassment. This is utterly unprofessional. There's been no apology. There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error. And by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I thank the witnesses again for their appearance today, since the Vice Chairman has something to add.

SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, I will recognize him briefly.

WARNER: Well again, I thank the witnesses. But what you're saying doesn't make sense on the face of it? Everybody knows, at least. Director Ratcliffe, you had the courtesy of acknowledging you were on the chain. Director Gabbard wouldn't even touch that, even though we're initials.

And if you want a comparison, think back to the beginning of the Ukraine war, when United States, in concert with our then ally, the United Kingdom, declassified a lot of Putin's battle plans that allowed the Ukrainians to push back successfully on the Russian invasion.

How was that -- that was gone through a real process of declassification? Senator Ossoff so clearly made the point this information out potentially where our adversary could reposition its defenses, in the unwillingness of the individuals on this panel who are on the chat to even apologize for acknowledging what a colossal screw up this is? Speaks volumes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you to our witnesses for your appearance. A few administrative matters, as I mentioned earlier Senator Collins is under the weather. She regrets that she cannot be here for your testimony. Senator Risch likewise had to preside over hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee to include the nomination of my Former Governor, Mike Huckabee, a great American and a great friend of Israel, to be the next Ambassador to Israel.

He also regrets that he could not be here. I anticipate he may have written questions as well. I would urge you all to respond to those promptly. Now the audience will remain seated while our witnesses and their aides depart the hearing room.

[12:10:00]

The Capitol Police will ensure this occurs. I want to commend the Capitol Police and our committee security staff for running an orderly hearing today for the benefit of members. The vote on the floor has been called. We will adjourn this -

MANU RAJU, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome to "Inside Politics". I'm Manu Raju in for Dana Bash. And we're following breaking news on the group chat that's ignited a global firestorm. A Senate Intelligence Committee hearing just ended where we heard directly from the country's top intelligence officials.

It was scheduled weeks ago, but clearly upended by a jaw dropping story in the Atlantic detailing how the Trump Administration discussed a pending military strike in a group chat on a messaging app and then accidentally added the magazine's editor to it.

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe were on that chat, but told Senators they did not discuss classified information. CNN's Alex Marquardt is following all the breaking developments. So, Alex, there were some stunning exchanges throughout this hearing.

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Manu, this was an extraordinary hearing on a number of different levels about this incredible breach in security through this Signal Chat that talked about the planning for this strike on the Houthis that the Journalist Jeffrey Goldberg was a part of, inadvertently.

This was an extremely partisan hearing, Manu, every single Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee focusing their questioning on this breach of Security, on this question of what was in there -- whether it was indeed classified information, and whether this conversation should have taken place on signal?

Not a single Republican focused their attention on that question at all, instead focusing on other issues that were included in what's known as the worldwide threats report, which is an annual threat from the intelligence community. But the big question about whether anything was included that Jeffrey Goldberg was privy to on signal was classified?

We heard a clear no from both Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence, and John Ratcliffe, the CIA Director. Ratcliffe was also asked whether this was a mistake. He responded to Senator John Ossoff of Georgia, no as well.

Manu, let's remind our viewers what was reported by Goldberg in "The Atlantic" in terms of what unfolded in this conversation. He report -- he reported that Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, on the day of the strikes in Yemen, that what he wrote contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.

Here's a bit of the exchange with Senator Mark Kelly, who was asking these intelligence officials about what was on that conversation, on signal take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Was there any mention of a target in Yemen?

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I don't remember mention of specific targets.

KELLY: Any generic target.

GABBARD: I believe there was discussion around targets in general.

KELLY: Mr. Ratcliffe?

RATCLIFFE: I think that's consistent with my recollection. Again, I don't have access to that.

KELLY: Was there -- was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system.

GABBARD: I don't recall specific weapons systems being named.

KELLY: I'm not talking about specific any weapon or weapon system.

GABBARD: I don't recall specific names of systems or weapons being used or named within --

KELLY: I'm not asking whether. I don't want you to tell me what the specific weapon was, but any weapon at all. Mr. Ratcliffe, same question.

RATCLIFFE: I don't recall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MARQUARDT: So, Manu there both the two heads of the U.S. Intelligence Committee saying they don't recall a lot of the details in there, but Gabbard admitting that there was discussion around targets in general. I would just note that Ratcliffe, later on would admit that what he called pre-decisional strike deliberations, so the decisions about whether to strike somewhere in this case, Yemen, should be conducted through classified channels, and therefore not through signal.

Now there's also a part of this story Manu that points directly to Ratcliffe and whether he released any classified information through the identification of a CIA Officer. He claims that was not classified. He also reported that what Goldberg withheld from his report because it appeared to be intelligence information that that too was not classified.

But they also seemed to try to split the difference between who was revealing this information and saying that what they put forward, so what Gabbard and Ratcliffe put forward was not classified for by the intelligence community.

[12:15:00]

But what Hegseth might have put forward, they need to ask Pete Hegseth about. So, they repeatedly deferred to Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense. We saw other Democrats like Ron Wyden of Oregon calling for the National Security Adviser, Mike Waltz, who started this chain, and Pete Hegseth, both to submit their resignations. And numerous Democrats saying, well, if this was not classified, then why not release the transcript of this conversation altogether?

Because if it's not classified, the public has the right to see it. Jon Ossoff, making the point very sharply there at the end that the Democrats on that Committee do intend to get the full transcript of that conversation, Manu.

RAJU: Yeah, and Alex Marquardt from Washington and the wrap of this hearing. Thank you so much, and we're going to weigh in more on that with our panel. But first President Trump, he weighed in on the texting controversy this morning and said he still supports his National Security Adviser, saying Michael Waltz has learned a lesson and he's a good man.

President Trump added this was quote, the only glitch in two months, and turned out not to be a serious one. I'm joined now by a terrific group of reporters, CNN's Jeff Zeleny, Leigh Ann Caldwell of "PUCK", Susan Glasser, "The New Yorker" and CNN's Eva McKend.

So, Jeff, you've been doing a lot of reporting about the White House. Have been dealing with the after Methodist, the damage control. We heard a lot of defiance, a lot of downplaying, a lot of -- John Ratcliffe not saying that they made a mistake. Defiance is this what the White House wanted from this testimony today?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It definitely is. I mean, they could have scripted it like this. Perhaps they did. But I thought it was interesting when Director Ratcliffe said it was not a mistake. Well, if you look at the president's words specifically, he said Mike Waltz learned a lesson.

So, you -- I mean, if you kind of connect those, you learn a lesson from a mistake. But the bottom line is, the White House is trying to downplay this. What I found most fascinating is there's a couple different things happening on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

The White House is standing by Mike Waltz. He does not need to be confirmed. He serves at the pleasure of the president, so he can be gone tomorrow. Someone else can replace him. But in the hearing on Capitol Hill, it was Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth who was again and again, kind of getting the blame here, and it looks like he is the one who shared the highly sensitive or classified information.

But the White House is not talking at all about sharing any anger, at least publicly, with this defense secretary. They worked very hard to get him confirmed. And that was a tough -- as you know. I mean, you were in the Senate, all those hallways, all those days.

So as of now, the White House is trying to move on from it. There's nothing to see here. But there is no doubt in my mind, talking to a variety of people. Mike Waltz is very damaged from this internally, just the judgment that was used. I mean, never mind the JG, whoever that was supposed to be on the chain.

Just the judgment that no one said a word on this chain, not Susie Wiles, the White House, Chief of Staff, not a variety of other people. So, this is not over, despite the fact that the White House is trying to say, there's nothing to see here.

RAJU: Speaking of which, given, the theme throughout this hearing on the Democratic side was, let's just release these classified. They're not classified release the messages, release the messages. And will Jeffrey Goldberg do that? In fact, he told "The Bulwark", just because they're irresponsible with material doesn't mean that I'm going to be irresponsible with this material. So maybe he will not release it. That's of course, the reporter. But

what about the what do you expect the Senate Intelligence Committee to do now in the aftermath of this and the push by Democrats to get this information? Do you think they'll actually obtain it, given that Republicans are in control?

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Well, based on Senator Cotton's statements and everything he said during the hearing, he did not seem intent on investigating this even further. In fact, he stepped in multiple times to kind of help Tulsi Gabbard and John Ratcliffe with their answers.

And so he is, seems like trying to dismiss this. Democrats say they're calling for bipartisan investigations. Chuck Schumer is on the floor today doing that, calling for -- you know the Department of Defense Inspector General to also investigate.

You know, Democrats, as you heard and said, are insistent that they will get these text messages. So, we'll see how, unless maybe Jeffrey Goldberg is brought before the committee or decides to release it to him to them. But Democrats don't have a lot of power here.

RAJU: Yeah, and look, just to remind viewers, I mean, he's -- Jeffrey Goldberg, the author, reported on a wide array of these texts, but decided to withhold certain information because he said he was concerned about the classified nature of it, that it could expose American military targets and the like.

Susan what he would make or take away of the -- you know they kept saying that war plans were not discussed here, but reading the article, it very much seems like there were war plans discussed in this text sheet. How do you how do they reconcile? How do you reconcile that?

[12:20:00]

SUSAN GLASSER, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORKER: I mean, they're not -

RAJU: Is it possible to reconcile that?

GLASSER: No Manu, of course. Listen, this is the thing about -- you know the political techniques of Donald Trump and his supporters over time, versus our own reality, our own eyes. OK, so once again, we're being asked to, you know, this is an almost farcical defense. It's, frankly not even I would call it a legalistic defense, except it's not a legalistic defense.

The real legalistic defense is you're under oath. So, say I don't recall. Let's pull back here. Is this an extraordinary breach of national security, however you define the terminology of the material use? Yes, if it was intelligence we obtained on another power, I think one of the Senators made this point about real time debates and planning for war plans. Of course you would consider this highly sensitive information. Number one.

Number two, this is a compromised non -- there's a reason that our classified discussions don't take place on signal. In fact, NPR has reported today that the Pentagon had warned about the use of signal and its potential vulnerability to foreign penetration right before this conversation occurred.

If anything, I would say the scandal looks worse for the Trump White House on the second day, even than it did initially. Why? Well, you have the information emerging that one of the participants, Steve Witkoff, was actually in Moscow at the time that this conversation was occurring. That is remarkable. Number one.

Number two, the idea that it wasn't classified, again, strains credulity, and not in a partisan way. By the way, in the old days, this is not a matter for Democrats and Republicans. If we were living in any moment, except for this moment, a special prosecutor would be appointed to look into whether a breach of classified information and our national security. That's how it would have worked, except in this moment where we've turned everything, including basic matters of national security, into partisan issues.

RAJU: You know -

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: But this -- but this is not hypocrisy is not something that President Trump or this administration has illustrated that they feel especially burdened by. In my conversations with Democrats, they say that on the messaging on this, it's really important to just bring it home for everyday Americans.

Your son or your daughter in the military right now might very well be in jail, incarcerated if they engage in this same type of behavior. The Trump White House had a record of maligning former black military officials as DEI hires, but they operate under a much different standard. I think that that is what we are going to hear from Democrats in the weeks and months ahead on this scandal, very much bringing it home for the American people.

RAJU: Let's just take a step back and look at the interpersonal dynamics within this text exchange you saw on your screen there the number of people, high ranking officials, from the vice president on down, there was a discussion. The vice president even said at one point that he thought it was a mistake to go ahead with these military strikes that he was not sure the president was aware how inconsistent this is in the message with Europe right now.

And then you have Stephen Miller come in also and say the president wants to green light this going forward. What is your takeaway from that really remarkable exchange that we what we saw?

ZELENY: That perhaps was one of the most interesting things of all in the actual substance of this conversation, was that the vice president was raising such objections to Europe, our allies, of course, but also actually disagreeing with the president, saying the president may not be aware of this.

This is really the second example of something really in the last week or so that the president was not part of this chat, was not part of the conversation. So, the president and vice president are having lunch at this hour. I can't imagine that this is not part of the discussion.

But to me, that is something that Stephen Miller, who, of course, is closer to the president and more loyal than anyone I can even think of among the cadre of loyal aides in this town. And he was saying, no, he's already made his decision.

RAJU: Yeah.

ZELENY: So, after that, people were kind of quiet in the chat. But that was a fascinating window into what -- is the president being sort of a let along here?

RAJU: Yeah.

ZELENY: Are his advisers' kind of leaving him out of a discussion that was interesting. I don't think we've heard the last of that.

GLASSER: Yeah, I think that it revealed, first of all, gave us insight into the dynamics on that foreign policy team. But more importantly, the disdain, the visceral disdain for our allies in Europe, really leapt through that. This is something that's not just public rhetoric, but deeply held in private.

Stephen Miller, in fact, talked about that somehow European allies should be forced to remunerate. That was the term used in this chat for an American strike on the Houthis as if the United States does not have its own interest in commercial shipping being able to transfer through the region the Suez Canal.

I thought that was a really remarkable moment. It shows you that not just in Ukraine and Europe, but even in the Middle East Donald Trump has a foreign policy team that believes that somehow Europe should pay for us, acting, presumably in our own national security behalf, number one.

[12:25:00]

Number two, it suggested very strongly in this conversation that this was an optional military action. So, then the question becomes, well, why?

ZELENY: Because he said, get off a month -

(CROSSTALK)

GLASSER: And that conditions wouldn't change.

RAJU: And the concerned about the messaging and the like, and had to coordinate the messaging really, just a remarkable 24 hours and much more to come, including more on our breaking news, including how some Republicans are brushing off that jaw dropping group chat. One member of Congress even saying, quote, we all make mistakes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [12:30:00]