Transcription
Now, before I close, I want to warn the American people who are watching at home. You may hear lies and smears in this hearing that will challenge my loyalty to and my love for our country.
Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal to something or someone other than God, my own conscience, and the Constitution of the United States. They accuse me of being Trump's puppet, Putin's puppet, Assad's puppet, a guru's puppet, Modi's puppet, not recognizing the absurdity of simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet masters.
The same tactic was used against President Trump and failed. The American people elected President Trump with a decisive victory and mandate for change. The fact is, what truly unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their puppet.
Democrat senators in the past resorted to anti-Christian bigotry against some of President Trump's judicial nominees, like Amy Coney Barrett and Brian Buescher. I condemn those actions as a Democrat in Congress at the time. Religious bigotry must be thoroughly condemned by all of us, no matter the religion.
Unfortunately, there are some Democrat senators who still don't understand the principle of freedom of religion and Article Six of the Constitution, which states, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Unfortunately, they're once again using the religious bigotry card, but this time trying to foment religious bigotry against Hindus and Hinduism.
If anyone is sincerely interested in knowing more about my own personal spiritual path of Hinduism, I welcome you to go to my account on X, where I'll share more on this topic.
Now, Mr. Vice Chairman, Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you on this committee or seek out the IG to release that information.
The fact is, he also, even as he broke the law, released information that exposed egregious illegal and unconstitutional programs that are happening within our government. That led to serious reforms that Congress undertook.
Chairman, we got five minutes, so I take your answer. You know, and these are your quotes: "Brave, please join my bipartisan legislation calling for charges to be dropped against him." You disagree that legislation was not appropriate. Do you believe he is brave or not?
Yeah, back those words once again. Senator, Edward Snowden broke the law. He also released information. Do you agree that Edward Snowden broke the law?
Whether your legislation and your words are still your beliefs, yes or no, please. I'm making myself very clear: Edward Snowden broke the law. He released information about the United States government's illegal activities.
If I may just finish my thoughts, Senator, in this role that I've been nominated for, if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will be responsible for protecting our nation's secrets. I have four immediate steps that I would take to prevent another Snowden-like leak.
Was Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?
Senator, I will also repeat my answer: he broke the law. You said earlier that you were offended by a question that my colleague from Kansas asked, which I think was his duty as somebody on this committee to fulfill his responsibility to advise and consent.
We are not here to be a stamp for the President of the United States. So let me ask you again: do you believe, as the chairman of this committee believes, as the vast majority of members of our intelligence agencies believe, that Edward Snowden was a traitor to the United States of America?
Senator, if confirmed, I will work with you to make sure this is not a moment for social media. It's not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories or attacks on journalism in the United States. This is when you need to answer the questions of the people whose votes you're asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.
As my colleague said, this is not about you; it's about the people that serve the intelligence agencies of the United States. Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.
Senator, as someone who has worn our uniform in combat, I understand how critical our national security is. Apparently, you don't. Apparently, you don't.
Let me ask you: I've worked very hard to put your own words here in front of the committee—not fake news, not conspiracy theories on the internet, but the actual things that you have said.
On February 23rd, 2022, at the very moment that Russian tanks were rolling across the peaceful border of Ukraine for the first time, you tweeted at 11:30 p.m. your time, "This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if the Biden administration had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO." Did you say that? Yes or no?
I believe you're reading my tweet, Senator. Yes is the answer. A few months later, you said on your podcast, and I quote, "But this regime change war against Russia that the U.S. and NATO are waging via their proxy in Ukraine didn't begin when Putin invaded Ukraine. They had their eyes set on this objective long before that." Did you say that? Yes or no?
I believe you're reading my tweet. There is a lot—you're quoting a podcast that provided. I’m happy to have a conversation with the chairman about whether I'm taking anything out of context. I don't think I am, and your answer is yes.
Are you aware that your comments about proxy wars and Russia's legitimate security concerns, to quote your own words, are in alignment with what the Russians have said to justify their invasion of Ukraine? Yes or no?
Senator, I don't pay attention to Russian propaganda. My goal is to speak.
Take the answer, regardless of whether you like it or not. I'll take that. That's fine. You said you are used to speaking truth to power. I'm shocked to hear you now say that.
You are agreeing. I'm not shocked because I know you said it. You are agreeing that you basically said that Putin was justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine—the first time since World War II that a free nation had been invaded by a totalitarian state.
And you were there at 11:30 p.m. that night to say that you were with them, not us. And let me tell you something: you say you don't know because you don't read Russian propaganda. Russian state TV then aired your comments. Did you know that?
Senator, I think you should also quote this statement that I made criticizing Putin for his invasion of Ukraine. For too long, faulty, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence have led to low-cost failures and the undermining of our national security and God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
The most obvious example of one of these failures is our invasion of Iraq based upon a total fabrication or complete failure of intelligence. This disastrous decision led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers, millions of people in the Middle East, mass migration, destabilization, and undermining of the security and stability of our European allies, the rise of ISIS, strengthening of al-Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist groups, and strengthening Iran.
You also mentioned Russia, but the only thing you said about Russia in fully explaining why it's a priority is ending the war.
When you talk about Russia, what are your fears or policy priorities beyond ending the war? How do you see Russia as a threat to the United States?
Senator, if confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, it will be paramount for me to assess where our intelligence gaps may exist so that I can provide the president and all of you with the most accurate, full picture of that threat assessment.
To directly answer your question, I think that it is a complex environment. Russia remains a strategic competitor. There are a number of concerns that have to do with their nuclear weapons, as well as how the decisions and policies that are being made by this body and by the president will impact our own national security, which is my foremost concern.
I want to make certain that in no way does Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart or in any policy recommendation you would make or not make.
Senator, I'm offended by the question because my sole focus, commitment, and responsibility is about our own nation, our own security, and the interests of the American people in carrying out the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence. If confirmed, no country, group, or individual will get a pass in my fulfilling that responsibility of providing that full intelligence picture so that you all can make the best-informed policy decisions for the safety, security, and freedom of the American people.
You have my commitment to be completely objective, unbiased, and apolitical, and I hope you understand my commitment to our country's interest.
I absolutely do. You have answered my question in the manner in which I wanted to hear, that you will do this in an objective manner, provide the information necessary, and that Russia, if it's a threat, you will tell us so and tell us the details of that threat.
Yes, Senator.