Rep. Jason Crow worried acting intel chief Pulte is "incompetent" and a "political attack dog"

[0:01] Thanks, Margaret. Congressman, you're on Armed Services and you're on the Intelligence Committee, [0:06] so I want to get to some of your responsibilities here, particularly on the intel front. We were [0:11] just speaking with Senator Graham about what's happening at the top of the Office of National [0:17] Intelligence and the lapse of the Surveillance Authority. Right now, Bill Pulte is the acting [0:25] Director of National Intelligence. He is someone who has been accused of using mortgage information [0:32] to go after the president's political enemies. I know that's under investigation currently [0:39] by the GAO, but the fact that he's in the role right now, [0:45] what harm can be done, if any, and do Democrats have any power to stop that? [0:50] Well, I'm obviously concerned that this is somebody who's a political attack dog, and his [0:58] single biggest qualification is that he's loyal to Donald Trump and is willing to go after Donald [1:02] Trump's enemies. But my more immediate concern is the fact that this is a really important position. [1:07] This sits atop our intelligence agencies. And by law, Congress mandated that this person have [1:14] significant intelligence experience because they have to make sure that we're keeping Americans safe, [1:20] which is not what Bill Pulte is capable of doing. So I'm just more worried day to day that Americans [1:26] are at risk because we have someone who's incompetent at the head of this agency. [1:29] But will Democrats actually still reauthorize FISA? You heard Senator Graham again link the two issues [1:38] here and said that's really the bigger risk, the lapse of this key surveillance authority. I know when [1:44] this was up for a vote in front of the House, you were proud of having voted against reauthorization [1:51] of this surveillance tool. Do you think your party miscalculated here? [1:55] Yeah. No, not at all. I mean, I've always voted for FISA before. I'm on the intelligence [2:03] committee. I know how important it is. But I'm unwilling to trade Americans' constitutional rights, [2:08] privacy, and essential civil liberties for temporary extension of this program. I'm just unwilling to [2:15] do it. Right? That's what this administration is asking us to do. They say, give up your constitutional [2:19] rights, give up Americans' rights and privacy, and we'll just make sure we keep you protected. I mean, [2:25] that's what autocracies say. I'm not going to do that. I'm willing to have a discussion about what [2:31] checks we need to put in place, a short-term extension. I'm not going to give them a three-year [2:35] runway on this program. What about this administration would give us confidence [2:41] that they're going to follow the law? Short-term extensions, then we can talk. [2:45] But the chair of the intelligence committee, in terms of the Democratic leadership there, [2:50] Jim Himes, said he hadn't seen violations. You're saying that the Trump administration [2:56] is doing that? I mean, you're disagreeing with your own Democratic leadership. [3:02] No, I'm not disagreeing with Jim. Jim and I talk frequently, and we're aligned on this. [3:06] There are public reports, many public reports, of potentially thousands of violations. [3:14] And to be more specific, these public reports allege that the Trump administration is using [3:20] a filtering tool, again, this is all public, a filtering tool to bypass the checks and the [3:26] warrant requirements that would normally be in place to prevent the violation of privacy rights [3:31] and civil rights of Americans. Now, we've gone to the Trump administration and said, [3:35] tell us this is wrong, show us why this is wrong. And if we have confidence, [3:39] then we can kind of move forward to figure out what we need to do. [3:42] They have not responded to us at all. So why would we sit here with no response, [3:48] all of these allegations, numerous public reports of violations, [3:52] and just vote blindly to extend this program? It would be absurd for us to do that. And, [3:57] you know, we have the trust of our constituents and Americans, [4:00] and we're not going to violate that trust. [4:02] Well, on the Senate side, where the fight currently is, Senator Warner said he thinks Trump wants the [4:08] expiration of this surveillance tool to stay because he could then blame Democrats if some [4:13] sort of attack happened here. So what do you make of that? And what will it take for you to reauthorize [4:19] FISA? Because I don't hear a solution from what you just said. [4:22] Yeah. Well, first of all, I agree with Senator Warner. I don't think Donald Trump cares about [4:30] Americans' national security and safety. I think he has shown very clearly over the years his [4:35] willingness to weaponize national defense, the military, the intelligence community, [4:41] the Department of Justice against his enemies to score political points at the jeopardy of American [4:47] citizens. I mean, hell, the guy tried to put me in prison back in February simply because I told [4:52] soldiers that they have to follow the law and obey their oaths. So that is true. What we need to do [4:59] is we need very specific guarantees from this administration. I want the facts. Are they violating [5:05] the law? Are they skirting around the requirement? Number one. Number two, additional safeguards. The [5:11] last time we reauthorized this program, we put 55 additional safeguards in place. We've learned [5:16] between now and then. There are more safeguards that are necessary. This all takes time. And number [5:20] three, a shorter-term extension. A shorter-term extension. No, it wouldn't take that much time. [5:26] In a matter of days, they could give us that information. We could figure that out. [5:30] We could vote on something. We could get it done. Let me ask you, because there was other news this [5:36] week on the Armed Services Committee. Secretary Hegseth announced the U.S. is going to conduct a six-month [5:41] review of the U.S. force posture in Europe. He threatened to cut American dues to NATO if European [5:47] nations don't boost military spending. He said NATO reluctance to assist in the American strikes on Iran [5:55] seemed to be linked here to a potential reduction of U.S. forces in Europe. Have you received any [6:02] information on what this means, where the troops would be pulled from? What does this look like? [6:07] Well, this administration is going to have a heck of a time in front of the Bipartisan Armed [6:14] Services Committee, which in an overwhelming bipartisan manner has said very clearly, [6:21] no troop withdrawals or changes from Europe unless they come to the committee and explain why that's in [6:26] our national security interests. Over and over, we've done that. And we just did that last month [6:30] when we marked up the annual defense budget. So they haven't come to us. They haven't given [6:35] us any of those details. I'm not presumptively against troop changes, but what I am against [6:41] troop changes is when they're not tied to our national security. You know, if they want to move [6:45] troops around Europe, fine, let's have that discussion. But pulling them out of Europe would actually be [6:50] detrimental to Americans. I want to ask you about Iran. The delegation that arrived in Switzerland was [6:57] on board a plane that had painted on the side the word Minab 168. That's a reference to the bombing [7:04] that killed 168 people, most of them school children. The U.S. military is still investigating, [7:12] but what can you tell us about American culpability and that probe? [7:16] Yeah, unfortunately, not very much. I've been pushing extremely hard, the CENTCOM, [7:25] Central Command Commander, Admiral Kruper and others, for facts on this. This could be the [7:31] large, single largest civilian casualty incident in U.S. military history. We need facts. We need to [7:37] make sure that we own up to it, that we take accountability, that we make it right. And, you know, [7:44] as the founder of the Protection of Civilians in Conflict Caucus, I actually have done work for [7:50] years around protection of civilians in conflict because my own time at war taught me the devastating [7:56] effects, not just morally, but to our national security when we kill innocents. We need answers [8:03] to this. And they're clearly slow rolling us, right? This administration has no problem putting, [8:08] posting videos of strikes, posting videos of operations when they want us to see it. [8:13] And then when they don't want us to see it, they slow roll it. That's clearly what's happening [8:17] here. So we're going to push hard to get answers. All right. We'll be tracking it. [8:22] Jason Crow, Congressman from Colorado. Thank you very much. We'll be right back. [8:25] When you're concerned about your heart.