Register for The Slatest to obtain the most insightful analysis, criticism and advice, delivered daily in your reception box.
If Thursday’s confirmation hearing is something to pass, Tulsi Gabbard may well become the first candidate of President Trump’s office to be elected by the Senate.
It was a disastrous hearing for the post of director of national intelligence, because all the eight democrats of the Senate Intelligence Committee and some of his nine Republicans raised serious questions about his judgment, his qualifications and his ability to develop Confidence with the 18 United States the intelligence agencies it would supervise and with their counterparts in the Allied nations.
From the start, the appointment of Gabbard to be the highest official of American intelligence struck a lot as the most surprising in a series of surprising appointments. Many of these nominees seem well suited to weaken The departments or the agencies they direct – or, to put it in terms of Donald Trump and his entourage, have invoked on several occasions, the kind of people who, deliberately or by force, help to dismantle “the deep state . “”
Gabbard, a former Democrat deputy who transformed Maga’s enthusiast after a failed 2020 race to the presidency, has made waves in recent years to perceive the propaganda of the Kremlin on the Russian-Ukrain war he was behind attacks Specific chemical weapons against his own people and claiming that the rebel groups he bombed and machine-gunned were all Al-Qaida fighters), and for having made various other bizarre claims.
When Trump announced his appointment, the anchors on Russian television – the news channel led by the Kremlin – gave the news with Glee, greeting Gabbard as “our girlfriend”.
Several senators noted all these facts at the hearing on Thursday, but focused even more intensely on other questions. Almost all of them noted that she had formerly praised Edward Snowden as a “brave denunciator” who should be pardoned for all criminal offenses. Snowden was the entrepreneur of the national security agency who stole 1.5 million highly classified documents, disclosed some of them to journalists, then fled to Moscow, where he still lives as a citizen Russian.
Gabbard replied that she had stopped highlighting the “deliciously illegal and unconstitutional programs” that Snowden had exhibited – in particular the NSA programs which intercept the communications of American citizens – and that its leaks had led to “Serious reforms”.
Some senators mentioned in a report on the Intelligence Committee of the Bipartite Chamber calling Snowden’s actions “the greatest most damaging intelligence leak” in American history and concluding that the vast majority of its stolen documents had Nothing to do with the privacy of Americans. Rather, they have revealed vast details on “sources and methods”, doing harm and harm to American security and the American armed forces if we were going to war against Russia or China.
Gabbard admitted that she knew the conclusions of the report, but she refused to answer when the senators asked her five times if she considered Snowden as a “traitor”. It would not affect the invitation of a senator either to admit, at the very least, that Snowden’s actions had damaged American security. Instead, she said that she focused on “the future” – in particular, to open routes to the denunciators in order to complain about illegal policies without having to do what Snowden did.
He was asked if she thought that professionals from American intelligence agencies – or those of countries that share very classified information with us – would trust her, given her point of view on Snowden. She replied that she had received “letters” from intelligence officials who defended her appointment.
Senators of the two parties also asked questions about its opposition to article 702 of Foreign Intelligence Act Act, which allows the United States to intercept the communications of alleged terrorists or criminals abroad. Interceptions are sometimes done so as to recover calls also involving Americans. Informed that 60% of a president’s information comes from information gathered thanks to article 702, Gabbard said at the hearing that she had changed her mind on this issue following reforms that had been made to The law. He was asked what reforms changed his mind. She did not respond.
Senator Mark Warner, a democratic vice-president of the committee, said that he had not “bought” his “confirmation conversion” about the issue anyway. He cited his appearance on the Podcast of Joe Rogan in May 2024 – a month After The reforms have been passed – according to which they “have already taken an already bad problem and made it well, often worse”.
Democratic senator Michael Bennet has entered the most energetic exchange of the hearing – and, as he turned out, overwhelming – with the candidate. He quoted Gabbard’s tweet, published only a few hours after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 of Russia, noting that the war “could have been avoided if Biden had simply recognized the legitimate security problems of Russia concerning Ukraine members at NATO. ” He also quoted his remark on a podcast shortly after, saying that the United States and NATO put a “war of regime change against Russia … via their proxy in Ukraine”.
Bennet asked if she knew that her comments were “aligned with what the Russians said to justify” the invasion. She replied: “I am not paying attention to Russian propaganda. My goal is to tell the truth, whether you like it or not. »»
It even took Bennet by surprise. “I am shocked,” he said, “to hear you now say that you agree that Putin was justified to ride on the peaceful border of Ukraine.”
He then turned to the Republican President of the Committee, Senator Tom Cotton, and said: “Can’t we do better than someone who does not believe in 702, who cannot answer if Edward Snowden was A traitor, who apologized for the invasion of Ukraine by Putin? »»
Perhaps the second most overwhelming moment came during the questions of Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. He started, just like the other senators, thanking Gabbard for her service (she served in Iraq and Kuwait as a member of the Army National Guard and remains Lieutenant-Colonel in the reserves), then he Asked how she would have sampled all intelligence and draws conclusions. She replied that she “would create a strong team” of analysts around her.
With that, Kelly has released the flowing knot. As a member of the Congress and as recently as this month, he noted, Gabbard questioned the unanimous conclusion of the intelligence community according to which Assad was guilty for two specific chemical attacks against his own people. In fact, he continued, in 2017, the president of the time, Trump, declared a large mine of materials showing how Intel agencies reached this conclusion – but Gabbard still doubted it. For what?
Gabbard replied that she feared that Barack Obama – who was president at the time of allegations – uses the Intel as a “pretext” for sending “half a million soldiers to change diet” in Syria. And she relied on doubts raised in a study by Professor of MIT Ted Postol.
“Have you aware the appearance of Postol on Russia TV?” Asked Kelly. “Yes,” she replied. “Did you know that Postol was counting on a chemistry student who defended the Assad regime?” He asked. “Not at the time,” she replied. “Have you tried to weigh complaints (from Postol) against proof of the intelligence community?” He asked. “Yes”, it is useless – paid.
Kelly sighed. “So here’s my concern,” he said. At the start of the hearing, “you described a thoughtful approach to intelligence analysis. But we just crossed how you came to use by Assad with chemical weapons with a different approach. You started in a place of doubt of the conclusion of the American intelligence community, then you looked for information that confirmed your point of view. You accepted the point of view of people who sympathized in Russia. “Intelligence agencies” do not do things at 100% of the time, but when you were skeptical about the CI, you would not apply the same skepticism to people who sympathized with Assad. “
The office of the Director of National Intelligence was created in 2005 following conclusions that the terrorist attacks of September 11 four years earlier could have been interrupted if the US intelligence agencies had not worked in isolation of each other. The idea was that the DNI would have access to all intelligence and coordinate the activities and reports of the 18 American intelligence agencies. He or she would also serve as chief advisor to the president, the manager who writes and serves the daily briefing of the president of the president.
It was one of the very few confirmation audiences this month when members of the two parties expressed serious reservations on one of Trump’s candidates. If a sparkle of meaning is still shining above a handful of seats on the republican side of the Senate, the hearing of Thursday should mark the end of Tulsi Gabbard.
Register for the Slate evening newsletter.
