Confirmation Hearing Held For DNI Nominee Jay Clayton In The Senate Intelligence Committee

[0:01] Good morning. This hearing will come to order. I want to welcome all of you to today's hearing on the nomination of Mr. J. Clayton to be the Director of National Intelligence. Before we begin, I would also like to recognize the devastating loss we all suffered over the weekend on behalf of this committee to pay tribute to our former colleague, Lindsey Graham. [0:23] Though Lindsey didn't serve on the Intelligence Committee, as a former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a part of our extended family, and he was obviously a champion for intelligence officers, just as he was for our troops. He was a true partner on issues such as FISA, FBI, DOJ oversight. Lindsey ensured the intelligence community had the resources needed to confront our adversaries. [0:47] Lindsey was a true patriot who led with courage, loyalty, and relentless optimism during his time both as an airman in the Air Force and in the United States Congress. [0:58] In remembrance of Senator Lindsey Graham's lifetime of service, I invite the members of this committee to honor our colleague and friend by living up to the example he set and carrying forward his love for God and for country. [1:10] We also welcome his sister and new senator, Darlene, who we all had the occasion to meet yesterday, and who I know will carry forward his legacy in a way that would make him immensely proud, as he always was proud of his young sister. [1:26] Today's hearing is an opportunity to consider Mr. Clayton's qualifications, so I'd like to welcome him and his wife, Gretchen, to the Senate Intelligence Committee. [1:34] Mr. Clayton, thank you for once again answering the call to public service. [1:39] To your family and loved ones, including those watching from home, thank you for your support during this process. [1:45] I want to state for the record that Mr. Clayton has provided answers to our standard 40-page committee questionnaire. [1:51] He has answered in writing more than 200 advanced questions for the record as well. [1:56] He has completed his FBI background investigation. [1:58] He has met with most members of this committee, and he has provided more than five years of tax returns. [2:03] This is no small feat, but was helped in large part by the fact that this was his third time through the process. [2:10] I want to thank all of those persons and organizations who worked to move his nomination at very fast speeds. [2:18] That includes our committee staff, the staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, the Office of Government Ethics, and the White House Counsel's Office. [2:28] I'd also like to offer my prayers to outgoing Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard's husband, Abraham, as he battles cancer, and thank Ms. Gabbard for her efforts to streamline the ODNI as she turns, understandably, to her husband's care. [2:44] This committee is grateful for her decades of service to the country, both in uniform and as a civilian. [2:47] And I also want to take a moment to thank Bill Pulte for his leadership to date as the Acting Director of National Intelligence. [2:55] The additional steps he's taken to right-size the Office of the DNI will help Mr. Clayton be successful on day one of assuming this position. [3:04] Mr. Pulte has been highly communicative and engaged with me and my staff during his tenure, for which I am grateful. [3:09] Mr. Clayton, it's my understanding that you intend to finish Ms. Gabbard's work to return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission. [3:18] I've long said that the right number of staff at the ODNI would number in the dozens, maybe a couple hundreds at the maximum, but certainly not the thousands of recent years. [3:27] Congress intended the ODNI to be a lean and efficient organization to keep bureaucratic intelligence agencies at bay. [3:34] But some 20 years later, the ODNI has unfortunately become yet another bloated agency that incentivizes bureaucratic make-work as opposed to genuine intelligence work. [3:45] Mr. Clayton, given your many years as a seasoned professional in both government and private practice, I'm eager to hear how your experiences will inform your plans to return the ODNI to those roots. [3:56] I look forward to working with you to provide any legislative relief that you deem necessary, such as transferring centers or functions to other government agencies, because while many functions that are needful occur at the ODNI, they don't necessarily need to be occurring there. [4:11] Additionally, I'm interested in hearing about your efforts to advance America's national security in your current role as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. [4:18] As U.S. Attorney, Mr. Clayton has gone after some of the worst of the worst national security threats, including foreign enemies who put innocent Americans at risk and have American blood on their hands. [4:28] For example, he's overseen the indictment of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, secured the guilty plea of Venezuelan general Hugo Carvajal, and overseen the prosecution of an Iran-backed terrorist connected to multiple attempted terror attacks in the United States. [4:43] Though these are just a few high-profile cases, let me state for the record that Mr. Clayton has worked hand-in-glove with our intelligence agencies and counterterrorism personnel to lock-up criminals who threaten our national security. [4:56] I commend him and all those involved for this important work. [4:59] I'm interested in hearing from the nominee how he plans to apply this experience as the leader of the intelligence community. [5:05] Mr. Clayton, in addition to streamlining the ODNI, foremost on your to-do list, we'll be helping refocus the intelligence community on operations by being a vocal and uncompromising advocate for its resources. [5:18] If confirmed, I'll expect you to make the case to the intelligence and appropriations committees for why the funding requests in a supplemental funding bill with great successes, [5:28] while the Pentagon received money from the working families tax cut, the intelligence community did not. [5:33] I'll say here publicly what I wrote to Acting Director Pulte and Director Ratcliffe last month. [5:38] I do not want to see any more reprogramming requests that borrow from one operational account to fund another. [5:44] There are plenty of underperforming and under-executing programs across the intelligence community that can be a bill payer for needful operations until Congress can pass supplemental appropriations bills. [5:55] Now, before I turn it over to the Vice Chairman, I'd like to put on the record that in all my experiences with Mr. Clayton, [6:01] his reputation as someone who operated with morality, decency, and integrity has proven to be true. [6:08] The job Mr. Clayton has been nominated for today is not one which he sought, but one which he has been gracious enough to take on. [6:15] I'm confident that by the end of the day, my colleagues will join me in seeking to get Mr. Clayton's nomination across the finish line. [6:22] I now recognize the Vice Chairman for his opening remarks. [6:25] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [6:27] Let me just echo what you said at the beginning of this hearing in terms of the great loss we all feel on both sides of the aisle of the passing of our friend, Lindsey Graham. [6:36] And as we commented yesterday, he was not on this committee, but he sure as hell acted like he was on this committee on many times. [6:46] Mr. Clayton, Jay, it's good to see you again. [6:47] You know, it was great to have the opportunity to meet your wife, Gretchen, in the ante room. [6:52] And I'm going to start with where the chairman started. [6:59] And I have addressed this before, but the process we've gone through to get you before this committee is really pretty remarkable. [7:11] I can't think of any other instance in the history of this committee where a president sends a nominee up and then in a bipartisan way, we say, we really want to move heaven and earth to get this nominee moving through quickly because the importance of the position. [7:31] And then the president decided that Senate was moving too fast on his own nominee and pulls that nominee for a while, pulls down the hearing and in the meantime, blows up the FISA reauthorization process, which is critically important. [7:48] Now, I know you had nothing to do with that and were probably as surprised as many of us. [7:52] So I guess congratulations about getting finally in front of this committee. [7:58] I also want to thank you for your partnership when you were SEC chairman and when we worked on investments in human capital. [8:08] But as I last talked to you, this job is very different than anything I think you've done in your long career. [8:16] And I'll have certain expectations of how you would perform the duties of D&I. [8:21] These are expectations I make clear to all IC principals throughout my time on this committee, regardless of administration. [8:30] First and foremost, as most know, this position of D&I was created after the events of 9-11. [8:37] And as such, and Senator Collins had a large role in creating this position, it said that it requires the D&I have extensive national security qualifications. [8:48] Because if you get this job, you're going to have intimacy with all of the nation's top closely guarded secrets. [8:57] Now, I know you've served in some very distinguished positions, SEC chairman, U.S. Attorney for Southern District. [9:03] And I look forward to hearing how those positions will meet that qualification and extensive national security experience. [9:10] Second, as I mentioned, the D&I has literally access to all our nation's secrets, things that are limited only to the Gang of Eight here in Congress. [9:20] And I will hope that you will treat this sensitive information with the kind of respect and security it deserves. [9:28] As members know, one of my greatest concerns with President Trump's appointment of Mr. Pulte as acting D&I is that Mr. Pulte had no national security experience. [9:39] And if anything, it's what seemed to be his one qualification. [9:42] He had a demonstrated record of releasing private, confidential mortgage information so he could weaponize it for political purposes. [9:51] I can't think of a less qualified individual to be anywhere close to the D&I's role. [9:59] In fact, there's already reporting about Mr. Pulte's plan to do intelligence on elections, some that's based on how he might misuse some of that, on some of our most sensitive sources. [10:14] And I just don't understand how Mr. Pulte, and one of the reasons why I am anxious to get a permanent D&I, can end up figuring out what is appropriate or not appropriate, since he's been in the job for only three weeks. [10:27] And again, with no national security experience. [10:30] Our nation's security depends on our ability to protect secrets and protect the people who gather those secrets, whether it's allies, partners, or assets we have recruited. [10:41] Carelessly handling that information ultimately makes our country less safe. [10:47] Lastly, I urge you to stand strong in protecting the most sacred of the IC principles, speaking truth to power. [10:55] This commitment to truth is literally carved in stone at the CIA's headquarters. [11:00] It is fundamental to not only the functioning and credibility of the IC, but also to the security of the American people. [11:08] We have seen what happens when policymakers are allowed to shade intelligence for political reasons. [11:14] It results in endless wars, tens of billions of dollars in wasted taxpayer dollars, and literally thousands of dead Americans. [11:23] Unfortunately, we have seen repeated attempts because he feared it would make the president look bad. [11:30] That's the absolute epitome of undermining speaking truth to power. [11:33] To the former DNI, literally inserting herself into an active domestic law enforcement action in Fulton County, and seizing voting machines in Puerto Rico. [11:45] Nothing within the gambit of the DNI. [11:48] It's about foreign intelligence and foreign interference. [11:50] And in fact, recent report suggests that the IC's annual analytic objective survey, where they go out to the whole IC community and say, how do you think things are going, shows a substantial increase in the number of IC employees who say they are concerned about the intelligence analysis being undermined by political interference. [12:15] Again, the opposite of why your role was created and the opposite of what the goals of the IC should be. [12:23] I hope that should you be confirmed, you will make it clear that this kind of politicization has no place in the intelligence community. [12:30] And I ask that you treat the thousands of IC career staff who will be under your charge with the kind of respect and dignity they deserve. [12:39] They are brave men and women who have signed up to serve our country, and they never get the recognition that our men and women in uniform get, but they do so much to protect our nation. [12:52] And as I said at the outset, this is a very different job than any you've had in the past. [12:56] In some ways, I believe it's more critical than being SEC chair or U.S. attorney, because in many ways, the IC is our first line of defense in terms of keeping our country safe. [13:07] In order to make sure we keep our country safe, the IC must also maintain the trust and credibility with the American people, which means objective analysis, keeping itself free from politicization. [13:22] I look forward to your answers. Congratulations again, and I yield back. [13:28] Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. I now recognize Senator Rounds, who would like to say a few words about Mr. Clayton. [13:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, I have the privilege of introducing the Honorable Jay Clayton, President Trump's nominee, to serve as the next Director of National Intelligence. [13:45] I first met Jay through my role on the Banking Committee when he was nominated by President Trump and confirmed by the Senate to be Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2017. [13:56] He's a consummate professional with a distinguished career in both the private and public sectors. [14:01] The Senate previously confirmed him on a bipartisan basis to serve as the SEC chair, and I'd like to think we were proven correct in judging his character the first time around. [14:13] It's no surprise President Trump would select him to serve in his cabinet. [14:17] The DNI has to be a trusted, unbiased voice to provide ongoing intelligence to the President. [14:23] I believe Jay will do a great work in this role. [14:26] Jay is an accomplished lawyer with decades of experience, and he currently holds one of the most high-profile and demanding posts in the Department of Justice as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. [14:37] He made the most of his time in New York by prosecuting some of America's worst enemies and threats to our national security. [14:44] Mohammed Al-Sadia, the Iranian-Iraqi national responsible for over a dozen terrorist attacks in Europe and two attempted attacks in America. [14:52] Nicholas Maduro and other narco-terrorists. [14:57] These efforts required extensive coordination with the intelligence community and larger national security enterprise, including the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. [15:11] If confirmed, Jay's experience at the helm in New York will serve him well as DNI. [15:17] Mr. Clayton chaired the SEC through a period of significant uncertainty for financial markets during the depths of the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020. [15:27] His success in leadership roles at the SEC and DOJ is strong evidence of his ability to be an effective coordinator as the Director of National Intelligence. [15:36] Many of the most pressing national security threats we face today are cross-cutting issues that involve technology and economics and go beyond the IC's traditional focus on foreign military capabilities and foreign leadership intentions. [15:51] Jay's time at the SEC and in the private sector has given him valuable experience with issues that the DNI faces on a daily basis. [16:00] Jay holds a TS, SCI clearance, and has worked in highly classified compartmented environments requiring discretion and security compliance. [16:30] As a result, he knows firsthand the critical importance of Section 702 and FISA. [16:38] His extensive experience working across agencies is a quality needed as DNI. [16:46] He has a working relationship with CIA Director Ratcliffe that will make for a smooth transition into this leadership role. [16:53] While Jay may not have served in the intelligence community, he has the right mix of practical experience working with the IC, [17:00] including experience with the Justice Department and coordination with the Department of the Treasury. [17:06] His professional background is important to the growing demands being placed upon the IC related to technology and economic competition. [17:15] Further, his diverse experience in the private sector, the SEC, and as a U.S. attorney in a very active district [17:22] give him the wealth of management, leadership, and organizational experience to succeed in coordinating at all the different equities [17:31] or with all of the different equities that make up the intelligence community. [17:36] In closing, I offer my strong endorsement for Mr. Clayton to serve as the next Director of National Intelligence. [17:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [17:47] Thank you, Senator Round. [17:48] Mr. Clayton, before we move to your opening statement, I need to ask you five standard questions the committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. [17:55] A simple yes or no answer for the record will suffice. [17:59] One, do you agree to appear before the committee here or in other venues when invited? [18:03] Yes. [18:05] Two, if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designate the staff when invited? [18:11] Yes. [18:11] Three, do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? [18:20] Yes. [18:21] Four, will you ensure that your office and your staff provide such material to the committee when requested? [18:27] Yes, I will. [18:28] Five, do you agree to inform and fully brief, to the fullest extent possible, all members of this committee of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the chairman and the vice chairman? [18:40] Yes. [18:41] Thank you very much. [18:42] After our hearing today, it's my intention to convene a committee business meeting early next week to vote on the nomination of Mr. Clayton and report it to the Senate for a floor vote. [18:52] Mr. Clayton, we will now proceed to your opening statement, after which I will recognize members by seniority before the gavel and by arrival after the gavel for five minutes each. [19:01] Mr. Clayton, the floor is yours. [19:04] Thank you, Chairman Cotton. [19:06] Vice, you move the mic a little closer. [19:09] How's this? [19:09] Thank you, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and the distinguished members of the committee. [19:16] I am honored to appear before you today as the nominee to be the Director of National Intelligence. [19:22] I would like to thank President Trump for placing his continued trust and confidence in me. [19:29] I am humbled by this nomination and grateful for the opportunity to continue serving our country. [19:34] I also want to thank my wife, Gretchen, and our children for their support and their commitment to public service. [19:43] I also thank the many women and men I have worked with at the SEC and the DOJ. [19:50] Together, we have built great teams that have delivered for the American people. [19:56] Sarah Rounds, I thank you for those very kind words and for your commitment to the people of South Dakota and our country. [20:02] I have been fortunate to serve in a broad range of leadership roles in both the public and private sectors. [20:11] Each position has presented challenges and opportunities. [20:15] If confirmed, I intend to approach the DNI role in the same way I have approached these roles. [20:22] Mission-focused and team-oriented, taking on the challenges and seizing the opportunities. [20:27] The mission of the Director of National Intelligence is clear. [20:33] To ensure that the policy makers and institutions that the intelligence community serves, [20:39] especially the President, our military leaders, and Congress, [20:44] receive the best possible intelligence in a timely, objective, and independent manner. [20:51] That mission and obligation will be front of mind every day. [20:54] If confirmed, I will work to strengthen the coordination and communication [21:00] between the intelligence community and the people we serve. [21:03] I will focus on enhancing the trust of the American people in the ODNI, [21:09] the intelligence community, and our federal government generally. [21:14] I will have an open door and walk the halls policy. [21:18] This has proven invaluable. [21:20] I also look forward to engaging with this committee [21:22] and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence frequently. [21:26] I am confident that my experience has prepared me for this role, [21:31] including my experience leading and improving large organizations. [21:35] Large, multifaceted organizations, like our intelligence community, [21:39] work well when they have, one, a commitment to the mission, [21:43] two, clear strategic objectives that further that mission, [21:47] and three, metrics that facilitate the assessment and improvement of their operations. [21:53] I intend to work with the members of this committee to develop all three of those. [21:56] A few specifics on my national security experience. [22:00] As the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, [22:03] I've gained significant national security experience, [22:06] including in matters involving foreign terrorist organizations, [22:10] counterespionage, money laundering, bribery, [22:13] and the abuse of our communications platforms to create and sow distrust. [22:21] We interact with the U.S. intelligence community [22:22] and counterterrorism officials continuously on dozens of important national security matters. [22:29] In addition, I've acted as the principal liaison with senior officials [22:33] at Treasury, State, and the Department of War on matters of national security. [22:38] As chairman of the SEC, [22:40] I advised the intelligence community on various matters [22:43] and directly confronted issues with national security implications. [22:48] Notably, leading our cybersecurity and cyber resilience [22:52] for critical infrastructure in our financial services sector, [22:58] combating Chinese influence on and exploitation of our markets, [23:03] and importantly, maintaining economic stability and confidence in our markets [23:07] during the COVID-19 shutdowns. [23:10] In the private sector, [23:12] I also engaged in a broad range of national security matters, [23:16] including with officials from the Federal Reserve, [23:18] the Department of Justice, and Congress. [23:20] As an example, between my time at the SEC [23:23] and my return to government at the Southern District, [23:26] I testified before the House China Select Committee. [23:29] Across these roles, I saw firsthand how judgment, discipline, integrity, [23:35] and most importantly, effective communication and cooperation [23:38] across different branches of government [23:40] are essential to our national security. [23:44] If confirmed, I will have those principles front of mind every day. [23:49] Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. [23:55] Thank you, Mr. Clayton. [23:57] You do indeed have a lot of experience leading large organizations, [24:00] though I hope by the end of your tenure and two and a half years [24:03] at the D&I you can add some experience leading small organizations, [24:07] or at least a much smaller one. [24:10] As I observed in my opening remarks, and you mentioned in yours, [24:13] in your current position as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, [24:17] you've taken part in a number of national security-related investigations, [24:21] including the prosecution of terrorists, narco-traffickers, [24:24] and others who wish to do harm to the United States and our citizens. [24:29] I think it's probably important for many viewers to know [24:32] that the Southern District may be the number one national security-related [24:36] U.S. Attorney's Office in the country. [24:39] Can you speak to your interaction specifically with the intelligence community [24:43] as part of these investigations, [24:45] and how critical intelligence community collection was [24:48] for informing the evidence you obtained to pursue convictions in these cases? [24:55] Thank you. [24:56] The short answer is extremely critical. [24:59] And in the examples that you mentioned, [25:02] the examples that Senator Rounds mentioned, [25:04] whether it's Maduro and Carvajal, [25:06] whether it's Al-Sadi, the, I'll just say, [25:11] multifaceted terrorist who we've recently captured, [25:14] and our drug interdiction efforts, [25:17] combating cartels and the flow of deadly drugs, [25:19] the intelligence community is essential to our prosecutions in all of those cases. [25:24] And if I may, it's the only game in town. [25:28] The United States intelligence community combating those global threats [25:32] is essential, not just for the U.S., [25:36] but as was mentioned in Senator Rounds' remarks, [25:39] keeping our European colleagues safe as well. [25:42] Thank you. [25:42] You also mentioned your time at the SEC. [25:45] Now, in my neck of the woods, [25:46] that's the country's best football conference. [25:49] But here we're talking about the Securities and Exchange Commission. [25:52] I think most observers would think, [25:53] well, you know, that's for the stock markets, [25:56] and a Wall Street lawyer goes in and hopefully gets fees down, [25:59] and markets do well, and combats fraud, [26:01] and maybe tackles new issues like cryptocurrency. [26:04] But I think some viewers would be surprised [26:08] at the amount of national security-related matters [26:12] you had to confront at the SEC as well. [26:14] Could you just go into a little bit more detail on that front too? [26:17] Sure. [26:18] Starting at the top, [26:20] national security and economic security are synonymous. [26:25] National security and market function and market integrity are synonymous. [26:29] Our financial infrastructure is essential to our security as a nation. [26:34] Going beyond that, [26:37] understanding the economic implications of actions [26:41] and the likely knock-on effects [26:43] is a big part of what I believe the intelligence community [26:48] should be providing to the consumers of information. [26:52] Understanding the economic consequences of actions [26:55] is an essential part of intelligence, [26:58] and it's something that I engaged in frequently at the SEC. [27:01] And while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [27:05] was set up in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks [27:08] and in the context of wars in the Middle East, [27:10] isn't that particularly true [27:13] as we think about our struggle for mastery with China [27:17] and also checking Russian aggression around the world [27:19] that economic matters are vitally important [27:23] when we're facing traditional and nation-state actors [27:25] like Russia and China? [27:26] Senator Cotton, Chair Cotton, I could not agree more [27:30] that our adversaries not only look at kinetic [27:33] and other what I would call traditional ways to harm Americans, [27:38] they look at economic ways to harm Americans. [27:41] Thank you. [27:42] The Vice Chairman alluded to an address [27:44] the President will apparently be giving tomorrow night [27:47] that may or may not be based on some kind of intelligence [27:50] that's going to be declassified. [27:53] To what degree, if any, have you been involved in the process [27:56] for what may be discussed by the President tomorrow night? [28:00] I'm not involved in that. [28:03] Because you're not currently the Director of National Intelligence. [28:05] Because I'm currently not the Director of National Intelligence. [28:07] And in fact, to be involved would violate a core principle, [28:11] which is you take no actions [28:12] that would presume your confirmation. [28:16] I couldn't have said it better. [28:18] Thank you for helping me establish that fact. [28:20] The Vice Chairman. [28:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [28:24] As I said repeatedly, if you're confirmed, [28:32] you've got to make sure that you speak truth to power. [28:35] And that means even if the truth [28:38] is not the preferred narrative that somebody wants to hear. [28:42] So let me just ask you, it should be a simple question. [28:45] Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 election? [28:49] Senator, I'm not an election denier. [28:52] Joe Biden was certified as the President of the United States. [28:56] Election denial is something we cannot have. [29:03] So I will take that as you do not deny [29:06] that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. [29:08] Yeah, I'm not. [29:11] I think, let me just be clear. [29:13] We have substantial work to do. [29:16] And I've made it in improving our electoral processes. [29:19] It's part of national security. [29:21] And I feel strongly about that. [29:24] One of the things that, again, [29:26] this will come around perhaps to what's happening tomorrow night as well, [29:30] classified information is critical. [29:36] If we violate classified information, that loses us allies. [29:40] It makes us less strong. [29:42] I fear that certain countries already [29:44] are not sharing as much information with us [29:46] because of some of the things that have happened. [29:49] So let me ask you some straightforward questions. [29:52] If confirmed, you commit to protecting all classified information [29:55] in accordance with established rules and procedures. [29:58] Yes. [29:59] If confirmed, you commit to following established processes and procedures [30:04] when it comes to declassifying information. [30:08] Yes. [30:11] And that will then lead to the next [30:13] because if you're going to follow official purposes, [30:15] you cannot declassify information for political purposes. [30:19] Will you promise that you will not do that? [30:21] Senator, I promise that my declassification exercises [30:27] will be consistent with the role [30:29] and I believe that there are a number of protections in place [30:33] across the intelligence community [30:35] to ensure that intelligence is not used for political purposes. [30:39] And I intend to adhere to those. [30:43] Well, that is, you know, in many ways, at least for me, [30:46] that is the nub of this hearing. [30:49] In preparing for this hearing, [30:52] I have analyzed the procedures that are in place for declassification [30:57] and other actions that you would take [31:00] as the director of national intelligence. [31:02] And I look forward to consulting with the people [31:05] inside the intelligence community and at the ODNI [31:08] to ensure that we adhere to those principles. [31:11] It's critically, critically important [31:12] because, again, we may see some of this tomorrow night or not, [31:16] but we go around those established procedures. [31:24] We could burn sources and methods. [31:26] We could lose allies. [31:28] It is, the ramifications are so grave [31:30] and it has been treated in such a cavalier way [31:33] that it's really extraordinary and upsetting to me. [31:38] Along with classified information comes the analytic tool. [31:41] One of the things that I pointed out [31:43] in the recent IC annual survey, [31:48] the number of IC analysts that are concerned [31:52] that their work may be threatened by politicization [31:57] or if you don't reach the right conclusion, [32:00] that completely undermines the basis [32:02] of what the intelligence community is set up with. [32:04] So, if confirmed, you commit that the ODNI's decisions [32:08] and analysis will remain free [32:10] from political pressure and conspiracy theories. [32:13] Yeah. [32:14] Senator, the role is to ensure that you, [32:19] the president in particular, [32:21] the members of the cabinet, [32:22] receive the best possible intelligence product available [32:25] and I do commit to do that. [32:28] And I do commit to do that. [32:30] Yeah, if you could bring the whole box. [32:31] Sorry. [32:32] I need a space for the papers. [32:34] I can't stress enough, [32:40] if the IC workforce feels they're going to get political blowback [32:45] or get fired, which we have seen, [32:49] because they reach a conclusion [32:50] that may not be what certain folks in the administration want to hear, [32:53] that undermines the whole work of the whole community. [32:58] If I could jump in on that. [32:59] And I want to say that my experience at the SEC, [33:03] my experience at the DOJ is that the people who have worked for me [33:08] have great confidence that they can speak to me in a candid [33:13] and free from any worry [33:17] that what they say to me in their professional capacity [33:21] is going to result in any kind of disagreement. [33:26] I would say any kind of friction [33:29] beyond the normal to-ing and fro-ing [33:32] that you have in any organization. [33:34] And I will say, let me add a comment to what Senator Round said, [33:41] in working with you at the SEC, [33:44] I found that was how you operated [33:45] and particularly in taking on certain issues [33:47] that might not have been politically popular. [33:49] But this is such a different role. [33:53] And I am so concerned that whoever ends up in this role [33:57] is going to be under a set of pressures [34:00] that may be unprecedented. [34:02] And we're going to need somebody extraordinarily strong. [34:05] I've come to my last set of questions, [34:07] and that is around election integrity. [34:10] This job was set up to look at foreign interference in our elections. [34:18] So it was more than stunning to me [34:19] when the former director, Director Gabbard, [34:21] showed up at a domestic, I believe, [34:25] political interference activities in Fulton County. [34:28] We're coming into election season. [34:32] I want to make sure you are on the record. [34:35] If confirmed, you will commit you will not interfere with [34:38] or comment inappropriately on U.S. elections. [34:40] Senator, you outlined the role correctly. [34:45] The role is to deal with foreign interference in U.S. elections, [34:51] which is something I'm gravely concerned about. [34:54] But that's the role. [34:56] And finally, we cannot have the DNI trying to put his or her hands [35:03] on the scales in terms of tipping the outcome of any American election. [35:08] Will you commit to not put those hands on the scales? [35:12] The role of the intelligence community is to provide information, [35:16] not to engage in policy or those things. [35:18] So, yes. [35:20] Thank you. [35:20] Thank you. [35:23] I agree that the role is very different, [35:25] but I think that's true of most government roles. [35:28] And we never quite know how people are performing them, [35:31] and some of us have been very satisfied with nominees we've confirmed in both parties, [35:36] and some have been dissatisfied. [35:37] But, you know, look at our former chairman, Marco Rubio. [35:40] Being a senator, I think we can all agree, [35:41] is very different from being the secretary of state [35:43] or being the national security advisor. [35:45] And he's pitching a near-perfect game in those roles, if you ask me. [35:48] But you can't reason by analogy. [35:50] You've been a Wall Street lawyer for a long time. [35:51] How long have you been a lawyer? [35:54] Goodness, 36 years, 33 years. [35:57] And so you're governed by attorney-client privilege. [36:00] That's not classified material, but it is required you as an ethical obligation. [36:05] Have you ever had any issue in handing attorney-client material? [36:08] No. [36:09] And the material you're handling in Wall Street, [36:11] I mean, you're talking about market-moving material, [36:14] millions or billions of dollars? [36:16] Billions and probably in aggregate trillions of dollars of information [36:19] that you have to be very careful not to allow to slip. [36:22] Or very sensitive personal information about clients as well. [36:25] And no issues ever in the past dealing with those. [36:28] None. [36:29] Thank you. [36:29] Senator Collins. [36:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [36:37] Welcome, Mr. Clayton. [36:41] Mr. Clayton, I want to give you a little bit of history of the ODNI. [36:48] I was a co-author of the legislation that created the Director of National Intelligence, [36:58] along with Senator Joe Lieberman, Congresswoman Jane Harman, [37:03] and Congressman Pete Hoekstra in the House. [37:09] And it came about following hearings that we had [37:14] and extensive analysis of a failure of the more than 18 intelligence agencies [37:23] to share vital information. [37:27] Information that perhaps could have allowed the dots to be connected [37:34] and the horrific terrorist attack of 9-11 to have been discovered and deterred. [37:44] I'll never forget a conversation that I had with Secretary of State Colin Powell. [37:52] He said our intelligence community needed an empowered quarterback [38:00] to make sure that there was sharing of information [38:05] and a collective, collaborative approach to intelligence. [38:13] Instead, what we had was a very siloed approach. [38:19] And that's why we worked so hard to draft the Terrorist Prevention and Intelligence Reform Act [38:28] that created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence [38:33] and the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Council, [38:39] which would bring agencies together. [38:41] So, I understand that ODNI has grown far bigger than we ever would have envisioned [38:52] when we wrote that law. [38:54] But I am deeply disturbed that some administration officials [39:00] and indeed some senators have called for not just a reduction in the size of ODNI, [39:09] but that we abolish it altogether. [39:14] There remains a critical purpose and mission for ODNI to lead [39:21] and manage the 18 separate intelligence agencies with worldwide operations [39:27] that include space, cyber, and human intelligence domains. [39:32] Do you commit to maintaining the vital role of ODNI and its NCTC? [39:42] The short answer that I'd like to elaborate is yes, I do. [39:48] And having seen this from the outside now in my roles [39:55] and also preparing to hopefully take on this role, [39:59] if we didn't have this role, we'd have to invent it [40:01] because there needs to be a focal point for coordination [40:04] across the other 17 intelligence agencies. [40:08] There needs to be a place of oversight, a place to resolve conflict. [40:14] I look at it as a board of directors' role. [40:18] And to the extent that the ODNI has gotten into operations [40:21] or started to play the roles of some of those other agencies, [40:24] it probably should pull back [40:25] because it's difficult to be both operations and oversight, [40:29] but I think an oversight role is important. [40:33] Thank you. [40:33] The second issue I want to bring up with you [40:37] is the anomalous health incidents, [40:41] also known as Havana syndrome, [40:44] that have occurred since 2016 [40:47] and caused, in some cases, career-ending disabilities [40:53] for our intelligence, our defense, [40:58] our State Department employees. [41:02] The intelligence community initially took these attacks [41:07] and care for victims seriously. [41:10] However, for various reasons, [41:12] this quickly seemed to turn into a very dismissive attitude [41:17] throughout the federal government [41:20] with little forward progress. [41:21] This led Senator Gillibrand and I [41:25] to co-author the Havana Act of 2021 [41:29] to support the victims [41:32] who are not receiving care nor compensation. [41:36] I have been frustrated over the past few years [41:40] across both the Biden administration [41:43] and the Trump administration [41:44] by the excuses provided [41:48] and misinterpretations of AHI attacks [41:53] and the slow implementation [41:56] of Senator Gillibrand's and my bill. [42:00] Last week, Tulsi Gabbard rescinded [42:04] two previous AHI intelligence community assessments [42:10] and started to reassess both previous [42:14] and new intelligence related to AHIs. [42:21] It's critical that we know about possible foreign weapon capabilities [42:27] and how to keep our hard-working personnel [42:32] who are stationed in dangerous parts of the world [42:36] safe from these dangerous attacks. [42:40] But forward movement remains very slow. [42:46] The DINI confirms, [42:50] it's your job to confirm, [42:53] that intelligence is subjective, timely, [42:56] and independent of political considerations [42:59] and based on all available sources. [43:03] So with recent efforts to re-energize the research [43:09] on the causes and attribution [43:13] of these devastating attacks on our personnel, [43:18] do you plan to continue these efforts? [43:23] Well, I'm not privy, [43:24] but I certainly plan to engage with you [43:27] and Senator Gillibrand on this issue, [43:28] and I'm happy to do so. [43:29] I look forward to future discussions. [43:33] There's a lot of history here. [43:35] Thank you. [43:36] Thank you, Senator Collins. [43:37] No stronger leader on national security, [43:39] not just on this committee, [43:40] but your work on the Hizgat Committee [43:41] and especially the Appropriations Committee, [43:43] like our friend Lindsey Graham, [43:45] the troops and intelligence officers [43:46] have no better friends than Senator Collins. [43:48] Thank you for your work. [43:50] Senator Wyden. [43:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:53] Mr. Clayton, according to the press reports, [43:56] the FBI director spent eight hours last Friday [43:59] at the White House investigating journalists. [44:03] My view is this is a flagrant attack of journalists [44:06] in the First Amendment under the direction, [44:09] apparently, of the Trump administration. [44:12] When were you directed to issue subpoenas [44:14] to the journalists and by whom? [44:18] Senator, I believe you're referring [44:20] to the reporting around the subpoenas relating to... [44:27] The subpoenas you signed. [44:28] The subpoenas that I signed. [44:30] Those subpoenas are in connection [44:33] with an ongoing national security investigation. [44:37] I'm happy to talk to you and this committee [44:40] about our approach to the First Amendment [44:42] and our efforts in all cases [44:46] to limit to the greatest extent possible [44:50] any intrusion into the operation of the free press. [44:55] I'm absolutely committed to [44:56] and respect our First Amendment [44:59] and the role of the press. [45:01] So let me ask you this. [45:03] It's not even clear that the subpoenas [45:05] that you signed followed the administration's policy, [45:09] which requires the government [45:11] to first make all reasonable attempts [45:14] to obtain information from other sources. [45:17] What specific actions did you take [45:19] before you signed the subpoenas? [45:21] I can tell you that in all of these cases, [45:26] we, and not just one person, [45:29] and this is the way I operate, [45:31] I operate by asking my team, [45:33] what do you think? [45:36] Any action in this regard, [45:37] you can be assured that it was a consultative exercise [45:42] with the career prosecutors in my office. [45:46] So that's what you did beforehand [45:48] to satisfy yourself that this was important to do, [45:51] to send these journalists a subpoena [45:53] and go to their house? [45:56] To issue the subpoenas, [45:58] but let me say that this is, [46:00] I don't want to get into this in too great a detail [46:03] because it's inappropriate. [46:04] I don't want to get into details. [46:06] I just want to find out what went on. [46:07] We followed the processes [46:08] that we're required to follow. [46:10] Let me go to the question of elections. [46:11] You've claimed in the past [46:13] that vote by mail is tainted, [46:15] and I haven't seen any evidence of this. [46:17] These are your exact quotations. [46:19] You talk about, you know, [46:21] dishonesty in mail-in voting, [46:24] and at one point, [46:25] you talked specifically about a group [46:27] that was doing it. [46:29] I think it would be very helpful [46:30] to get a sense of who you're talking about. [46:33] You said, and I quote, [46:35] one group is using mail-in voting dishonestly. [46:38] So you basically said you got a group out there [46:42] who are election bandits. [46:44] Who are we talking about? [46:45] Now, I would like to see [46:46] where you're pulling those quotes from [46:48] because I've been very careful in my words on this. [46:51] I've been very careful. [46:53] Look, we... [46:54] Your words. [46:55] Election intake... [46:57] I'd like to see the whole passage. [46:59] Send you the material. [46:59] Yeah, and I'm happy to answer, [47:01] but let me tell you... [47:03] Please. [47:03] We should be... [47:05] There are two parts to this. [47:09] One is access, [47:10] which is extremely important. [47:12] Access to the ballot [47:12] is something that I know this body... [47:15] Many people have worked hard [47:17] for years and years. [47:18] The other one is integrity. [47:20] I'm a big believer [47:21] that we can have better access [47:25] than we've ever had before [47:26] and better integrity [47:27] than we've ever had before. [47:29] All right. [47:29] And some of the constructs [47:31] around our election, [47:34] the integrity can be greatly improved. [47:36] Well, I want to see it [47:37] because I want to know [47:38] the names of the people [47:40] that you're calling dishonest [47:41] because I'm the nation's first senator [47:44] elected by mail. [47:46] The second senator was a Republican, [47:48] and we don't believe [47:49] that this is tainted by fraud, [47:51] and I have time for one more question. [47:53] You said that the country [47:56] was well served by this agreement [47:58] that Donald Trump [48:00] is not going to get audited [48:02] in terms of his taxes. [48:03] He went through the whole process. [48:05] Tell me if you continue [48:07] to support that position [48:09] that you believe [48:10] that the president of the United States [48:11] should be the only person [48:13] in the country [48:14] who's exempt from audit. [48:16] I certainly do not believe [48:19] that the president of the United States [48:21] should be the only person [48:22] in the country [48:22] who is exempt from audit. [48:23] In terms of... [48:25] Do you think he should be exempt [48:26] from audits? [48:28] That's a yes or no question. [48:29] In terms of that specific thing, [48:31] that's now a matter of litigation, [48:33] and I'm not going to comment on it here. [48:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [48:36] Senator Moran. [48:40] Chairman, thank you. [48:41] Mr. Clayton, thank you [48:42] for your presence here today, [48:44] your interest in serving the country. [48:45] I appreciate the conversation [48:46] we had in the office. [48:47] I appreciate the relationship [48:48] and conversations we had [48:49] over the time [48:50] in your past public service. [48:53] In my office, you stressed... [48:56] In my office, I stress to you [48:59] a belief in the importance [49:01] of our intelligence relationships [49:02] around the globe, [49:04] not just Five Eyes, [49:05] but with many others. [49:07] Over the past years, [49:08] there have been reports [49:10] in the press [49:11] of allies withholding intelligence [49:12] or us suspending [49:14] intelligence sharing. [49:17] How do you view [49:18] the relationship with our allies? [49:20] Do you see a partner services [49:22] as a force multiplier [49:23] or simply transactional in nature? [49:29] Senator Moran, [49:30] I think I'll be able [49:31] to give you a much better answer [49:33] should I be confirmed [49:34] and have greater access [49:36] to those relationships. [49:38] I know the Five Eyes relationship [49:40] historically has been [49:42] extremely valuable [49:43] to the United States. [49:45] In terms of bilateral sharing, [49:50] like anything, [49:51] I think that's something [49:51] that you have to assess constantly, [49:53] whether it's working, [49:54] but there's no reason [49:56] not to explore [49:57] whether you can have [49:59] something that works. [50:00] I assume you would say [50:00] that it's desirable [50:01] to have a relationship [50:02] with many, many countries [50:04] around the globe [50:04] and determine whether [50:06] there's a relationship [50:06] that can work [50:07] in which we're sharing [50:08] intelligence information. [50:10] I think that's really well said. [50:12] In your answer [50:13] to a written question [50:14] asking if you commit [50:16] to making sure [50:17] that Ukraine has [50:18] the intelligence it needs [50:19] to apply pressure on Russia, [50:22] you said, quote, [50:24] to the extent directed [50:25] by the president, [50:26] arm Ukraine [50:27] and other partners [50:28] with intelligence [50:28] that illuminates [50:30] Russian plans [50:31] and intentions. [50:31] I appreciate that you work [50:33] for the president, [50:35] but I want to believe, [50:37] I want to emphasize [50:38] my belief [50:39] that any such sharing [50:40] is critical [50:41] and any suspension [50:43] of intelligence sharing [50:44] with Ukraine [50:45] would require [50:46] very serious justification. [50:49] And so my question is, [50:50] if confirmed, [50:51] do you commit to sharing [50:52] with this committee [50:53] the rationale [50:55] of any such suspension [50:57] and do you so, [50:59] and do so before [51:01] the suspension becomes public? [51:02] Give us a chance [51:04] to have input [51:04] in that consequential decision. [51:08] I expect to have, [51:10] I would say, [51:12] frequent and substantive dialogue, [51:15] including around priorities. [51:17] The priorities are set [51:19] to reflect the priorities [51:21] of the administration [51:22] and the priorities [51:23] of the president, [51:23] but I expect to continue [51:25] to discuss any change [51:26] in those priorities. [51:28] And, you know, [51:29] again, I'm not privy [51:30] to these things, [51:31] but I don't have any expectation [51:32] that that priority is changing. [51:34] I chair an appropriations subcommittee [51:37] that funds the FBI, [51:40] and I have a strong interest [51:42] in supporting [51:43] its counterintelligence role. [51:46] It's the lead [51:46] counterintelligence agency [51:47] in the U.S., [51:48] but you note in your answers [51:50] that the National Counterintelligence [51:52] and Security Center [51:53] within ODNI [51:54] is the, quote, [51:55] head of the U.S. government [51:56] counterintelligence activities. [51:58] How would you characterize [52:00] the relative roles [52:02] of the FBI [52:03] and the Security Center [52:06] in counterintelligence, [52:08] and what are the practical effects [52:10] of how that would work? [52:12] Senator, my direct experience [52:15] with counterintelligence, [52:18] obviously I can't go [52:20] into the specifics, [52:21] but it's fairly extensive [52:22] at the moment, [52:23] is directly with the FBI. [52:25] Some engagement [52:27] with the center, [52:29] but it's mostly directly [52:31] with the FBI [52:32] and Homeland Security. [52:33] And that past experience, [52:35] that relationship [52:36] lends you to what kind [52:37] of conclusions [52:38] in that regard? [52:39] It's extremely important. [52:42] The threat is real. [52:44] The threat to the safety [52:45] and security [52:45] of the American people [52:46] is real, [52:47] and we need to be vigilant [52:49] every day. [52:51] And in fact, [52:52] I think my colleagues [52:54] would be happy [52:54] if in your role [52:55] I made a pitch [52:56] for more resources. [52:58] If they would. [53:00] Let me ask about [53:01] your private sector experience [53:03] and in preparation [53:05] for the role [53:06] that you may soon assume. [53:08] Have you identified [53:09] any opportunities [53:10] where the intelligence community [53:11] can leverage [53:12] private sector capabilities [53:13] to enhance the IC's mission? [53:17] Yes, without that, [53:18] the obvious one is data [53:19] and data analysis. [53:23] Making connections [53:25] where they might not [53:26] otherwise be apparent, [53:27] or where the ability [53:31] to make those connections [53:32] in the past [53:33] took weeks and months [53:34] and with some of the tools [53:35] that we have today [53:36] can take hours [53:38] to make the same connections, [53:40] the same connections [53:41] that are important [53:41] to combating [53:42] what I would say [53:44] is espionage. [53:45] Mr. Clayton, [53:46] thank you. [53:46] Mr. Chairman. [53:47] Thank you, Senator Moran. [53:48] Senator, [53:50] thank you, Chairman. [53:51] Mr. Clayton, [53:52] it is alleged, [53:54] and I would add [53:55] quite credibly, [53:56] that Jeffrey Epstein [53:58] committed some very serious crimes [53:59] at his Zorro Ranch property [54:01] in my home state of New Mexico. [54:04] Yet there has never been [54:05] a federal search [54:06] of that property. [54:08] And in fact, [54:08] in 2019, [54:09] the Department of Justice [54:11] directed New Mexico [54:13] to pause [54:14] its own investigation [54:15] and has most recently [54:17] refused to provide [54:18] the unredacted evidence [54:20] needed for our Attorney General [54:22] to effectively carry out [54:24] his investigation, [54:25] despite federal [54:27] and state laws [54:28] requiring disclosure. [54:30] I understand that [54:32] as U.S. Attorney [54:32] for the Southern District [54:33] of New York, [54:34] you led the investigation [54:35] into Jeffrey Epstein. [54:37] Can you commit [54:38] to providing [54:39] any relevant information [54:41] to the New Mexico [54:43] Attorney General [54:44] and the documents, [54:46] unredacted documents, [54:47] that he has requested? [54:49] I spoke to my team [54:50] about this last night. [54:53] That request [54:54] is for unredacted documents. [54:56] Those documents [54:58] are subject [54:59] to several protections [55:00] for those redactions, [55:01] including a protective [55:02] order of the court. [55:03] My folks, I think, [55:04] as we speak, [55:06] are seeking dialogue [55:07] with the Attorney General [55:08] to see if we can reach [55:10] an accommodation [55:10] that is consistent [55:11] with those protective orders. [55:13] I would seriously [55:14] encourage that cooperation [55:17] and that spirit [55:19] of working in cooperation [55:21] between federal [55:22] and state law enforcement. [55:23] I think it is quite clear [55:25] that it is likely [55:26] that there are survivors, [55:28] witnesses, [55:29] and co-conspirators [55:30] whose names have been redacted [55:32] that are necessary [55:33] for him to effectively [55:34] complete that investigation. [55:38] And, Mr. Chairman, [55:39] I would also ask [55:40] unanimous consent [55:42] to enter into the record [55:43] the letter [55:44] from the New Mexico [55:45] Attorney General [55:46] to the Department of Justice. [55:48] Without objection, [55:49] I guess. [55:49] Mr. Clayton, [55:54] in your role [55:55] as U.S. Attorney [55:56] for the Southern District [55:57] of New York, [55:58] you were tasked [55:59] to personally certify [56:01] that the unsealed [56:03] grand jury material [56:04] related to Jeffrey Epstein [56:06] did not disclose [56:07] victims' personal information. [56:09] The judge in that case [56:10] stated that he added [56:12] this protective order [56:13] to ensure that [56:14] an identifiable official [56:17] within DOJ [56:18] takes ownership [56:19] of the sensitive [56:20] and vitally important process [56:22] of reviewing discovery. [56:24] Due to what the Department [56:26] of Justice later called [56:27] technical or human error, [56:29] the January 26th release [56:31] of material included [56:33] email addresses [56:34] and even nude photos [56:36] of potential Epstein victims. [56:39] Lawyers for those victims [56:41] said that this flawed process [56:43] re-traumatized the survivors [56:45] and, quote, [56:46] turned their lives upside down. [56:49] You were in charge [56:50] of this process [56:51] during which [56:51] highly sensitive [56:53] personal data [56:54] was made public. [56:55] Did you personally [56:57] certify the material [56:58] as the judge ordered? [57:00] The judge ordered [57:01] certification [57:02] of a subset [57:03] of the materials, [57:05] the materials [57:05] that were [57:06] in the Southern District. [57:07] So who takes [57:09] responsibility [57:10] for what I think [57:11] was an unconscionable [57:13] release of, [57:14] an unnecessary release [57:16] of personal information [57:17] for these victims? [57:19] I think the Department [57:20] of Justice [57:20] has addressed that [57:23] from the overall perspective. [57:25] You know, [57:26] Harry Truman used to have [57:27] a sign on his desk [57:28] that said, [57:28] the buck stops here. [57:30] Who has a sign [57:30] on their desk in this case? [57:32] For the Southern District [57:33] documents, [57:34] it was me. [57:36] In a media interview [57:38] a couple of months ago, [57:39] you were asked [57:40] your position [57:41] on the President's [57:42] $1.8 billion fund [57:44] for victims of weaponization. [57:45] And you replied, [57:47] when we are investigating people [57:48] and bringing charges [57:49] against them, [57:50] criminal charges [57:51] against people, [57:52] from a financial point of view, [57:53] they can be absolutely devastating. [57:57] If people have been pursued [57:58] inappropriately, [57:59] I'm supportive [58:00] of there being relief [58:01] for that financial cost. [58:03] That's it. [58:04] End quote. [58:05] Do you believe [58:06] that people convicted [58:07] of violent crimes [58:09] related to the January 6, [58:11] 2021 attack [58:13] on the U.S. Capitol [58:15] and on U.S. Capitol Police [58:17] were pursued inappropriately [58:19] in any way? [58:21] Let me say this. [58:24] Any physical violence [58:27] against law enforcement [58:28] is completely objectionable. [58:31] Would it be appropriate [58:33] for that fund [58:36] to be used [58:37] in cases [58:38] where people [58:39] were duly convicted [58:40] of violent crimes [58:41] in that case? [58:42] Let me go back [58:43] to my comment [58:44] very quickly. [58:45] I was not speaking [58:45] of the fund. [58:46] I was speaking generally [58:47] if you, [58:47] I think this is a CNBC clip, [58:49] and I stand by what I said, [58:51] which is if people [58:52] have been inappropriately [58:54] and intentionally [58:56] subject to prosecution, [58:58] they should have recourse. [59:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [59:02] Mr. Chairman, [59:03] I just want to let the witness know [59:04] we've got the Fed Chair upstairs, [59:07] but I will be right back. [59:08] I want to make sure [59:08] my colleagues know [59:10] I'll be back directly. [59:13] Senator Budd. [59:13] Thank you, Chairman. [59:15] It's good to see you again. [59:17] Enjoyed our visit [59:17] a few weeks ago [59:18] in the office [59:18] and also when I was coming [59:21] onto the House [59:22] Financial Services [59:23] and you were coming [59:24] into the SEC. [59:25] I enjoyed our time [59:26] that decade ago. [59:28] So as we talked about [59:29] a couple weeks ago, [59:30] did the President [59:31] ever ask you [59:31] to disband [59:32] or dismantle [59:34] the ODNI [59:35] or the Intelligence Community? [59:38] No, Senator. [59:39] The President [59:41] has given me [59:41] no instructions [59:42] other than to do [59:43] a good job. [59:44] Great, thanks. [59:45] A little while ago, [59:47] you and Chairman Cotton [59:49] were talking about [59:50] economic security [59:52] being national security, [59:53] those two being synonymous. [59:56] So we've got [59:57] an intelligence community [59:58] largely established [59:59] in 1947 [1:00:00] around the Cold War period. [1:00:03] So what changes [1:00:04] are necessary [1:00:05] in the intelligence community [1:00:07] to maintain [1:00:08] economic security [1:00:09] as well as [1:00:10] national security? [1:00:11] I don't want to say [1:00:14] that the intelligence community [1:00:15] is currently free [1:00:16] from economic analysis [1:00:18] and the provision [1:00:19] of intelligence, [1:00:20] but I do believe [1:00:22] that the economic effects [1:00:25] of various events [1:00:28] should be more a part [1:00:31] of intelligence assessments [1:00:34] because economic effect, [1:00:36] markets move immediately. [1:00:39] Markets react, [1:00:40] and then people react [1:00:41] to markets. [1:00:42] I mean, most interestingly today [1:00:44] for all of us [1:00:46] is the price of oil. [1:00:48] Understanding the dynamics [1:00:49] around the current [1:00:50] and the long-term [1:00:51] price of energy [1:00:52] and the price of oil [1:00:53] I think is an essential part [1:00:55] of any intelligence assessment. [1:00:59] Thank you. [1:01:01] You know, [1:01:01] the men and women [1:01:02] in the intelligence community, [1:01:03] they do an extraordinary work. [1:01:04] Most of the time, [1:01:05] they don't get any recognition, [1:01:08] but sometimes there's [1:01:09] a few bad eggs. [1:01:10] Edward Snowden, [1:01:12] David Rush, [1:01:13] the gold bar guy. [1:01:16] So as D&I, [1:01:18] you'll also be [1:01:19] the executive agent [1:01:20] for security [1:01:21] as I understand it. [1:01:22] So what's your vision [1:01:23] for this role [1:01:24] to ensure the security [1:01:26] clearance process [1:01:27] and also to make sure [1:01:29] we find and mitigate [1:01:31] head off [1:01:31] these insider threats? [1:01:34] I think there are [1:01:35] two processes that fall. [1:01:37] One is classification [1:01:38] and overseeing classification. [1:01:40] The other is [1:01:40] overseeing security. [1:01:42] It may not be, [1:01:43] you know, [1:01:44] super interesting, [1:01:46] but we need to focus [1:01:47] on both of those. [1:01:48] I think the consensus [1:01:49] that I've heard [1:01:50] from people who [1:01:52] know more than I do [1:01:53] are that both of those [1:01:55] are in need of a refresh [1:01:55] to be more effective. [1:01:57] Thank you. [1:01:58] I look forward to [1:01:59] staying in touch on that [1:02:00] and appreciate your work. [1:02:03] Thank you. [1:02:04] I think Senator Budd [1:02:04] raises an important point. [1:02:05] You know, [1:02:06] we all love our troops. [1:02:07] Troops go through the airport. [1:02:08] They're in uniform. [1:02:09] People buy them a beer. [1:02:10] They buy them a lunch. [1:02:11] Some of us may have benefited [1:02:12] from those freebies [1:02:13] in uniform back in the day. [1:02:15] Our intelligence officers [1:02:16] don't get that gratitude. [1:02:17] So let me just take the moment [1:02:18] to join Senator Budd [1:02:18] and express our thankfulness [1:02:20] for everything they do [1:02:21] since they're not out there [1:02:22] getting a beer [1:02:23] and a sandwich bought for them [1:02:25] when in their airports [1:02:25] or out in town. [1:02:27] But we would be exposed [1:02:29] to many more threats [1:02:30] if it wasn't for them. [1:02:31] Senator King. [1:02:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:02:34] I agree with your comments. [1:02:35] Whenever I meet members [1:02:36] of the intelligence community, [1:02:37] I say you don't get the flyovers [1:02:39] at the football games, [1:02:40] but we appreciate what you do. [1:02:42] Mr. Clayton, [1:02:43] there's been some discussion earlier [1:02:44] about the importance [1:02:45] of analytical integrity, [1:02:46] telling truth to power, [1:02:47] the intelligence community [1:02:50] directive 203, [1:02:51] which goes back [1:02:52] more than a decade, [1:02:53] says this. [1:02:55] Independent that any information [1:02:58] from the intelligence community [1:02:59] should be independent [1:03:00] of political consideration. [1:03:02] Analytic assessments [1:03:03] must not be distorted by [1:03:06] nor shaped by advocacy [1:03:08] of a particular audience, [1:03:10] agenda, or policy viewpoint. [1:03:13] Analytic judgments [1:03:13] must not be influenced [1:03:15] by the force of preference [1:03:16] for a particular policy. [1:03:17] You concur with that, [1:03:19] I presume? [1:03:21] Yes. [1:03:22] So I want to ask [1:03:23] a follow-up question [1:03:24] to the vice chairman. [1:03:24] Who won the 2020 election? [1:03:27] I've answered that question. [1:03:28] I'm not going to get into that. [1:03:31] You have not answered [1:03:32] that question. [1:03:32] Could you answer the question? [1:03:34] Who won the 2020 election? [1:03:35] Pretty simple question. [1:03:36] Yeah, I said I'm... [1:03:37] I'm going to give you [1:03:39] the same answer. [1:03:40] The answer to the chairman [1:03:41] was he asked me [1:03:43] if I was an election denier. [1:03:44] I am not an election denier. [1:03:45] Joe Biden was certified [1:03:47] as the president. [1:03:50] He went through his process. [1:03:52] We went through [1:03:52] our electoral process. [1:03:54] And I can tell you [1:03:54] that I was in my seat [1:03:58] at the SEC [1:03:59] and worked hard for the transition. [1:04:03] It's a very simple question. [1:04:03] Who won the 2020 election? [1:04:07] As I said to you, [1:04:08] we went through our processes [1:04:09] and Joe Biden became [1:04:10] the president of the United States. [1:04:12] And that's... [1:04:13] That's not an answer [1:04:13] to the question of who... [1:04:15] I'm asking one more time. [1:04:17] Okay. [1:04:17] Who won the 2020 election? [1:04:18] I don't... [1:04:19] I'm not... [1:04:19] This is like... [1:04:20] I'm just not... [1:04:21] I'm here to talk [1:04:21] about my qualifications. [1:04:23] One of your qualifications [1:04:24] is you told us [1:04:25] you're going to tell [1:04:25] the truth to power [1:04:26] and you won't answer [1:04:27] a very simple question [1:04:28] to tell the truth to power. [1:04:28] I think I've answered it [1:04:29] many times. [1:04:31] You have not answered it. [1:04:32] Okay. [1:04:33] You have not answered it. [1:04:34] Saying Joe Biden [1:04:35] was certified [1:04:36] is not an answer. [1:04:38] Okay. [1:04:39] Why did you take it [1:04:40] upon yourself [1:04:40] to opine [1:04:41] on the California [1:04:42] election process [1:04:43] to CNBC? [1:04:44] You said... [1:04:45] You said... [1:04:47] During the interview [1:04:48] on CNBC, [1:04:49] you said that [1:04:50] the U.S. is doing [1:04:51] an absolutely terrible job [1:04:52] on election integrity [1:04:53] and the American people [1:04:54] are right to question it. [1:04:55] What's the basis [1:04:56] of that statement? [1:04:57] What's the evidence [1:04:58] for that statement? [1:04:59] Let me give you [1:05:00] the context of the way [1:05:01] I look at this [1:05:02] because we should... [1:05:03] We should have [1:05:03] this kind of candid dialogue. [1:05:07] Elections are a process [1:05:08] for gathering, [1:05:09] aggregating, [1:05:10] and providing data. [1:05:11] And who does the Constitution [1:05:12] entrust the responsibility [1:05:14] for elections? [1:05:15] To the states [1:05:15] in the case we're talking about. [1:05:17] Correct. [1:05:18] To the states [1:05:19] in the case we're talking about. [1:05:20] But my experience, [1:05:22] my experience at the SEC, [1:05:24] my experience at the DOJ, [1:05:25] my experience in the private sector [1:05:26] is that the government processes [1:05:28] for gathering, aggregating, [1:05:31] and providing data [1:05:32] need to be improved greatly. [1:05:34] Are you talking about elections? [1:05:35] I'm talking about all... [1:05:36] Are you talking about inflation data? [1:05:38] No, I'm talking about [1:05:39] all government processes, [1:05:40] including the one that's... [1:05:42] I want some evidence, [1:05:43] and there isn't time here [1:05:44] in a minute and 49 seconds, [1:05:46] but you have a lot of time [1:05:47] between now [1:05:48] and when we move [1:05:49] on your nomination. [1:05:50] I would like a written analysis [1:05:52] from you [1:05:53] that gives evidence [1:05:54] of voter fraud. [1:05:56] I don't... [1:05:56] To be clear... [1:05:57] Mr. Clayton, [1:05:58] is the assertion [1:06:00] that there's voter fraud. [1:06:01] I am not... [1:06:02] I did not make that assertion. [1:06:04] I said the... [1:06:04] No, I said... [1:06:05] You're doing an absolutely [1:06:06] terrible job [1:06:07] on election integrity. [1:06:09] What did that mean? [1:06:10] That meant that [1:06:11] the audit trail [1:06:11] that we have available [1:06:12] for our elections [1:06:13] in a number of places [1:06:15] is not the kind of audit trail [1:06:17] that you would expect [1:06:18] in something [1:06:19] that is this important. [1:06:23] That's what it meant. [1:06:24] And I... [1:06:25] So is there a problem [1:06:26] of voter fraud [1:06:27] in this country? [1:06:28] I don't think [1:06:29] we can say definitively [1:06:30] whether there is [1:06:31] or is not [1:06:32] until we have [1:06:33] better processes. [1:06:34] We've had hundreds [1:06:35] of analyses. [1:06:37] We've had [1:06:38] the Heritage Foundation [1:06:39] study that found [1:06:40] 1,650 cases [1:06:41] out of 2 billion votes [1:06:43] counted. [1:06:44] I would love [1:06:44] for the American people [1:06:45] to have incredible confidence [1:06:47] in the integrity [1:06:48] of our elections. [1:06:48] I would, too, [1:06:49] and I would appreciate [1:06:50] if this administration [1:06:51] would cease [1:06:52] undermining that confidence. [1:06:54] I would like to work [1:06:55] with this committee [1:06:57] from my perspective [1:06:58] for ensuring that. [1:06:59] Well, on the record, [1:07:00] I wish you would share [1:07:01] any evidence you have [1:07:02] that undermines [1:07:03] the... [1:07:04] that asserts [1:07:06] that there was [1:07:06] any problem [1:07:07] of voter fraud [1:07:08] significant enough [1:07:09] to change the results [1:07:10] of an election [1:07:10] in this country. [1:07:12] Following up, [1:07:14] why was your hearing [1:07:14] postponed? [1:07:16] What were you told? [1:07:18] You were going to meet [1:07:19] with us in a few hours [1:07:20] and suddenly it was pulled down. [1:07:22] Why did that happen? [1:07:24] I was requested [1:07:26] and respected [1:07:27] the request [1:07:28] not to attend. [1:07:30] Were you given [1:07:30] any reason? [1:07:32] I'm not going to get [1:07:35] into the private conversations. [1:07:39] And you testified earlier [1:07:41] just to follow up briefly. [1:07:43] You've had no involvement [1:07:44] whatsoever [1:07:44] with this proposed speech [1:07:48] tomorrow night [1:07:49] by the president. [1:07:50] You haven't been consulted, [1:07:52] discussed, [1:07:53] any involvement. [1:07:54] Is that correct? [1:07:54] That is correct. [1:07:55] Thank you. [1:07:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:07:56] Senator Bennett. [1:07:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:08:00] I want to also thank you [1:08:01] for your comments [1:08:02] about Lindsey Graham [1:08:03] at the beginning [1:08:03] of tonight's, [1:08:05] today's hearing. [1:08:06] And I want to, [1:08:07] we had a good discussion [1:08:08] yesterday's, [1:08:09] Mr. Clayton, [1:08:10] about Ukraine. [1:08:11] I'm not going to repeat [1:08:12] that here, [1:08:13] but I know that [1:08:14] his view of the situation [1:08:16] and the view [1:08:17] of the bipartisan support [1:08:18] for Ukraine [1:08:20] and the work [1:08:20] that our intelligence [1:08:21] community has done [1:08:24] to support him [1:08:24] is a really important project [1:08:26] for all of us [1:08:27] going forward. [1:08:28] I wanted to ask you, [1:08:29] Mr. Clayton, [1:08:30] about the subpoenas [1:08:32] of the New York Times reporters. [1:08:34] And the reporting [1:08:37] that I read [1:08:37] is that the Secret Service [1:08:40] had raised concerns [1:08:42] about the security [1:08:44] of President Trump's fill-in [1:08:48] for Air Force One [1:08:49] and that there was a meeting [1:08:51] at the White House [1:08:52] with the FBI Director [1:08:54] Kash Patel [1:08:55] and other DOJ officials [1:08:57] to talk about that matter, [1:09:00] to talk about the reporting [1:09:01] that had come from the AP. [1:09:04] And I think earlier [1:09:05] in an answer to Senator Wyden, [1:09:08] you said that you had consulted [1:09:10] with the career attorneys [1:09:11] at the Southern District [1:09:12] of New York. [1:09:13] My question is [1:09:14] whether you consulted [1:09:15] or anybody [1:09:16] in the Southern District [1:09:18] of New York [1:09:18] consulted with anybody [1:09:20] in Washington, D.C., [1:09:22] at the White House [1:09:23] or the Department of Justice [1:09:24] before those subpoenas [1:09:26] were issued. [1:09:27] They were issued, I think, [1:09:28] within just hours [1:09:29] of the reporting [1:09:30] that struck me [1:09:31] as somebody [1:09:32] who has worked at DOJ [1:09:33] as an unusually short period [1:09:38] of time. [1:09:39] And particularly, [1:09:40] given the equities [1:09:41] that are at stake [1:09:42] when journalists [1:09:44] are subpoenaed, [1:09:46] the equities [1:09:46] that are at stake [1:09:47] when law enforcement [1:09:49] is showing up [1:09:50] at the doorstep [1:09:51] of journalists [1:09:52] in this nation, [1:09:54] I think it's very important [1:09:55] for you to explain this [1:09:56] in the context [1:09:58] of this nomination. [1:10:00] Yeah. [1:10:01] Understood. [1:10:02] I can't get into [1:10:04] the specifics [1:10:05] of an investigation [1:10:08] and an ongoing matter. [1:10:10] Let me say [1:10:10] that I'm confident [1:10:12] that the procedures [1:10:15] that we have in place [1:10:16] to protect [1:10:17] the First Amendment [1:10:18] and protect [1:10:19] the freedom [1:10:20] of the press [1:10:20] and not result [1:10:22] in intimidation [1:10:22] of journalists [1:10:23] or the like [1:10:24] were followed. [1:10:26] They depend [1:10:27] on the facts [1:10:28] and circumstances, [1:10:28] how much time you have. [1:10:31] Those matters include [1:10:33] ones you referenced, [1:10:34] which is, [1:10:35] are there other available [1:10:36] sources [1:10:37] for the information [1:10:38] that we seek [1:10:38] and have we sought that? [1:10:41] The other aspect [1:10:42] of this is, [1:10:43] you know, [1:10:44] the tailoring [1:10:45] of a particular subpoena [1:10:46] and including [1:10:48] the return date [1:10:48] and when those people [1:10:49] would be asked [1:10:50] to appear [1:10:50] or provide documents. [1:10:52] It's expected [1:10:53] in these types of cases, [1:10:54] at least from mine, [1:10:55] that if there's [1:10:56] counsel involved, [1:10:58] we can further tailor [1:11:00] those requests [1:11:01] to make it [1:11:03] the least intrusive [1:11:04] way possible. [1:11:05] But let me just finish [1:11:06] if you don't mind. [1:11:07] It is vitally important [1:11:08] that if national security [1:11:09] interests are at stake, [1:11:11] that there's not [1:11:12] what I would say [1:11:14] is a huge blind spot [1:11:15] where someone can [1:11:16] use the ability [1:11:18] to provide information [1:11:20] to journalists [1:11:21] to get it out there, [1:11:23] including our adversaries, [1:11:24] without any potential [1:11:26] for discovering [1:11:27] how that happened. [1:11:28] Well, I think [1:11:29] this committee [1:11:29] is well aware [1:11:30] of the intelligence equities [1:11:33] that are at stake. [1:11:34] We have no, [1:11:35] you know, [1:11:35] that's why all of us [1:11:36] do this work [1:11:37] and provide this oversight, [1:11:38] but I think [1:11:39] all of us would agree [1:11:43] that the First Amendment [1:11:44] is not some sort [1:11:45] of glaring loophole [1:11:46] that it's out there, [1:11:47] that it's something [1:11:47] that we need to follow. [1:11:49] And so I'll ask you again, [1:11:50] Mr. Clayton, [1:11:51] did you or anybody [1:11:52] at the Southern District [1:11:54] of New York [1:11:54] have conversations [1:11:55] with anybody [1:11:56] at the White House [1:11:57] or the Justice Department [1:11:58] in Washington, D.C., [1:12:00] before you issued [1:12:02] those subpoenas [1:12:03] that resulted [1:12:05] in New York Times reporters [1:12:06] being served process [1:12:09] at their homes? [1:12:11] I can say it this way [1:12:13] without getting [1:12:13] any investigation. [1:12:14] The protocols [1:12:16] require consultation [1:12:17] with the Department [1:12:18] of Justice [1:12:19] in Washington, [1:12:20] and we followed [1:12:21] the protocols. [1:12:21] And did anybody [1:12:26] in Washington, D.C., [1:12:28] did anybody [1:12:30] in Washington, D.C., [1:12:31] suggest to you [1:12:32] or anybody [1:12:33] on your team [1:12:34] that you should [1:12:34] issue subpoenas [1:12:35] in this case [1:12:37] following the AP reporting, [1:12:40] following the AP reporting [1:12:42] of the President [1:12:44] coming back [1:12:45] on an airplane [1:12:46] that was unsuitable [1:12:48] for the protection [1:12:51] and the defense [1:12:52] of the President [1:12:53] of the United States? [1:12:54] Yeah, I'm not going [1:12:55] to get into the details. [1:12:56] What I can tell you [1:12:57] is that we followed [1:12:57] those procedures, [1:12:58] and those procedures, [1:12:59] for the reasons [1:13:00] that I believe firmly [1:13:01] and you believe, [1:13:02] protecting the freedom [1:13:04] of the press [1:13:05] being the least intrusive [1:13:06] possible, [1:13:07] require consultation. [1:13:09] And I would say, [1:13:09] Mr. Chairman, [1:13:10] I know my time is out, [1:13:11] but the reason [1:13:11] this is relevant [1:13:13] to I think a lot of us, [1:13:14] or certainly to me, [1:13:15] is that this question [1:13:16] of being able [1:13:17] to speak truth [1:13:18] to power [1:13:19] in the context [1:13:20] of intel [1:13:20] I think is very similar [1:13:23] to the question [1:13:24] about whether or not [1:13:24] we're able to push back [1:13:26] in a moment like this. [1:13:27] Yeah, and I want to assure [1:13:28] this committee [1:13:29] that in these types [1:13:30] of circumstances, [1:13:31] that concept [1:13:32] of least intrusive possible [1:13:34] is front of mind for me. [1:13:36] Thank you, Chairman. [1:13:37] Thank you, Mr. [1:13:38] Thank you. [1:13:38] Senator Rounds. [1:13:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:13:42] Look, first of all, [1:13:43] I do think you're [1:13:45] the right guy for the job. [1:13:46] And as I said [1:13:47] in my earlier recommendation [1:13:51] of you to the entire committee, [1:13:53] but I want to give you [1:13:54] an opportunity [1:13:54] to talk a little bit [1:13:55] about some of the new technologies [1:13:57] that are being involved [1:13:58] that we're going to have [1:13:58] to address. [1:13:59] I don't think we've really [1:14:00] talked a lot about [1:14:01] what artificial intelligence [1:14:03] is going to do [1:14:03] and the integration [1:14:05] of artificial intelligence, [1:14:06] not just by our intelligence [1:14:10] agencies, [1:14:10] but also by our adversaries. [1:14:12] And the focus [1:14:14] that we're going to have [1:14:14] to have on the amount [1:14:15] of data that we collect [1:14:17] and how we're going [1:14:18] to have to organize that. [1:14:19] I know that you're [1:14:22] brand new into this discussion [1:14:23] and that you're going [1:14:24] to be learning it [1:14:25] at a high rate of speed, [1:14:27] but can you talk a little bit [1:14:29] about your concepts [1:14:29] about how we take [1:14:30] this huge amount of data [1:14:31] that we've got [1:14:32] and organize it, [1:14:34] integrate it in such a fashion [1:14:36] that it's available [1:14:36] to be able to make an analysis [1:14:38] and to give the best advice [1:14:40] to the leaders [1:14:41] of this country. [1:14:42] Can we talk about [1:14:42] how you see the integration [1:14:44] of AI into this process? [1:14:48] Thank you. [1:14:49] Let me start by saying, [1:14:51] talking about it [1:14:52] in an area where I know, [1:14:53] which is a huge data area, [1:14:55] which is the way [1:14:55] our markets operate [1:14:56] and the resiliency [1:14:58] of our markets [1:14:58] and what I would say [1:15:01] is their vulnerability [1:15:02] to attack. [1:15:03] And AI is a game changer [1:15:05] and we should just [1:15:07] all recognize that. [1:15:07] I think I commend [1:15:09] the Treasury Secretary [1:15:10] for leading the way [1:15:12] in this [1:15:12] and the Federal Reserve [1:15:13] and calling the banks [1:15:14] in to talk about [1:15:15] what that means. [1:15:17] I expect it's the same [1:15:18] or at least it resonates [1:15:20] in the intelligence community [1:15:21] that AI is not only [1:15:24] an opportunity [1:15:24] but a threat. [1:15:26] When something's both [1:15:27] an opportunity [1:15:28] and a threat, [1:15:28] you better get your arms [1:15:29] around it. [1:15:30] Yeah, look, [1:15:31] the reason why I ask [1:15:32] the question that way [1:15:32] is I think that AI [1:15:35] not only is a game changer [1:15:39] but it's going to be seen [1:15:41] by the American public [1:15:42] first of all [1:15:43] as a threat [1:15:44] because they're going [1:15:45] to see it on social media, [1:15:46] they're going to see [1:15:47] the misinformation [1:15:47] that comes out, [1:15:48] deep fakes and so forth. [1:15:50] But the other side of it, [1:15:52] which is the quality of life [1:15:53] that Americans [1:15:54] are going to be able [1:15:55] to receive [1:15:56] because of improvements [1:15:57] in our productivity [1:15:58] and so forth, [1:16:00] is going to far outweigh [1:16:01] what the negative implications are. [1:16:05] But along with that [1:16:06] comes the ability [1:16:08] for our country [1:16:09] to be able to gather [1:16:10] huge amounts of data, [1:16:12] a lot of which [1:16:13] is going to be of concern [1:16:15] to the American people [1:16:16] because it's going to be [1:16:17] information on them. [1:16:19] And they're going to be concerned [1:16:20] that government [1:16:21] is collecting information [1:16:22] on them. [1:16:23] While at the same time, [1:16:24] government, [1:16:25] the IC community [1:16:26] in particular, [1:16:27] has to be able [1:16:28] to collect information [1:16:29] not so much [1:16:29] on American people [1:16:30] but on the threats [1:16:33] worldwide. [1:16:34] And I think [1:16:35] this is going to [1:16:35] cause people to say, [1:16:36] okay, [1:16:36] are you collecting [1:16:38] data on us [1:16:39] or are you collecting [1:16:40] data on the rest [1:16:41] of the world [1:16:42] and how do you [1:16:42] separate that? [1:16:43] A lot of that [1:16:43] has to do [1:16:44] with a lot of the discussion [1:16:45] regarding 702 [1:16:46] and FISA [1:16:47] and so forth. [1:16:48] And artificial intelligence [1:16:50] is just simply [1:16:51] going to magnify that. [1:16:53] Can we talk about [1:16:53] how we approach that? [1:16:54] Because we need [1:16:55] the artificial intelligence. [1:16:58] We need to be better [1:16:59] than our adversaries. [1:17:00] Collect more data, [1:17:01] collect it faster, [1:17:02] analyze it better. [1:17:03] But we still have [1:17:04] to have those protections. [1:17:05] And the confidence [1:17:05] of the American people [1:17:06] that we're doing [1:17:07] the right things [1:17:08] with only the data [1:17:09] that we're supposed [1:17:10] to be collecting [1:17:10] I think will add, [1:17:13] will allow us [1:17:14] to continue to move [1:17:15] and to protect them. [1:17:16] Can we talk about [1:17:17] how we do that [1:17:17] and how you see that, [1:17:19] please? [1:17:20] Well, I think [1:17:21] the first thing [1:17:22] is exactly what you said, [1:17:23] Senator Rounds. [1:17:24] Recognizing that [1:17:25] an issue that we're [1:17:26] dealing with, [1:17:27] I think, [1:17:27] pretty well [1:17:28] but can always get better [1:17:29] is collect the data [1:17:31] we need [1:17:31] to provide [1:17:32] a good intelligence product [1:17:33] without violating [1:17:35] people's Fourth Amendment rights [1:17:36] but also in a way [1:17:39] that we can control [1:17:40] and monitor that. [1:17:42] I expect it's just [1:17:43] what you said, [1:17:43] that AI [1:17:44] is going to greatly amplify [1:17:47] that collection ability [1:17:49] which amplifies [1:17:52] the need for oversight [1:17:53] and controls [1:17:55] to protect [1:17:56] our citizens. [1:17:57] I think we should [1:17:58] just recognize [1:17:59] that that's the case. [1:18:00] Thank you. [1:18:01] Look, Mr. Chairman, [1:18:02] I just think [1:18:03] that this is something [1:18:03] that I think [1:18:04] our committee [1:18:04] is going to be [1:18:05] directly involved with [1:18:06] and I think [1:18:07] on both sides [1:18:07] of the aisle [1:18:08] the implementation [1:18:09] of this tool [1:18:10] as we speed up [1:18:11] the delivery [1:18:12] of the decision-making [1:18:13] capabilities [1:18:14] for our leaders [1:18:15] has got to be one [1:18:16] that the American people [1:18:17] will continue [1:18:17] to have confidence in [1:18:18] and I think [1:18:19] that's part of the key [1:18:20] reasons for having [1:18:20] a discussion like this [1:18:21] is to let people know [1:18:23] that we recognize [1:18:24] that that threat [1:18:25] is out there [1:18:25] and that we're aware [1:18:26] of it [1:18:27] and that [1:18:27] as we collect [1:18:29] the data [1:18:29] that we have to [1:18:30] we're going to be [1:18:30] very careful [1:18:31] about the coordination [1:18:33] so that their rights [1:18:34] are protected [1:18:35] in this collection process. [1:18:37] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:18:38] Thank you, Senator Rounds. [1:18:39] Senator Gillibrand. [1:18:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [1:18:42] and thank you, [1:18:44] Mr. Clayton [1:18:45] for your service [1:18:46] to our country. [1:18:47] I want to [1:18:48] just continue [1:18:51] with the line [1:18:51] of questioning [1:18:52] that Senator Bennett [1:18:54] had about [1:18:55] the New York Times [1:18:56] subpoenas. [1:18:58] You said you don't [1:18:59] want to get into it. [1:18:59] I understand that [1:19:00] but the reason [1:19:02] why we're asking [1:19:03] these questions [1:19:03] is because [1:19:04] the subpoenas [1:19:07] were issued [1:19:07] so closely [1:19:08] after a very long [1:19:10] meeting at the White House. [1:19:11] There seemed to be [1:19:12] an unnecessary [1:19:13] urgency behind it [1:19:15] and I'd like you [1:19:15] to maybe comment [1:19:16] on why there was [1:19:17] this urgency [1:19:18] but more than that [1:19:20] they were served [1:19:21] at the reporter's homes [1:19:23] and that is fairly unusual. [1:19:25] That is not the least [1:19:27] what term of art [1:19:28] did you use? [1:19:28] The least [1:19:29] least intrusive [1:19:31] intrusive means [1:19:32] serving at their homes. [1:19:33] Normally a subpoena [1:19:34] would be issued [1:19:34] at their place of business, [1:19:36] a corporate office [1:19:37] but again [1:19:38] delivering it [1:19:39] to a private home [1:19:40] seems quite aggressive. [1:19:42] So can you address [1:19:43] the urgency [1:19:44] and the home [1:19:45] service? [1:19:48] What I said before [1:19:52] is I'm not going [1:19:55] to get into [1:19:55] the specifics [1:19:56] and the circumstances [1:19:57] of the matters [1:19:58] being investigated. [1:20:00] Understood. [1:20:00] So I just want to talk [1:20:01] about the process [1:20:02] because I get you [1:20:03] don't want to talk [1:20:03] about the substance. [1:20:04] And then on the process [1:20:05] how quickly [1:20:07] you would do something [1:20:08] following the process [1:20:09] depends on [1:20:11] those facts [1:20:11] and circumstances [1:20:12] of the investigation [1:20:13] including the potential [1:20:14] spoliation [1:20:15] of information [1:20:17] and the timeliness [1:20:20] of the threat. [1:20:21] I think I'm going [1:20:22] to leave it at that [1:20:23] but this was a judgment [1:20:27] and it should always [1:20:28] be a judgment [1:20:29] that's made collectively. [1:20:30] That's the way [1:20:31] I look at these things. [1:20:32] Well I would just [1:20:33] urge that [1:20:34] this doesn't sound [1:20:36] like the proper [1:20:37] independent legal process [1:20:39] that we would normally [1:20:39] expect for issuance [1:20:41] of a subpoena. [1:20:42] The characteristics [1:20:43] surrounding it [1:20:44] seem rushed, [1:20:45] aggressive, [1:20:46] with an unnecessary [1:20:48] urgency. [1:20:49] and I would just [1:20:50] caution you [1:20:51] in your role. [1:20:52] You are going [1:20:52] to have many times [1:20:54] when you may be [1:20:56] influenced to engage [1:20:57] in investigation [1:20:58] because the White House [1:21:00] is unhappy [1:21:00] with a report. [1:21:02] The thing about [1:21:03] this particular issue [1:21:05] is that the plane [1:21:06] was reported on [1:21:07] months ago, [1:21:08] months and months ago [1:21:09] about the concerns [1:21:10] that because it was [1:21:12] built by Qatar [1:21:13] that it wouldn't have [1:21:14] the same security [1:21:15] aspects that one [1:21:19] would need [1:21:19] to protect a president. [1:21:21] And so this just [1:21:23] doesn't ring true [1:21:24] that your process [1:21:25] was a thoughtful, [1:21:26] deliberative, [1:21:27] and normal [1:21:29] oversight process. [1:21:30] And that is why [1:21:31] this committee [1:21:32] is deeply concerned. [1:21:33] Do you understand that? [1:21:34] I understand your concerns. [1:21:35] I understand your concerns. [1:21:36] But I want to tell you [1:21:39] I am comfortable [1:21:39] with where we are [1:21:40] and I'm comfortable [1:21:41] with how we are [1:21:42] proceeding from here. [1:21:43] Okay. [1:21:43] Well, we expect [1:21:44] judicious, thoughtful, [1:21:46] legal processes [1:21:47] from this committee. [1:21:48] The second thing [1:21:49] that this committee [1:21:50] is concerned about [1:21:51] are this issue [1:21:52] of election security. [1:21:54] Senator King [1:21:55] tried to get you [1:21:57] to say, [1:21:57] did he win [1:21:58] or not win the election? [1:21:59] President Trump [1:22:00] has an issue [1:22:01] with whether he wins [1:22:02] or doesn't win elections [1:22:03] and it's affected [1:22:04] your office. [1:22:05] And I need you [1:22:05] to understand [1:22:06] how it's affected [1:22:06] your office. [1:22:08] After the 2016 election, [1:22:10] there was allegations [1:22:11] that there was [1:22:11] foreign interference [1:22:12] by Russia. [1:22:13] And President Trump [1:22:14] was very concerned [1:22:15] that somehow [1:22:16] his election [1:22:17] was not on the up and up. [1:22:19] And so what he did [1:22:20] in response [1:22:21] when he became president [1:22:22] was he eliminated [1:22:23] every aspect [1:22:24] of your office's oversight [1:22:27] of the election process [1:22:28] from cyber threats. [1:22:30] You had personnel [1:22:31] that were very knowledgeable [1:22:33] about cyber threats, [1:22:34] especially foreign influence. [1:22:36] There were personnel [1:22:37] at CISA. [1:22:39] There were personnel [1:22:39] at the FBI [1:22:40] and they were all fired. [1:22:42] And then President Trump [1:22:43] now wants to make sure [1:22:44] that the 2020 election [1:22:46] that nobody says [1:22:48] Biden won the election. [1:22:50] So you can understand [1:22:51] why this committee [1:22:52] is concerned [1:22:53] that you won't say [1:22:54] Biden won the election [1:22:55] because it just reeks [1:22:56] of this insecurity [1:22:58] by the Trump administration [1:22:59] about election security. [1:23:00] So when you say [1:23:01] election security [1:23:02] is important to you, [1:23:04] I want to make sure [1:23:04] that you understand [1:23:05] the ODNI [1:23:06] has a responsibility [1:23:07] towards cyber security, [1:23:10] towards election security [1:23:11] that's not about voter fraud, [1:23:13] but about the influence [1:23:15] of foreign countries [1:23:16] on our election security. [1:23:17] Do you understand that? [1:23:19] Absolutely. [1:23:20] And it is a significant [1:23:22] concern of mine. [1:23:23] One of the things [1:23:24] that I did not get [1:23:25] an opportunity [1:23:26] to talk about before, [1:23:28] cyber security [1:23:28] has been part [1:23:29] of my private sector [1:23:31] and public sector practice [1:23:32] for well over a decade, [1:23:35] going on close [1:23:35] to two decades. [1:23:37] So will you add that [1:23:38] back to ODNI [1:23:38] because it was taken out [1:23:40] by Gabbard? [1:23:41] When I was talking, [1:23:41] yes, when I was talking [1:23:43] about processes [1:23:44] and integrity [1:23:45] of our election, [1:23:47] cyber security [1:23:47] is front of mind. [1:23:48] So will you restore [1:23:50] the cyber security [1:23:51] complement to your job [1:23:54] as well as [1:23:55] the biosecurity threats [1:23:57] and as well as [1:23:58] the form-aligned [1:24:01] influence center? [1:24:02] I can commit [1:24:02] to making an assessment [1:24:03] and to the extent [1:24:06] that more resources [1:24:07] are needed [1:24:07] or more focus is needed [1:24:10] or more coordination [1:24:11] is needed. [1:24:11] Well, we would urge [1:24:12] there are more resources [1:24:13] and focus needed [1:24:14] in those three areas. [1:24:15] And I look forward [1:24:15] to dialoguing with you [1:24:16] on that. [1:24:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:24:17] Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. [1:24:18] Senator Lankford. [1:24:20] Mr. Chairman, thank you. [1:24:21] Mr. Clayton, good to see you again [1:24:22] on it. [1:24:23] You have served the nation [1:24:24] in multiple different roles [1:24:25] before in leading SEC [1:24:27] and did a very good job [1:24:28] there in Southern District [1:24:30] of New York [1:24:30] in the U.S. Attorney's Office. [1:24:32] You've got a very unique [1:24:33] experience and background [1:24:34] walking in on intelligence. [1:24:35] You've handled money laundering, [1:24:36] drug kingpins. [1:24:37] You've handled international [1:24:38] terrorist and foreign [1:24:39] terrorist organizations, [1:24:41] counter-espionage cases. [1:24:42] You've handled a lot of things [1:24:43] as a prosecutor in this. [1:24:45] My question to you is [1:24:46] how does that experience [1:24:48] and knowing what is needed [1:24:49] to actually prosecute [1:24:50] individuals affect [1:24:51] how you approach this task [1:24:53] in helping the intelligence [1:24:54] community trying to be able [1:24:55] to gather information? [1:24:56] Great to see you. [1:24:59] Thanks. [1:24:59] Good to see you again. [1:25:02] The role that you just described [1:25:04] is one that I believe draws [1:25:07] on a lot of the experience [1:25:08] that I have had as a counselor [1:25:10] for years, [1:25:11] and that is that I want [1:25:14] to be respectful [1:25:15] that the intelligence community [1:25:16] is about providing information [1:25:18] and analysis, [1:25:19] not setting policy [1:25:20] or making decisions. [1:25:22] And I look forward [1:25:23] to playing that role [1:25:24] as ODI and I. [1:25:27] I think that my experience [1:25:28] as a consumer [1:25:29] of that type of information [1:25:31] will help me provide [1:25:34] the information in the way [1:25:35] that is best [1:25:36] for the consumers I serve. [1:25:38] I always worry [1:25:39] that people who are [1:25:39] the providers of information [1:25:41] are providing it [1:25:42] for themselves [1:25:43] and not for the end user [1:25:45] in the most effective way [1:25:47] for the end user. [1:25:48] Maybe we're doing that. [1:25:50] Maybe we're not. [1:25:50] I hope we are. [1:25:51] But I and I also want to say, [1:25:53] as Senator Cotton noted [1:25:55] and others have noted, [1:25:57] the women and men [1:25:58] of the intelligence community [1:25:59] are incredible. [1:26:01] I look forward to working [1:26:02] with them, [1:26:03] learning from them [1:26:03] and figuring out [1:26:04] how to provide [1:26:05] that best possible [1:26:06] intelligence product. [1:26:08] Okay, that would be [1:26:09] very helpful. [1:26:10] And it's helpful [1:26:10] to all the policymakers [1:26:11] to have the best, [1:26:13] clearest, non-safe, [1:26:16] if I can say it that way, [1:26:17] documents to just get [1:26:18] the information out [1:26:19] so people can make [1:26:20] the decisions based [1:26:21] on the information [1:26:22] that we actually have. [1:26:23] That would be helpful. [1:26:24] And as a consumer of that, [1:26:26] I would assume [1:26:26] that makes a difference [1:26:27] for you. [1:26:28] ODNI started out [1:26:29] as a very small entity [1:26:31] after the 9-11 attacks, [1:26:32] as you know well. [1:26:33] It has grown [1:26:34] to a multi-thousand [1:26:35] person organization. [1:26:37] There have been [1:26:38] a lot of questions [1:26:38] around this dais [1:26:39] to try to figure out [1:26:40] is it the right size? [1:26:41] We have a lot of people [1:26:42] that are detailed [1:26:43] from a lot of our [1:26:44] intelligence agencies [1:26:45] to the director [1:26:47] of National Intelligence [1:26:48] Office now. [1:26:48] And we're trying [1:26:49] to be able to figure out [1:26:49] that's the right places [1:26:50] to continue to be able [1:26:51] to pull people [1:26:52] out of their agency [1:26:53] and pull them over there [1:26:54] or some of them [1:26:55] need to return back [1:26:57] to their agencies. [1:26:58] Obviously, you're not there [1:26:59] at this point, [1:26:59] but you've led [1:27:00] a lot of large organizations. [1:27:02] Tell me process-wise [1:27:03] how you walk in [1:27:04] to be able to look at [1:27:05] are we right-sized, [1:27:06] right-task? [1:27:06] Do we have people here [1:27:08] that need to actually [1:27:09] be there? [1:27:09] How do you make [1:27:10] those decisions? [1:27:12] Thank you. [1:27:13] I tried to outline it [1:27:14] in my opening remarks. [1:27:16] What is our mission, [1:27:17] the safety and security [1:27:18] of the American people? [1:27:21] How do we deal [1:27:22] with that every day? [1:27:24] We provide decision makers [1:27:25] with the best possible [1:27:26] intelligence product. [1:27:28] What is the structure [1:27:29] over the intelligence community [1:27:31] with the role that we have, [1:27:33] which is supposed to be [1:27:34] oversight and integration, [1:27:36] not operations? [1:27:38] What is the structure [1:27:39] that best serves that? [1:27:40] That's how I intend [1:27:41] to look at it. [1:27:42] And specifically, [1:27:44] where do people return? [1:27:45] Where do they stay? [1:27:47] The analogy that is [1:27:49] in my mind [1:27:49] is a board of directors [1:27:51] that oversees [1:27:53] a number of subsidiaries. [1:27:55] In most cases, [1:27:56] that board of directors [1:27:57] is fairly lean [1:27:58] and relies on reporting [1:28:00] from the subsidiaries [1:28:01] with some efforts [1:28:03] to synthesize, [1:28:03] some committees. [1:28:05] That is what is in my mind. [1:28:07] One thing you don't want [1:28:08] to do as a member [1:28:09] of a board of directors, [1:28:10] whether you're in oversight [1:28:11] or empowerment or both, [1:28:13] is get into the day-to-day [1:28:15] of management. [1:28:16] You lose perspective. [1:28:18] You have handled [1:28:19] terrorism cases [1:28:20] coming straight out of Iran [1:28:21] and threats [1:28:22] that have come to us. [1:28:24] For 47 years, [1:28:25] the United States [1:28:26] and American citizens [1:28:26] all around the world [1:28:27] have faced terrorism threats [1:28:29] from Iran [1:28:29] and the growth [1:28:30] of the proxy terror organizations. [1:28:34] What can you tell us [1:28:35] at this point, [1:28:36] based on your experience [1:28:36] from the Southern District [1:28:37] of New York [1:28:38] and your prosecution [1:28:39] side of things, [1:28:40] and then also [1:28:41] some of the work [1:28:42] that you had done [1:28:42] in the past, [1:28:43] just dealing with money laundering [1:28:44] and the movement of money, [1:28:46] the most effective way [1:28:47] to be able to deal [1:28:48] with the threats [1:28:49] that we're facing [1:28:50] right now from Iran? [1:28:52] The threat's real. [1:28:55] It's not hypothetical. [1:28:56] Look, [1:28:57] all you need to do [1:28:57] is look at the people [1:28:58] who we have arrested [1:28:59] in the last year [1:29:01] and what they have done. [1:29:03] They intend to do [1:29:03] our citizens harm. [1:29:06] They are well-funded, [1:29:07] and they are well-funded [1:29:09] through channels [1:29:10] that we need to do [1:29:11] a better job of monitoring. [1:29:13] Our traditional banking channels, [1:29:14] I think, [1:29:15] are fairly well-monitored. [1:29:16] There are new channels, [1:29:18] I would say, [1:29:20] digital asset platforms, [1:29:22] other channels [1:29:23] where funding takes place [1:29:25] that we need [1:29:25] to do a better job on. [1:29:27] Okay. [1:29:27] Thank you. [1:29:28] I'll yield back. [1:29:29] Senator Kelly. [1:29:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:29:32] Mr. Clayton, [1:29:33] thank you for being here. [1:29:35] I've got a couple [1:29:37] very basic questions, [1:29:39] and then I want to [1:29:39] get a little bit [1:29:40] of your opinion [1:29:41] on the threats we face [1:29:42] if we have time. [1:29:43] So, can you tell me [1:29:45] why Joe Biden [1:29:47] was certified [1:29:49] as the winner [1:29:50] of the 2020 election? [1:29:55] I really, [1:29:57] I'm going back [1:29:58] to my constitutional law here, [1:29:59] but I don't want to [1:30:00] continue to have debate [1:30:02] about this, [1:30:03] but I believe [1:30:04] he had the most [1:30:04] electoral votes. [1:30:05] So he won the election? [1:30:07] He followed our process, [1:30:10] had the most electoral votes, [1:30:11] was declared the winner, [1:30:12] and... [1:30:13] And who has [1:30:13] the most electoral votes? [1:30:15] Is it the person that wins [1:30:16] or the person that loses? [1:30:17] I think that's [1:30:18] your characterization. [1:30:19] I really, [1:30:20] I'm not going to continue [1:30:21] to do this. [1:30:21] The reason why we struggle [1:30:22] with this, [1:30:23] and I think it's [1:30:24] especially important [1:30:26] in the job [1:30:27] you're nominated for, [1:30:30] is because it seems [1:30:33] that folks [1:30:37] who are nominated [1:30:37] for these positions [1:30:38] just fundamentally [1:30:39] refuse to disagree [1:30:41] with something [1:30:42] the president says. [1:30:44] And the problem [1:30:45] I have with this [1:30:46] is he isn't [1:30:48] in the room today. [1:30:50] You're going to be [1:30:52] in a room with him [1:30:52] many times. [1:30:56] And at times [1:30:58] you should have [1:30:59] a difference of opinion. [1:31:01] And if you can't [1:31:02] disagree with him [1:31:03] when he's not [1:31:04] in the room, [1:31:05] are you going to be able [1:31:06] to disagree with him [1:31:07] when you're sitting [1:31:09] across from him [1:31:10] in the Oval Office [1:31:12] with a situation room? [1:31:14] That's what I struggle with [1:31:16] because this job [1:31:17] is different. [1:31:17] This job, [1:31:18] it's not about [1:31:19] softening the edges [1:31:21] when the truth [1:31:22] is unpleasant. [1:31:23] it's about [1:31:25] delivering information [1:31:26] and making sure [1:31:27] the president [1:31:27] understands that information. [1:31:29] And by the way, [1:31:29] people risk their lives [1:31:31] to get this information. [1:31:33] And if it's not [1:31:34] transmitted [1:31:34] to the president, [1:31:36] if he doesn't [1:31:37] understand it, [1:31:38] I mean, [1:31:38] there's going to be [1:31:38] disagreements. [1:31:39] We expect that. [1:31:42] But I really struggle [1:31:43] with this, [1:31:43] especially in your position, [1:31:46] because you can't [1:31:47] disagree with him [1:31:48] on this [1:31:49] because he doesn't [1:31:50] like the fact [1:31:51] that he lost in 2020. [1:31:53] As you said, [1:31:53] Joe Biden was [1:31:54] certified because [1:31:55] he got the most [1:31:56] electoral votes. [1:31:57] That means he won. [1:31:59] But you still refuse [1:32:00] to say that. [1:32:04] And I was sitting [1:32:05] at the SEC [1:32:05] when this occurred. [1:32:08] And I can tell you [1:32:08] that maybe people [1:32:10] worked harder, [1:32:14] but I don't think [1:32:15] anybody I know [1:32:17] worked harder [1:32:17] to make an effective [1:32:18] transition to my successor [1:32:21] at the SEC. [1:32:23] And in terms of [1:32:24] your question, [1:32:25] I have every confidence [1:32:27] that I will deliver [1:32:29] on my job, [1:32:30] candidly, [1:32:32] independently [1:32:32] and with my best judgment. [1:32:35] But just not [1:32:36] in this room. [1:32:37] Okay, let me move on. [1:32:39] So I want to [1:32:42] just see, [1:32:42] hear from you. [1:32:43] What do you think [1:32:44] our top threats [1:32:45] are that we face [1:32:47] as a nation today? [1:32:49] Let's just talk [1:32:49] about the top three. [1:32:51] From where I sit today, [1:32:56] terrorism, [1:32:56] from many sources. [1:33:00] I believe that [1:33:01] we have done [1:33:03] a good job [1:33:03] of reducing [1:33:05] the threat, [1:33:06] but drug trafficking [1:33:08] and the deaths [1:33:10] from fentanyl [1:33:11] into the United States [1:33:11] were an incredible threat. [1:33:14] The combination, [1:33:15] I'm not going to speak [1:33:16] about any specific, [1:33:17] I'm illuminating that, [1:33:20] I'm not going to say [1:33:20] about any specific country, [1:33:22] but the combination [1:33:23] in certain countries [1:33:24] of cartels, [1:33:29] military, [1:33:30] and business [1:33:31] is very dangerous. [1:33:34] Lastly, [1:33:34] I would say [1:33:35] our traditional adversaries, [1:33:36] Senator Kelly, [1:33:37] that we've talked about. [1:33:39] Terrorism, drugs, [1:33:40] cartels, [1:33:41] and traditional, [1:33:43] I assume you mean, [1:33:43] Russia, China. [1:33:45] Russia, China, [1:33:46] and Iran. [1:33:48] And with regards [1:33:49] to Russia and China, [1:33:50] I have about 40 seconds left. [1:33:52] What specifically [1:33:53] would you do [1:33:55] as DNI [1:33:57] to help our country [1:33:59] deal with those threats? [1:34:01] Since we only have 30 seconds, [1:34:02] just talk to me [1:34:03] about Russia and Ukraine. [1:34:05] Russia, Ukraine, China. [1:34:06] One thing that I elaborated before [1:34:08] that I think I can be [1:34:09] extremely helpful on [1:34:11] is the economic strategies [1:34:14] that are involved [1:34:16] in our engagement [1:34:19] with them [1:34:20] across conflict [1:34:22] and cooperation. [1:34:27] We still cooperate [1:34:28] extensively with China [1:34:30] on the world stage [1:34:31] economically. [1:34:31] Do you think [1:34:32] the economic issue [1:34:33] with Russia [1:34:34] outweighs [1:34:35] the national security [1:34:36] risk to our allies? [1:34:38] I think that they are [1:34:40] very closely tied. [1:34:41] How do a number [1:34:43] of these threat actors [1:34:45] fund themselves? [1:34:47] It's energy, [1:34:49] other things. [1:34:50] That's extremely, [1:34:51] you know, [1:34:52] I think you and I [1:34:53] talked about this. [1:34:56] Some of our, [1:34:57] I would say, [1:34:59] most formidable threat actors [1:35:00] are the ones [1:35:01] who are the most well-funded. [1:35:02] Thank you. [1:35:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:35:06] Senator Young. [1:35:09] Thank you, Chairman. [1:35:10] Good to see you, [1:35:11] Mr. Clayton. [1:35:12] I am grateful [1:35:13] for your long-standing [1:35:14] service to our country. [1:35:16] Thanks to your family [1:35:17] for all it's done [1:35:19] and all it's prepared [1:35:20] to do [1:35:21] after you're confirmed. [1:35:23] I want to build [1:35:25] on some of our conversations [1:35:26] that we had [1:35:26] in the office, [1:35:27] which I found productive, [1:35:31] and turn to issues [1:35:33] of technology [1:35:34] and economic security, [1:35:37] which you know [1:35:38] are important to me. [1:35:40] As Chairman of the SEC [1:35:42] and more recently [1:35:43] as a U.S. attorney, [1:35:46] you had a lot [1:35:47] of experience [1:35:47] in advancing [1:35:48] American economic [1:35:50] and technology security, [1:35:52] especially from [1:35:53] manipulative practices [1:35:55] of our strategic competitors [1:35:56] and adversaries. [1:35:57] Maybe you could just speak [1:35:58] to that. [1:36:02] Senator Young, [1:36:02] it troubles me, [1:36:05] and it very much [1:36:05] troubled me, [1:36:06] that foreign actors, [1:36:08] sometimes state-sponsored actors, [1:36:10] abused our securities markets, [1:36:13] abused them [1:36:14] in some traditional ways [1:36:15] and non-traditional ways, [1:36:16] including what we refer to [1:36:17] as pump-and-dump schemes, [1:36:18] basically luring [1:36:20] unsuspecting American citizens [1:36:23] into investing in securities [1:36:24] that were not worth [1:36:26] what they were projected to be, [1:36:29] taking that money, [1:36:30] prices drop, [1:36:31] running away, [1:36:32] being offshore. [1:36:33] As I said, [1:36:35] one of the problems [1:36:36] with our global markets [1:36:37] is our ability [1:36:39] to go get bad actors [1:36:40] that act from outside [1:36:42] of the United States [1:36:43] is very limited. [1:36:47] And I've proposed [1:36:48] some measures [1:36:49] to help the SEC [1:36:50] crack down on this. [1:36:52] They've not prioritized this [1:36:53] in the last year or so, [1:36:56] so I'll continue [1:36:57] to work that set, [1:36:58] but I want to be supportive [1:36:58] in this capacity, [1:37:00] this intelligence capacity [1:37:01] that you'll assume, [1:37:03] to help our nation [1:37:06] crack down on that. [1:37:08] From your tenure at SEC, [1:37:10] how might you approach [1:37:11] ensuring that there's [1:37:12] adequately intel support [1:37:14] to our federal entities [1:37:18] that aren't traditionally [1:37:19] known as national security entities, [1:37:21] USDA, Commerce, SEC? [1:37:27] Yeah. [1:37:27] Let me give you [1:37:28] a recent example [1:37:29] that we had [1:37:30] in the Southern District [1:37:31] about commerce and chips [1:37:33] and our restriction [1:37:36] on chip shipments [1:37:37] to certain of our adversaries. [1:37:39] That's an extremely important [1:37:41] national security issue. [1:37:42] We wouldn't be restricting [1:37:43] those chips [1:37:44] if it were just [1:37:45] a commercial issue. [1:37:46] It is a sort of [1:37:48] capabilities issue, [1:37:49] and that's something [1:37:50] that we need, I believe, [1:37:51] to continue to work [1:37:52] with other agencies on. [1:37:55] So it's important [1:37:56] for me to hear you say that [1:37:57] because conceptually, [1:37:59] I sit on a number [1:38:01] of committees, [1:38:01] most of which deal with [1:38:03] what I think an outsider [1:38:04] would regard [1:38:05] as strictly economic issues. [1:38:08] I've always approached [1:38:09] them first and foremost [1:38:10] from an economic, [1:38:11] or from a national security [1:38:12] perspective. [1:38:14] I think it's really important [1:38:14] that all our agencies [1:38:16] are first thinking [1:38:17] about national security [1:38:19] before they think [1:38:19] about anything else. [1:38:20] So I'm grateful [1:38:22] for that mindset. [1:38:24] Last thing I want to turn to [1:38:26] in our brief time today [1:38:27] is following what is now law [1:38:30] as it relates to [1:38:31] COVID declassifications. [1:38:35] I authored a requirement [1:38:37] in last year's [1:38:38] Intel Authorization Act [1:38:40] for ODNI [1:38:41] to review intelligence [1:38:43] for public release [1:38:45] relating to China's efforts [1:38:47] to cover up [1:38:49] the COVID pandemic [1:38:50] and interfere with [1:38:52] our response. [1:38:54] Do you commit [1:38:54] to following the law [1:38:57] ensuring that this review [1:38:59] is completed [1:39:00] as soon as possible [1:39:01] and ensuring [1:39:02] all appropriate intelligence [1:39:04] is released [1:39:05] so the world [1:39:06] can better understand [1:39:07] China's bad behavior? [1:39:09] Yes or no, please. [1:39:10] I have a hard time [1:39:13] with yes or no answers, [1:39:14] sorry, [1:39:14] but what I can say [1:39:16] is I think [1:39:19] there's a whole lot more [1:39:20] to learn from [1:39:21] what happened in COVID. [1:39:23] And there's a lot of work [1:39:24] for, I expect, [1:39:26] I hope to know more. [1:39:27] There's a lot of work [1:39:28] for our intelligence community [1:39:29] to do [1:39:30] to ensure that [1:39:31] the American people [1:39:32] have access to that learning [1:39:35] and to the extent [1:39:35] it should be classified, [1:39:37] you have access [1:39:38] to that learning. [1:39:39] I gave you [1:39:40] important qualifiers there. [1:39:42] So as soon as possible, [1:39:44] that was a qualifier [1:39:45] because it can be difficult, [1:39:48] especially in this format, [1:39:49] to internalize the question. [1:39:51] On that? [1:39:51] I'm trying to trip you up. [1:39:52] No, no, no. [1:39:53] On that. [1:39:53] And then ensuring [1:39:54] all appropriate intelligence [1:39:56] is released. [1:39:58] I mean, [1:39:58] you have a legal background. [1:39:59] There's a lot of room there. [1:40:01] Okay. [1:40:01] I'll take it. [1:40:03] All right. [1:40:03] All right. [1:40:03] Thank you. [1:40:04] Senator Reid. [1:40:05] Thank you very much, [1:40:08] Mr. Chairman. [1:40:10] Welcome, sir. [1:40:12] In a speech [1:40:14] in September last year, [1:40:15] you highlighted [1:40:16] the great successes [1:40:17] of the Southern District [1:40:18] of New York, [1:40:19] specifically calling out, [1:40:22] I quote, [1:40:23] the successful prosecution [1:40:24] of the former president [1:40:25] of Honduras [1:40:26] and other high-level [1:40:28] Honduran officials [1:40:29] for narcotics trafficking [1:40:30] and firearms charges [1:40:32] for partnering [1:40:33] with some of the largest [1:40:34] and most violent cartels [1:40:36] in the world [1:40:37] to distribute tons [1:40:39] of cocaine [1:40:39] to the United States. [1:40:40] Is that correct? [1:40:43] Yes. [1:40:46] Yeah, I think so. [1:40:48] I think that's fair. [1:40:50] Now, on November 28th, 2025, [1:40:53] President Trump issued [1:40:54] a full and complete pardon [1:40:56] to Juan Orlando Hernandez. [1:40:58] Were you consulted [1:40:59] about the pardon? [1:41:06] I'm not going to get [1:41:08] into the pardon process here. [1:41:11] The president's pardon power, [1:41:14] I think there's only [1:41:15] a few powers [1:41:16] in our Constitution [1:41:17] that are unreviewable [1:41:18] and absolute. [1:41:19] That's one of them. [1:41:19] and whether it's [1:41:21] President Biden, [1:41:23] President Trump, [1:41:23] or a future president, [1:41:25] that's their power. [1:41:26] Are you aware [1:41:27] of any quid pro quo [1:41:28] regarding the pardon? [1:41:32] I'm not aware [1:41:33] of any such thing. [1:41:34] Why would the president [1:41:35] of the United States [1:41:36] pardon someone [1:41:36] that you had convicted [1:41:38] and described [1:41:38] as being involved [1:41:40] in violent activities [1:41:42] and allowing tons [1:41:43] of cocaine [1:41:44] to enter the United States? [1:41:47] Like I said, [1:41:48] I'm not going to discuss [1:41:49] a specific pardon thing. [1:41:50] That's the president's [1:41:51] pardon power. [1:41:51] Well, [1:41:57] it seems to me [1:41:58] that all the rhetoric [1:42:00] that we've heard [1:42:00] about fighting drugs [1:42:02] and in fact, [1:42:03] we've killed over 200 people [1:42:05] in the Caribbean [1:42:05] and Pacific [1:42:06] because they were [1:42:08] not presidents [1:42:09] of countries [1:42:10] but minor dealers [1:42:11] or transporters [1:42:14] of heroin [1:42:14] and yet here's [1:42:16] a kingmaker [1:42:18] or a kingpiece [1:42:20] who gets to walk. [1:42:22] Senator Reid, [1:42:22] what I can say, [1:42:24] and I want to be very clear, [1:42:26] I'm not talking [1:42:26] about this specific instance, [1:42:28] but in our efforts [1:42:29] to counteract [1:42:32] the serious drug threat [1:42:33] from south of our border, [1:42:36] we engage [1:42:37] with the Department of State, [1:42:40] others, [1:42:40] on matters of this type. [1:42:45] It is a whole-of-government approach [1:42:47] to this type of threat. [1:42:48] Thank you. [1:42:49] Admiral Paparo, [1:42:50] who's an extraordinary commander [1:42:52] of the Indo-PACOM, [1:42:54] indicated in a testimony [1:42:56] to the Foreign Service Committee [1:42:57] that allowing China [1:43:00] to get access [1:43:01] to sophisticated chips [1:43:04] would eventually come [1:43:06] at the expense [1:43:07] of American service members [1:43:08] in a conflict. [1:43:09] So if we're giving chips [1:43:12] to China, [1:43:13] we're threatening [1:43:13] or at least making them [1:43:15] more difficult [1:43:15] to survive a lot of troops. [1:43:18] President Trump, [1:43:20] after speaking with Xi, [1:43:21] announced a significant [1:43:22] apology change [1:43:23] to sell H-200 chips [1:43:25] to China. [1:43:28] Do you agree [1:43:28] with the transfer [1:43:29] of these advanced chips [1:43:31] threatens our military security [1:43:33] and more particularly [1:43:33] the lives of our service members? [1:43:37] Senator, [1:43:38] I'm not familiar [1:43:38] with that particular decision, [1:43:40] but you raise a point [1:43:43] that I'm very proud [1:43:44] of what my office [1:43:45] and our partners [1:43:45] were able to do. [1:43:47] Chips that were sanctioned [1:43:48] and subject to criminal sanction [1:43:52] for being diverted to China, [1:43:55] we brought that case. [1:43:56] I know. [1:43:57] And you successfully [1:43:58] convicted people [1:43:59] for taking the very same chips [1:44:01] and getting them into China. [1:44:03] The President of the United States [1:44:04] turns around [1:44:05] and gives them to Xi. [1:44:07] And the logic, [1:44:08] I think, [1:44:08] of your case [1:44:09] was these chips [1:44:10] would have been detrimental [1:44:11] to lose the security [1:44:12] of the United States. [1:44:12] Is that correct? [1:44:14] Well, I mean, [1:44:15] the logic of our case [1:44:16] from a prosecutor's point of view [1:44:17] was it was illegal to do it. [1:44:19] It was a priority [1:44:19] for the Department of Commerce [1:44:21] and we brought the case. [1:44:23] Thank you. [1:44:25] One of the things [1:44:26] that everyone [1:44:27] in your business [1:44:28] has to do [1:44:29] is speak truth to power, [1:44:31] particularly when [1:44:31] it's very uncomfortable [1:44:32] to do that. [1:44:35] After Operation Midnight Hammer, [1:44:38] Lieutenant General Jeffrey Cruz [1:44:41] of the Defense Intelligence Agency [1:44:43] allowed his analysis [1:44:45] to go forward [1:44:45] which said [1:44:46] that it did not [1:44:48] obliterate [1:44:48] the atomic nuclear capacities [1:44:52] of Iran. [1:44:54] And he was summarily fired [1:44:56] for speaking truth to power. [1:44:59] It's interesting now [1:45:01] because we're at war [1:45:02] with Iran [1:45:02] and one of the principles [1:45:04] is that they have [1:45:06] a nuclear capacity [1:45:07] that we didn't take out. [1:45:09] Now, I think, [1:45:10] it appears, [1:45:11] General Cruz [1:45:12] was truthful [1:45:13] and he was punished [1:45:15] for being truthful. [1:45:16] In your position, [1:45:17] you're going to have [1:45:17] to stand up [1:45:18] to the President [1:45:19] and say, [1:45:19] no, you can't do that. [1:45:21] Are you prepared [1:45:22] to stand up? [1:45:24] Senator, [1:45:26] that's a hypothetical. [1:45:28] No, it's not a hypothetical. [1:45:29] It happened. [1:45:30] But let me just say, [1:45:31] in my many years [1:45:34] in public [1:45:35] and private sector, [1:45:38] I've given people [1:45:39] my views [1:45:39] in the appropriate form [1:45:41] and the appropriate way. [1:45:43] I'm completely comfortable [1:45:45] that I'll continue [1:45:45] to do that. [1:45:47] Thank you very much, [1:45:47] Mr. Chairman. [1:45:48] Senator Ossoff. [1:45:49] Thank you, [1:45:51] Mr. Chairman. [1:45:52] Mr. Clayton, [1:45:53] welcome. [1:45:53] Congratulations [1:45:54] on your nomination. [1:45:56] You have an obligation [1:45:57] to be honest [1:45:58] and forthright [1:45:59] with this committee, [1:46:00] correct? [1:46:05] Yes. [1:46:07] And is it the case [1:46:10] in the Juan Orlando Hernandez case [1:46:13] that the President [1:46:15] of the United States [1:46:16] pardoned a man [1:46:19] who had worked [1:46:20] with the Sinaloa cartel [1:46:21] to facilitate [1:46:22] massive narco-trafficking [1:46:23] into the United States? [1:46:25] I don't remember [1:46:26] the specifics of that case. [1:46:28] He was convicted [1:46:28] in your district. [1:46:29] He was convicted. [1:46:30] We convict [1:46:31] a lot of people [1:46:32] for a lot of drugs. [1:46:33] Convicted of narco-trafficking, [1:46:34] yes? [1:46:35] I believe so. [1:46:36] No, so, [1:46:37] at massive scale, yes? [1:46:39] Well, you're telling me [1:46:39] what I know. [1:46:40] That's kind of... [1:46:42] He was, I believe... [1:46:44] Look, I'll take your word for it. [1:46:45] He was a convicted [1:46:46] narco-trafficker. [1:46:48] Did the President [1:46:48] of the United States, [1:46:50] Donald J. Trump, [1:46:51] pardon a convicted [1:46:52] narco-trafficker? [1:46:53] I believe we just [1:46:56] discussed that. [1:46:57] The President [1:46:58] provided a pardon, yes. [1:46:59] Yes or no? [1:47:00] Did the President [1:47:00] of the United States [1:47:01] pardon a convicted [1:47:02] narco-trafficker? [1:47:05] Yes. [1:47:07] Who won the 2020 election? [1:47:09] You know, [1:47:09] I'm not going to [1:47:11] do this with you. [1:47:12] This is a job interview. [1:47:15] We've established [1:47:16] that you have an obligation [1:47:17] to be honest [1:47:18] and forthright [1:47:20] with the committee. [1:47:21] Yes, you do have [1:47:21] an obligation to be honest [1:47:22] and forthright [1:47:23] with the committee? [1:47:24] Yes. [1:47:24] Who won the 2020 election? [1:47:26] Like I said, [1:47:26] I'm not going to get [1:47:27] into that with you. [1:47:28] But you do have [1:47:29] an obligation to be honest [1:47:30] and forthright [1:47:31] with the committee. [1:47:32] Is anything that I just said [1:47:33] not honest or forthright? [1:47:34] Yes, you're not being [1:47:35] honest or forthright. [1:47:36] Who won the 2020 election? [1:47:37] I think I've answered [1:47:38] the question. [1:47:39] We can keep doing this. [1:47:41] Well, we're going [1:47:41] to keep doing it [1:47:42] because you're not [1:47:43] being honest and forthright [1:47:44] with the committee. [1:47:44] I'm not going to engage [1:47:45] in the theater. [1:47:48] It's a simple question, [1:47:49] Mr. Clayton. [1:47:50] And I've answered it. [1:47:51] Who won the 2020 [1:47:52] presidential election? [1:47:54] I've answered it. [1:47:56] You're here asking [1:47:57] for the support [1:47:58] of senators [1:47:58] to lead America's [1:48:00] intelligence community. [1:48:02] We've established [1:48:02] that you have [1:48:03] an obligation [1:48:04] to be honest [1:48:05] and forthright [1:48:06] with this committee [1:48:06] and with the American public. [1:48:08] But you refuse [1:48:09] to answer a simple [1:48:10] matter of fact [1:48:11] about the 2020 election. [1:48:13] Is that right? [1:48:14] No, that's not right. [1:48:15] Then answer the question. [1:48:16] Who won the 2020 election? [1:48:18] I have answered the question. [1:48:19] Answer it. [1:48:20] What is your answer? [1:48:21] I've given you my answer. [1:48:23] What is your answer? [1:48:24] You refuse to answer [1:48:29] a basic question [1:48:31] about who won [1:48:32] a presidential election? [1:48:34] No, I... [1:48:34] But you ask to lead [1:48:35] America's intelligence community? [1:48:38] Isn't it humiliating [1:48:39] to be unable [1:48:40] to answer this question? [1:48:42] To have to indulge [1:48:44] the president's delusions? [1:48:48] We know, you know, [1:48:50] everybody in this room knows [1:48:52] the truthful answer [1:48:54] to that question. [1:48:55] Why can you not give it? [1:48:57] I think I gave you the answer. [1:48:58] Are you aware [1:49:00] that Director Gabbard [1:49:02] was present [1:49:03] at the Fulton County raid [1:49:04] in Georgia earlier this year? [1:49:06] You discussed that [1:49:09] with me yesterday [1:49:09] in your office. [1:49:11] Are you aware [1:49:12] that Director Gabbard [1:49:14] was present [1:49:14] at the Fulton County raid [1:49:15] earlier this year? [1:49:18] You brought it to me. [1:49:20] My attention is... [1:49:20] What is going on here? [1:49:21] You've said [1:49:21] at the beginning of this [1:49:22] you have an obligation [1:49:23] to be honest [1:49:24] and forthright [1:49:25] with the committee. [1:49:25] I'm asking a very simple question. [1:49:27] Are you aware [1:49:27] that Director Gabbard [1:49:28] was present [1:49:29] at the Fulton County raid [1:49:30] earlier this year? [1:49:30] Yes or no? [1:49:31] Are you aware? [1:49:32] I was... [1:49:33] You won't answer [1:49:33] that question either. [1:49:34] I just said [1:49:34] I was made aware [1:49:35] of it by you yesterday. [1:49:36] The first time [1:49:38] you learned [1:49:39] that Director Gabbard [1:49:40] was present [1:49:40] at that raid [1:49:41] was in my office yesterday? [1:49:42] It was the first time [1:49:43] that in my recollection [1:49:45] I've thought about it recently. [1:49:46] Now, was I aware [1:49:48] of it before? [1:49:48] What? [1:49:52] I mean, [1:49:55] you brought it [1:49:55] to my attention yesterday. [1:49:56] I had not thought... [1:49:57] So you had not known [1:49:58] until... [1:49:58] I had not thought about it [1:50:00] until you brought it [1:50:00] to my attention yesterday. [1:50:01] Your answers lack credibility. [1:50:03] Your testimony [1:50:04] lacks credibility. [1:50:05] You're being evasive [1:50:06] and you're not being candid [1:50:07] or forthright [1:50:08] and everybody across the country [1:50:09] is going to watch this [1:50:10] and know that. [1:50:11] Are you aware [1:50:12] that former Director Gabbard [1:50:14] testified [1:50:14] that her presence [1:50:15] at the raid [1:50:16] was, quote, [1:50:17] requested by the president? [1:50:23] I'm not aware [1:50:24] of that until now. [1:50:26] Okay. [1:50:26] You are now aware of that? [1:50:27] Yeah. [1:50:28] Are you aware [1:50:28] that members of this committee [1:50:29] are already probing [1:50:30] Director Gabbard's [1:50:31] potential misconduct [1:50:32] in this matter? [1:50:36] No. [1:50:36] I don't... [1:50:37] I'm not privy [1:50:38] to your probe [1:50:39] and to... [1:50:40] Are you aware [1:50:41] that the general counsel [1:50:42] and deputy general counsel [1:50:43] of your office [1:50:44] have already provided testimony [1:50:45] to this committee [1:50:46] regarding this matter? [1:50:47] No. [1:50:50] If the White House [1:50:50] Chief of Staff [1:50:51] or the president [1:50:52] asks you to travel [1:50:53] somewhere across [1:50:54] the United States [1:50:55] and oversee the execution [1:50:56] of a domestic search warrant [1:50:57] on a sensitive [1:50:58] election facility, [1:50:59] will you do it? [1:51:01] That's a hypothetical. [1:51:02] Is that appropriate? [1:51:02] Is that appropriate [1:51:03] for the Director [1:51:04] of National Intelligence? [1:51:05] That's a hypothetical. [1:51:06] We all know [1:51:07] it's not appropriate [1:51:08] for the Director [1:51:08] of National Intelligence. [1:51:09] Will you answer the question? [1:51:10] Your time has expired. [1:51:11] Will you give him [1:51:13] the opportunity [1:51:13] to answer the question? [1:51:15] Is it... [1:51:15] Is this not material [1:51:16] right now, sir? [1:51:18] Is it appropriate [1:51:18] for the Director [1:51:19] of National Intelligence [1:51:20] to oversee [1:51:21] the execution [1:51:23] of domestic search warrants [1:51:24] at sensitive election facilities? [1:51:26] Yes or no? [1:51:29] I think you're asking me, [1:51:30] as you just said [1:51:31] in your first comment to me... [1:51:32] Yes or no? [1:51:33] Is it appropriate? [1:51:34] No? [1:51:35] You are asking me [1:51:36] to comment on a matter [1:51:37] that you just said [1:51:38] was under investigation. [1:51:38] No, I'm asking you... [1:51:39] Okay, Senator, [1:51:40] your time is expired. [1:51:42] Disqualified. [1:51:43] Vice Chairman, [1:51:43] do you have anything to add? [1:51:48] Senator King, [1:51:48] I did not recognize you. [1:51:49] I recognize the vice chairman. [1:51:53] Senator... [1:51:53] Senator King, [1:51:54] I did not recognize you. [1:51:55] I recognize the vice chairman. [1:51:57] Mr. Vice Chairman, [1:51:58] will you make the point? [1:51:59] I will make a point. [1:52:01] I'll make a couple points. [1:52:03] One, [1:52:05] I strongly disagree with you [1:52:06] about the issue [1:52:08] of drug trafficking [1:52:10] being more important [1:52:12] at this point [1:52:13] than the threat [1:52:14] of China or Russia. [1:52:16] But that... [1:52:16] You're going to... [1:52:17] I'm sorry. [1:52:18] Please. [1:52:18] He asked me for the most ones. [1:52:20] I did not rank them in order. [1:52:21] Oh, I did not rank them in order. [1:52:22] Well, let me just... [1:52:23] I want to make one point [1:52:24] then I want to come back [1:52:25] to the point [1:52:25] that my colleagues [1:52:26] have been making. [1:52:28] Because this is an area [1:52:29] that you're familiar with [1:52:30] in terms of securities [1:52:32] and exchange commission work. [1:52:33] We are working diligently [1:52:36] on a bill [1:52:37] to create a set of laws [1:52:39] around digital assets. [1:52:42] From your work [1:52:46] at the U.S. Attorney [1:52:48] in the Southern District, [1:52:48] from your focus [1:52:49] on drug trafficking, [1:52:51] is it not the case [1:52:52] that many drug traffickers [1:52:54] use digital assets [1:52:56] to transfer funds? [1:52:59] Yes. [1:53:00] Is it not the case [1:53:01] as we try to work [1:53:02] through this legislation [1:53:03] to try to make sure [1:53:04] there are barriers [1:53:06] and restrictions [1:53:07] that we should not grant [1:53:09] this new industry, [1:53:09] which has a huge potential, [1:53:11] one of the few that says [1:53:12] we've got to put some rules here, [1:53:13] at least on this side [1:53:14] of the aisle, [1:53:15] that we should not open up [1:53:16] huge new loopholes [1:53:18] that would allow self-dealing, [1:53:22] adjacent transactions [1:53:24] with your focus [1:53:26] on drug trafficking, [1:53:27] making sure [1:53:27] that we don't create [1:53:28] additional holes [1:53:29] for a tool [1:53:30] that has already been abused, [1:53:32] would that not be important [1:53:33] from a national security standpoint? [1:53:35] Senator, [1:53:36] having AML, KYC, [1:53:40] any money laundering, [1:53:41] know your customer, [1:53:42] across the financial service sector [1:53:44] and financial flows [1:53:45] is essential [1:53:46] to national security. [1:53:47] And should we confirm [1:53:49] this is going to be happening [1:53:49] very quickly, [1:53:50] one way or the other, [1:53:52] and I want to make sure [1:53:53] that those are, [1:53:55] you would be able to weigh in. [1:53:56] I just want to say this. [1:53:57] I've known Mr. Clayton [1:53:58] for some time. [1:54:00] I've worked with him. [1:54:01] I've worked with him closely [1:54:04] when he was at the SEC, [1:54:08] but I am bitterly disappointed. [1:54:12] And I don't, [1:54:14] we've tried umpteen different ways [1:54:16] to give to the ability [1:54:18] to just acknowledge [1:54:19] that Joe Biden was the president. [1:54:21] I've acknowledged, Senator, [1:54:23] that Joe Biden was the president. [1:54:24] I've acknowledged that. [1:54:25] And fairly and duly elected. [1:54:27] And fairly and duly elected [1:54:28] under our process. [1:54:34] Well, I'll have follow-up questions. [1:54:37] I also have to say, [1:54:38] as someone who's spent [1:54:39] an enormous amount of time [1:54:41] on this election interference issue, [1:54:46] that it strains credibility. [1:54:48] And I trust you. [1:54:50] I know you. [1:54:52] But it strains credibility [1:54:53] to think that you were not aware [1:54:54] of Director Gabbard's intervention [1:54:58] in the domestic election activities [1:55:00] in Fulton County. [1:55:01] and that that was subject [1:55:02] of a great deal [1:55:03] of consternation and review. [1:55:08] Again, maybe the framing [1:55:09] of the Senator's question, [1:55:11] you didn't appreciate. [1:55:12] But, you know, [1:55:13] even if you weren't aware, [1:55:15] in preparation for this hearing, [1:55:19] I would have thought, [1:55:19] hey, we've got to be ready [1:55:20] for the Gabbard questions. [1:55:23] Yeah. [1:55:23] I, look, I don't want to, [1:55:27] it just wasn't something [1:55:28] that was on my mind [1:55:29] before the preparation [1:55:31] for this hearing. [1:55:31] The idea that the, [1:55:34] you've acknowledged [1:55:35] in your opening comments [1:55:36] and to me, [1:55:37] that the role of the DNI [1:55:38] is to look at [1:55:39] foreign malign influence. [1:55:41] It is outward looking. [1:55:42] It is not to participate [1:55:43] in domestic law enforcement [1:55:44] on a case that I believe in. [1:55:47] You can have a completely [1:55:48] different view of this [1:55:48] and my Republican colleagues [1:55:49] probably do. [1:55:50] But on a case of relitigating [1:55:52] a 2020 election activity [1:55:53] in Georgia, [1:55:55] to say that that wasn't [1:55:56] on your agenda [1:55:57] of an issue [1:55:58] that would be asked. [1:55:59] No, after Senator Rossoff [1:56:01] raised it, it was. [1:56:02] And to be clear, [1:56:07] the ODNI's role [1:56:08] is principally [1:56:09] outside the United States. [1:56:11] Intelligence Committee's role [1:56:12] is principally [1:56:12] outside the United States. [1:56:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:56:16] Thank you, Mr. Clayton, [1:56:17] for your testimony today. [1:56:18] Mr. Chairman, [1:56:19] do we have time [1:56:20] for any follow-up questions? [1:56:21] No, they're not. [1:56:23] Second round, [1:56:24] the Capitol Police [1:56:25] will receive the annoying [1:56:27] or remove the annoying lunatic [1:56:28] from the crowd. [1:56:42] I apologize to lunatics [1:56:44] for comparing that guy to him. [1:56:47] Mr. Clayton, [1:56:48] thank you for your testimony today. [1:56:49] As a reminder, [1:56:50] we expect to have a vote [1:56:52] next week. [1:56:53] Members, [1:56:54] questions for the records [1:56:55] will be due today [1:56:56] at 5.30. [1:56:57] Mr. Clayton, [1:56:57] I trust you can respond [1:56:58] to those no later [1:56:59] than 5.30 on Friday. [1:57:01] This hearing is adjourned.