Host director brennan, thank you for sitting down with me today. Your book provides really interesting background and detail not just about your career and on intelligence debates in the past, but very much relevant to the news of the current day. Four years later were still fighting about russian interference in 2016. Republicans and democrats are debating about whether the investigations were handled probably four years ago and whether you and Intelligence Leaders of 2016 drew the right conclusions about russia and russian actions. Your book opens with the scene after before the inauguration with first congressional leaders and then going to new york to brief trump and his team. Theres a sharp partisan divide where you brief congress. Will describe that and talk about whether that was inevitable given the politics of the moment or if something had been done differently. I was asked to brief the gang of eight when we learned about what the russians were doing. The group of congress filled and are trusted with the most secret intelligence someone has. They went down and briefed them. I think there was a very strong concern on the part of six of the individuals for the democrats that was senator feinstein and a number of democrats who were very concerned what they were hearing about what the russians were doing. The republicans, paul ryan, speakespeaker of the house and d were with the chairma the chaire Committee Also treated the inflation very, very seriously and i think they were encouraging also the cia to look into this matter. As well as the then chair man of the House Intel Committee reacted negatively. Senator mcconnell in fact replied the cia and Obama Administration tried to undermine the prospects of donald trump and i shot back pretty quickly saying i take great umbrage at his interests that the cia would never do anything of the sort to get involved in politics. Devin nunes, who was soon to become part of the trump team and helping him after he was elected to take office was already showing that interest and instincts and wasnt really curious at all about it. And then proceeded to be very concerned about what the Intelligence Committee was learning and finding out during the election. You are critical of the president or president elect and the briefing that followed. You said mr. Trumps demeanor and questions show he was uninterested in what the russians had done during the election. You argue you think that he was seeking to know how you knew what you knew and you were troubled by that. I want to talk a little about that because what is one supposed to know about the sources of the cia information and how it gets since intelligence and what made you think that the motivations were not pure or that they were troubled . Ive personally briefed for out of the six in my career and all were extremely interested in learning what the cia collected in its analysis of the issues. I never heard any of them ask me anything specific about who the source was or specific details about the election capability or assets needed. I always try to give them a sense of the access to the individual and liability and track record of the system and the source but they would continue to ask the questions to fill out their understanding of the issue with intelligence. Donald trump, when i was breathing him in 2017, he would continue to deflect what we would talk about. He would continually bring up china so he demonstrated no intellectual curiosity about how they were doing what they were doing, what we knew. He was more seeking to understand how we knew this. There is information on the russian interference and its contacts with the Trump Campaign of course it is four years later now and politicians are still trying to find out more about the sources theyve appointed a prosecutor and the Russian Investigation and kind of looked at some of that process. In the book, you described part of reaching that conclusion and in what might be the most news part of the book you talk about this Agency Official that raised questions about that conclusion. They wanted to lower the confidence. Can you describe a little bit about that process of reaching that key conclusion . The cia put them on this project to craft this assessment. The cia had the best analysts and were deeply knowledgeable about the efforts to try to undermine our democracy. And so i left it to them to select the individuals and they came up with the assessment where the findings were the russians were trying to interfere in our democracy and denigrate. This was done at the direction of Vladimir Putin and the Electoral Prospects of donald trump. Now, one of those findings initially had high confidence attached to it by these agencies in this assessment and the fbi, cia, odni, office of the director of National Director of National Intelligence. The nsa subsequently decided to downgrade. But they did express their concerns about the decision. So they came up and talked to me about it and i listened to them because i wanted to make sure what the concerns were and i encouraged them to talk with the authors of the assessment and to determine whether or not the judgment said stay at. They said they talked to the authors but i encouraged them to do it again and explain their concerns. I wasnt going to overrule and overturn the consensus judgments of the cia analysts who were in this decision because to individual cia officers have a difference of opinion. That would have been my interfering in a very arbitrary way in that analytical process. So, how it ultimately came out is that judgment of the cia stayed at that high confidence level. They were joined by the fbi and the National Intelligence. But i believe we preserved the integrity of that process and again by allowing the system to recognize the individuals could make this determination about judgment for the authors and analysts were responsible. Host were you disregarding more experienced russia experts and siding with more junior experts, is that what was going on here . What is the dynamic within the Russian Mission center . The two officers raised their hands and said they think it should be at a lower level, but yet in my conversation with them it was apparent they hadnt really read all of the intelligence certainly that i had read, because i was reviewing this information for quite some time, and so my own view was to support those that came up with their conference level. I wasnt disregarded. Thats why i spend time with the two of them and we talked them through it. I again encouraged them to go down and talk with the authors and analysts who worked together on the judgments and assessment. In no way could they disregarded. I encouraged them to continue to work with the authors, but ultimately again if it comes down to those who were responsible for drafting that, i didnt change a single analytic judgment in that assessment. I looked at the report when it came up in the draft and i raised the questions on whether or not we need to provide Additional Information in either the top secret classified version or the unclassified version. But again, i was preparing as the director of the Central Intelligence agency should do, to those that have that response ability for making those determinations. The cia specializes in human intelligence and is the best at that the nsa specializes in signals of electronic intercepts. Does that explain why theres Different Levels of confidence here between the two agencies, or is it more complex than that . They make decisions about the level of confidence on particular judgments or findings is a combination of science and art. So you can have an experienced analyst on the issue both on the data and Intelligence Reports and they may come away based on their perspective and experience and their approach to that subject matter but not the different determinations as far as the judgments and the confidence level. The nsa analysts were at the high confidence level by the director of nsa had concerns about that and he then talked with the analysts and mike rogers made the decision on behalf of the nsa that the judgment should be at the modern level. I dont know if that was a consensus view within the group working on this issue or not, but i know frequently you will have the difference of the view rightly so in the process of drafting and crafting the assessment, but again it ultimately has to come out with an issue and that is what happened in this case. Host we are not talking about a disagreement about the position and whether he favored it. Its just the sort of level of certainty behind that. Thats kind of important to understand because republicans have, you know, led by John Radcliffe have said its wrong and that putin didnt favor trump. You are absolutely right. It was unanimity that drafted this. These were the appropriate judgments and that the findings that the russians were trying to promote the Electoral Prospects of donald trump so the distinction was only between whether or not they had high confidence or modern confidence. But still it is a lengthy judgment by the community. If you recall the recent discussions it resulted in a reported cia assessment where should he was responsible for that. And so, that is a very, very significant judgment. So all of the agencies involved believed in fact this was the aim of the russians to promote donald trump in the election even though they didnt dispute that finding and all they were just saying they felt the weight of evidence isnt as great for that one finding as the others. That might have been true but then you look at the strengths of the reporting and again the analysts and the authors responsible for the assessment decided and determined that it met their standards for high confidence. So, bill barr has appointed to look into the origins of the russia investigation and by news reports and the New York Times and elsewhere, he is looking heo this analytic process and he brought you in for a lengthy interview. How much did he focus on this, was he asking a lot of questio questions. Why a special prosecutor is asking questions about how the judgments within the Intelligence Community came about. I explained exactly similar. The principal questioners it was conducted in a very fair manner. I was concerned and heard they moved away from the investigation. I hope they are going to stay true to the reputation to deflect. It was extracted and relocated. In the early days of trumps term its a critical part for the conclusion i know you cannot talk about sources its based on one person. The cia has a long history of working with sources and the analysts are especially well trained and the standards are very high so they take a lot into account in terms of multiple sources and what is the credibility and the track record of the sources. You can add a lot of sources but maybe they were not as reliable and didnt have the access you wanted and a signal or two or three sources. Its also been verified, so again there is a lot that goes into the intelligence process to validate the sources and access to validate the reporting and when the information comes in. Its including some snippets of the notes about a briefing that you gave about the collection on Hillary Clinton and her plans over his attitude towards russia. Some current and former officials have expected this information and disinformation. Im curious if you can talk about that and why it was presented in the summer of 2016 and what you think about these d classifications. Are they helpful . First of all, hes abused the office of the director of National Intelligence widely by blatantly criticizing his ability to declassify very selectively information that he believes. Let me just say that i fulfilled my responsibilities to brief the president and senior officials about what the russians were up to during this president ial campaign season. Its the fabrication over something else, so the accuracy of that information is very much in doubt and questionable, but even if the information was accurate about Hillary Clinton had approved the plan to go after trump there is nothing at all i see that would violate the u. S. Law so i think people have been very cautious about that phrase and the referral that was made in terms of those considered in intelligence lead. But theres nothing at all in those marks referring to hillary that constitutes a violation of the u. S. Law so they wouldnt be investigating whether or not it is trying to amplify or bring greater attention to the Trump Campaign and russia. So again, its a very curious and disturbing information by John Radcliffe who seems to be doing what the others have done which is to try to give trump any object to distract from the problems hes encountering on a daily basis. Lets step back for a moment. I am curious your thoughts on how we got here where the allegations and conclusion of the power is interfering in our democracy and how its become a partisan issue. Do you think the sword off republicanrepublican skepticisme intentions are interfering in our ability to combat, stop and influence operation . I absolutely believe what they are doing now is helping them continue their efforts to divide us and to fuel this tremendous partisan battle thats going on in washington right now. Throughout my 33 plus years service, i had a lot of battles with members of congress on both sides of the aisle. They had pursued their agendas and were not representing the truth of the way that i think they need to do. But the worst pales in comparison to what we are seeing today in terms of the support and defensive so i would call out the members of either party when i think they are abusing their office and putting the Party Loyalty to an individual ahead of their obligations and responsibilities to the american people. Ive been appalled at what ive seen. In this era youve become one of the sharpest critics of president trump. And youve gone quite far and the criticism particularly after the News Conference with Vladimir Putin. Some people said youve gone too far especially for someone who has held a traditionally nonpartisan post like cia director. Have you ever felt like youve gone too far and do you just feel that its your obligation given the fact that intelligence is at the center of this political debate . I was a u. S. Government official and worked hard to defend the rights and liberties of the american citizenry. Maybe now im taking advantage of it. In the agreement that was fine and i wouldnt be speaking out so vociferously that were just policy differences. It just gets to me and then i feel an obligation i was hoping when i retire in january, 2017 i was going to be able to write off the sunset. I cannot remain silent when donald trump denigrates the community and members of the fbi and these professions and continues to receive the American Public about reality. Its disappointing and surprising that not more people move from the administrations and have spoken up or spoken out. I think its important to call donald trump out for its hard to imagine mike pompeo, the successor relying on you for advice, but its easier to imagine the current director having a sort of relationship with you but it seems you write in the book you indicate that to a certain extent the director has had to keep you at a distance because of your role as a fighter with the president in the political sphere. What is the cost of your political activism calling it out . As that stopped you from offering sort of private advice without a tradeoff worth making . I know the white house announced they were revoking my security clearances back in 18. I still have my security clearances because there was no basis to revoke them and all have maintained security clearances and i should point out jean haskell or other officers wanted to talk about my experience when i was director and how i interacted with certain foreign officials or my perspectives on certain issues to deal with the russians and chinese i think they could talk to me to get to certain information but as i mentioned in the book donald trump issued a directive to the Intelligence Committee prohibiting them from discussing the information so i maintained my security clearances and they are prohibited from discussing that with me so therefore its certainly inhibited the agency. They havent reached out to me and ive tried not to put any of my colleagues in harms way, but im at the disposal if they want to talk with me. The cia director i had a meeting with her and she decided to thank me for my support for her nomination and that was the last time i ever heard from gina. So, in this book which to prepare the book, the cia did not let you have access to your files as director or presumably others in your career. How much of a challenge was that to put that together and there were sometimes in the narrative the reader would want more detail. How much of that is withheld because its classified and you cant share it or how much is withheld because they wouldnt let you access your notes . I think that its a combination of the two. First i had a lifelong obligation to honor my security requirements as well as protecting information. Even if i had access to the files, to submit the manuscripts to the cia there were some areas where the cia asked me to change some things and i agreed with many of them and disagree on some. We went back and forth. They relented on some and i relented on some, but i had to be sure that it was going to have the classification review. Unfortunately, they didnt have allow me to have access to my files. Others that have written books were granted that access promptly and routinely, but again because of Donald Trumps animus towards me, the cia was not allowed to do that. I wish i had access to it to remind myself of some of the discussions and i wish i was able to review my classified notes. The cia did give me access to an unclassified version of my calendar at, for official use only they had redacted any of my reference to even what day of the week my phone calls with a foreign official took place, so it did hamper me, but i still think i had a pretty good memory of a lot and i tried to explain in the book the best of my recollection they could help me think through and remember some of these events and National Security. Host you mentioned your fights with democrats during the Obama Administration, and there is a good portion of the book that you talk in detail about your struggle with the senate Intelligence Committee over there report on cia interrogation, torture allegations. You are critical of the Senate Democrats and the media. Are you kind of both allegations of torture and allegations of spying, the cia spied on the senate or they were overwrought . Guest host sometimes the book sounds like a bit of score settling more than a detached evaluation of how you with the agency sort of handled that relationship with congressional oversight. What was your purpose when you were diving into that, and what can you talk a little bit about that time and your feelings about how the senate and the media handled it . Clearly i have my own views and perspectives about the events that took place when the senate Intelligence Committee embarked on this review of cia enhanced interrogation program. I was one of the protagonists involved in this but i did acknowledge in the book there were a number of times i could have handled some of these congressional relations better, but looking back on it, there were things i wish i would have done differently. But what really wowed me during this time and continues to is the mischaracterization of what the cia did in the aftermath of 9 11 with many to prevent the occurrence of 9 11 attacks and yet there were mistakes made and there were things that needed to be addressed and individual officers held to account, but all of this and the positive things seem to be ignored by the democrats who were drafted in this report. But also, even more fundamentally, the implications and claim was a specious allegation. I wanted to put the facts to the table that the computers that the senate was using was cia computers and they had an obligation to determine whether or not there was a vulnerability in the system that allowed the Senate Staffers to access a document that they were not authorized to have. So when our security and the specialists were trying to understand how that document got to those computers the senate was using, there was the mistake made that a couple of internal messages were accessed by cia officers. That was wrong and why i apologized to the leaders of the senate Intelligence Committee at the time there was something the cia did wrong. But we have an obligation to carry out the review absolutely. I wanted to do this is a joint review with the senate committee, but because of the factors concerned of what they did wrong might be exposed in that review, they dropped it at that so i go into some detail in the chapter because number one, i think it is a complicated issue a lot of Americans Still have this in passion but i wanted to provide the details about the nature of this issue and its various complexities and explain what the cia did and why they did it and number three, how they were able to try to address the shortcomings and to be upfront and honest with of the committee which is why again, i apologize. The senate never did an investigation into those and i believe that they did things wrong but in this memoir its more trying to ensure i present an accurate and honest depiction of what happened an in that perd of time. Host not to spend too much time on it, but this idea that the sort of forensic test the cia did to see if this report that the Senate Staffers were not supposed to have under your agreement, you dont think that was wrong to do that on these computers that were used by the senate, only that it went too far and look that these messages, but the actual investigation to find that document was not in proper, you dont think . Guest that was in the book the it and Security Specialists responsible for the integrity of the system decided to do this search to look for a unique binary code of zeros and ones, nothing that we know at all reveals to the contents of this network firewall. They did that forensics search and revealed a unique binary code of zeros and ones which indicated that it was on that side. They brought it to my attention at that point and thats when we decided to try to understand into the content of the substance of what the committee was doing. One could argue that that shouldnt have happened. They went to great length. There was one misstep and mistake made but Everything Else based on the review done by the accountability board that included former senator evan by, who was a member previously decided they didnt act at all in bad faith and were carrying out their security obligations to the best of their ability. Were you surprised they made a movie out of this, and i take it from the book that you were not much a fan of it. Guest no. In the book they said it was known at the time that the lead investigator was interested in making a movie on it so i think there were some political agendas at play here and there were many misrepresentations that again just mischaracterized the actions and activities. It presents a scene where the cia officers go into the dead of night into the room to control the classified Information Systems databases that the center was using. That couldnt be further from the truth. So once again, an effort to try to mask the wrongdoing and vilify if i can use the term, the cia. Host one more question on this before i go to another topic. You dont like the term torture, but you are no were not comforte with the enhanced interrogation techniques at the time. You raised questions about it. Do you think we would ever get into the situation again with the cia Going Forward where they would be involved in interrogations and we would have a president that would issue the use of torture . I would never, ever authorized the cia to engage in such a program again. I do think it was a mistake and we think the cia was ill prepared for Something Like this. Never had that responsibility for a program like that before. But in the aftermath of 9 11, they did their best to do everything they could for the returns so the reason why i say that the cia program wasnt torturous is because that program was authorized by the president of the United States was duly authorized to direct the cia to carry out over action activities. This program also was deemed to be lawful i the legal advisory in the executive branch which is the office of counsel in the department of justice. It was also briefed to the committees of jurisdiction in the senate and the house and so everything that cia acquired to go forward with this program, president ial authorization, determination by the public of justice that it was legal and the congressional notification took place so the cia carried out that program. Any cia officers that operate outside of the boundaries of that approved and authorized program violated their responsibilities and exceeded what they were authorized to do and should have been and many were held to account. But if they operat the operate n the confines of what is authorized to now say in the aftermath of this review in the 2020 hindsight that the cia used torture when tortured by u. S. Law is unlawful, i think that is applying a standard to something that was different than the aftermath of 9 11. Now, i have my personal views about that program. I also believe the department of justice memos that were written on the program and were deemed as awful were not solid legal arguments. I am not a lawyer though. So the senior official at the time, are they going to say no we are not going to do this, again, in the heat of this matter that you are engaged in, or were they going to carry out the programs to the best of their ability and some cia officers fell short. Some of those activities were poorly managed and were not carried out to the covert action authorization. A big chunk of the book is your career at the cia, and one of my favorite parts is when you described sort of joining the cia and those initial sort of polygraphs. You do get a sense of the sort of an excitement of the cloak and dagger. There is a kind of funny scene of you getting polygraphs in the beginning of your cia career and having to admit that you disclose in the votes the president ial candidate. I want to talk a little bit about that and maybe speak a little more broadly of what you think about the polygraphs in the cia and if they are effective and important or just what is the cost of doing business . The polygraph is an important tool the cia uses to determine whether or not somebody is being truthful. That individual can be somebody thats an applicant to the cia or the cia has contact with and has recruited or to determine whether someone is accurately reporting. So i was in texas at the time going back to school and came up here to washington, d. C. And when i sat down with the literature, i had to walk through some of my previous issues but then when he asked me a question whether or not i ever belonged to an organization dedicated in the government, i was prepared to say absolutely not but maybe it is my guilt that kicked in because i remembered then when i had the great honor and privilege to vote in a president ial election which was 1976, at that time i was already very much a devout partisan and upset with some of the partisan stuff i saw from both sides of the aisle. I didnt know who i was going to vote for so i decided to go down the list. I saw the name of the candidate for the party so i flipped that lever and when they asked if i was a part of her support any organization, i immediately thought of that vote and i explained i voted for gossypol and it was a protest vote and i didnt even know much about him at the time other than his name. And very calmly they asked was there any other support i had provided to the communist party. I said no, that was just one event. As you learn in the book, i was very anxious about how he was going to react to this and that my application was going to be tossed to waste. But to his credit he said it is your right to vote for whomever you wish and it will not be held against you. At that moment, any of the columns i might have had like what types of activities overseas alleged had occurred, by hearing that the cia respected and honored the rights of american citizens to cast their vote as they see fit and speak out as they see fit, it just made me even more interested in being hired by the cia, so ive done many autographs since then. That i have to say was the most [inaudible] host in your career, you fell in both the briefer of the president delivering the president s daily brief. He also sat next to the president while they received that briefing. In the trump administration, this has been a very fraught delivery for the Intelligence Community. Talk a little bit about the president s daily brief and if its important and how use all different president s handle it and what the intelligence briefer should prioritize when briefing a president. Guest 1994 and 1995, i was the daily briefer of the president to president clinton and Vice President al gore and other senior officials in the white house and administrative council. It gave me insight into the importance of that support on a daily basis. The president is involved in so many Different Things and has so much information coming into him so i make sure during those briefings i would be able to ensure the president understood what it was the cia and Intel Community was talking about and what were those issues that might require attention but also what were the longerterm Strategic Issues that had a potential. In subsequent years when i had the opportunity to brief george w. Bush as well as president barack obama, all three of those president s, even george hw bush, all of them had a tremendous interest and thirst for information intelligence that the community was able to provide and there would be a lot of back and forth and a lot of questions. President clinton was somebody that had tremendous recall and he could absorb and process information very quickly. He was a gracious leader and he engaged with me and others, but he was just always on intake. George w. Bush also really enjoyed the interactions with analysts and operations officers were intelligence experts. He enjoyed that back and forth and learned a lot from those exchanges. Barack obama again, somebody who was able to process information very, very quickly and readily. He also had a link ability to see relationships effects in terms of how one issue or one Intelligence Report or piece of an analysis or one recommendation for a policy might in fact affect our interest, National Security interest in other areas or other parts of the world with other issues. So, i found that the cia and the intelligence briefing really needs to understand how best to provide intelligence to the president so that they are able to gain the insight they need to carry out their responsibilities. Ive been disheartened by the reports that i hear that trump doesnt take the briefings reports and an analysis. There is a lot of times i went down to the white house and it wasnt well received because it was counter to the policy preferences or information of the president and Senior Officers but its the responsibility of the intelligence briefer for the director of National Intelligence, the director of cia to ensure that they hear this information irrespective of whether it comports with what they want to hear. Host we only have a couple of minutes left. Having to leave a bunch of my questions on the cutting room floor but let me ask you to conclude a little bit about how you think the agency is doing right now with this president , a president who is resistance to some intelligence. Is jean haskell doing a good job, is the cia during the best they can in these unusual situations to deliver intelligence to the white house on china or russia or whatever else is challenged . I think this is an exceptionally challenging time there its jean haskell or the new cia officer because it is clear we have somebody in the white house, donald trump, who has disregarded the importance of the Intelligence Mission and the work across the board. I would like to think that my colleagues are continuing to do the great work that theyve done since the cia began back in the 1940s to break through and ensure that they are working every day to keep their fellow citizens safe. I think that it is incumbent upon them to do this irrespective of whether or not donald trump pays attention to the work but at the same time, im sure that its very demoralizing to them that the person that really should be seeing this to the intelligence they provide is ignoring it and so the cia and other communities will be very resilient its the rankandfile and even if the leaders are not doing what they need to do thank you for discussing your new book. Guest thank you. I really enjoyed the discussion. This program is available as a podcast. All programs can be viewed on the website at booktv. Org
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.