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 of the past but very much the news of our current days. Its four years later, were style fighting about russian interference in 2016. The republican and democrats are still debating whether the investigations were handled properly four years ago, whether you and Intelligence Leaders of 2016 drew the right conclusions about russian action. Your book opens with a scene after the election before the inauguration, youre briefing first congressional leaders and then go to new york to brief the trump and his team. A sharp partisan divide when you brief congress. Describe that and talk pout whether that was inevitable given the politics of the moment or could something have been done differently . Well, julien, i was asked to brief the gang of eight when we learned about what the russias were doing, the full extent of it, and the gang of eight is usually the group of members of congress, both the house as well as the senate, who are entrusted with the most sensitive secrets and intelligence that the u. S. Intelligence community has. And so they went down there and briefed the eight of them, i think there was very strong concern as well as very serious reaction on the part of six of those individuals, four of them democrats, it was senator feinstein, as well as adam schiff and a number of the democrats who were very concern but what they were hearing about what the russians were doing. The republicans, paul ryan, the speaker of the house and richard bury r, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee treated the information very seriously, and i think they were very encouraging also of the cia and the intelligence want to looking into the matter, to found another what the russians were doing. Unfortunately senator mcconnell and devin nunes, senator mcconnell the lead ore the republicans in senate and devin nunes, the tchen chairman of the house Intelligence Committee reacted negatively and i relate in the book that senator mcconnell in fact implied that the cia was working with the Obama Administration to try to undermine the Electoral Prospects of donald trump and i shot back pretty quickly saying i take great umbrage at his inference that the cia would never do anything of the sort to get involved with partisan politics. Devin nunes, who was soon to become part of the trump transition team, and helping donald trump after he was elected to take office, was already showing his very hyperpartisan instincts and what not cure about it, thanked me for the information but then proceeded to i think be very concerned about what Intelligence Community was finding out. Youre critical of the president or the president elect in the briefing fat followed. You say mr. Trumps demeanor and questions reveal that he was kind of uninterested in what the russians had done during the election. You argue, you write, that you think the was seeking to know how you knew what you knew. Ow were troubled by that. I want to talk about that because arent president what are president s supposed to know about the sources of the cias information and how it gets it television and what made you think that m mr. Trumps motivations were not pure, theyre were troubling. I personally briefed four out of the six president its served during any career and all those president s were extremely interested in learn what the Intelligence Community collect it, and whenever i would brief them i never heard any one of them ask me anything specific but who the source was or specific details bolt the collection capable or the human assets were using. Would always try to give them a sense of the access of the individual, the reliability of information their track record of that Collection System or that source, human source. But they would always continue to ask me questions in order to fill out their understanding of the issue with the intelligence but donald trump when is was al trump tower briefing him he would continue to almost deflect when we would talk about the efforts to interfere in the election, typically bring up china, couldnt have been china, and so he dreaded no intellectual curious thety how the russiansre attempting to speaker fear, what we that are doing, walt we knew, what were the gaps in our knowledge. He was more seeking to understand how we knew this, and as i said in by book i was concern about what he might do with that information if he truly was concerned that the Intelligence Community had information on russian interference and its contacts with the Trump Campaign that might be damaging to him personally. And so i was very wary about what he might do with the information. Of course its four years later now, politicians are still trying to find out more pout your sources, in particular the focus on that january 2017 Intelligence Community assessment. Its sources and conclusions that russia tried to influence the 2016 vote and that putin favored trump. The Justice Department appointed a prosecutor, john durham, to examine the russia investigation and looked at the process. In your book you reached the conclusion, the the now controversial assessment that putin favored trump and what might be the most newsy part of your book you talk that two Senior Agency officials raised questions about that conclusion. They maybe want ode lower confidence. Could you describe a little bit about that process, of reaching the that key conclusion . Well, the cia analysts on russia, on cyber and counterintelligence on this project to craft this Intelligence Community assess. The cia has the best analysts in the Intelligence Community and are deeply knowledgeable about russian efforts to try to undermine our democracy and so i left it to the appropriate components with the cia to select the individuals to draft this assessment and they came up with the assessment where the findings were the russians were trying interfere with the elects and undermine or democracy, trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton. This was done at the direction of Vladimir Putin and they were trying to enhance the Electoral Prospects of donald trump. Now, all of those findings knickly had high confidence attached to it by the agencies that were involved in this assess; the fbi, the cia, the nsa and the office of director of National Intelligence. Now, nsa subsequently decided to downtown grade its level of confidence in one of those judgments, to medium and that judgment was on russian efforts to try to promote donald trump as the favored candidate to win the election. Cia analysts were at the high confidence level. Now, when that assessment was looked at internally in the cia there were two Senior Officers in that Mission Center who were more aligned withed the moderate confidence level and theyre not much difference between high confidence judgment than a moderate confidence judgment but they did express concerns about the high confidence decision. So, they came up and talked to me about it and i listened to them because i wanted to make sure that i understood what the concerns were and i encouraged them to talk with the authors of the assessment and to determine whether or not that judgment should stay at high confidence or medium confidence. They said they already talked to authors but i encouraged them to do it again and explain their concerns. I was not going to overrule and overturn the consensus judgment of the cia analysts who were steeped in this issue, because two individuals, cia officers had a difference of opinion. That would have been my interfering in a very ash rare and ewan last rail way in that analytic process so how it came out was that the judgment of the cia stayed at that high confidence level, theythe cia was joined by the fbi and the office of direct oror of National Intelligence, nsa had moderate conversation. I believe be preserved the integrity of the process by allowing the system to in fact recognize that the individuals to make this determination about the judgment or the authors and the analysts who were responsible for this Intelligence Community assessment. But in effect were you disregarding more experienced russia experts and siding with more junior russia experts . Is that what was going on here . I meanwhats the dynamic win the russian Mission Center. I have Great Respect for the two officers who raised their hands and said, they think it should be at a lower level of confidence. But yet in my conversation with them it was apparent to me and i say in the book they had not really read all of the intelligence that i had read because i was reviewing this information for quite some time. My own view was to support the analysts who had come up with their conversation level want disregarding it. Thats why i spent 30 minutes in my office and we talked through it and i again encouraged them to go down and talk with the authors and the analysts who were pulling together those judgments and the assessment. So, in no way did i disregard it. In affect encouraged them to continue to work with the authors but ultimately again it comes down to those who were responsible for drafting that analysis. I didnt change a single analytic judgment in that Intelligence Community assess i looked at the report when it came up in draft. I raised questions. Whether or not we need to strengthen a judgment or provide Additional Information in either the top secret version or the up classified version but i was deferring as directors of Central Intelligence agencies should do, to those who have that responsibility for making those determinations. The cia specializes in human intelligence and is the best at that but 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 . Well, analyst statecraft and making decision bout the level of conversation on a particular judgment or finding is a combination of science and art, and so you can have experienced analysts on an issue look at a data, Intelligence Reports, and they may come away based on their perspective, their experience, their approach to that subject matter, they come out with different determinations as far as a judgments confidence level. So nsa analysts initially were at the high confidence level. Mike rogers the direct 0or of nsa at the time had concerns and he talked with the analysts and then mike rodgers made the decision on behalf of nsa that the judgment should be at the moderate level. Now, i dont know if that was a consensus view within nsas Analytic Group that was working on the issue or not. But i know that frequently you will have disotherwise view, rightly show, and should be aired in the process of drafting and crafting then the assessment, but again the ultimately has to come out with a position and thats what happened in this case were not talking about a disagreement about puts position and whether he favored. Its just the sort of level of certainty behind that. Is that i think thats kind of important to understand because republicans haven deadly by John Ratcliff said its wrong and that putin didnt favor trump. Youre absolutely right. There was ewan national it in within the four ages that craft third intelligence assessment these were the appropriate judgments and that the finding that the russians were trying to promote the electoral proctappeal of donald trump was a view held by all, and so the distinction as only between whether or not we had high confidence in the judgment or moderate confidence, but moderate confidence is still a weighty judgment the television commune. You recall judgment in the Intelligence Community, you talk but thank you broughtal slaying of khashoggi by the solid days reported in a report cia assessment where they had assess it with moderate confidence that the crown prince, was responsible for that horrific and brutal killing and so that is a very, very significant judgment. So even though nsa brought it down modern rat confidence all of the agencies were Firm Believers this way the aim of the russians to promote donald trump in the election. Even those two Senior Officers who came to me didnt dispute that finding at all. They were just saying they felt the weight of evidence was not as great for that one finding as the others. That might have been true, but then you look at the strength of the reporting that went into that finding, and again the analysts and the authors responsible for the assessment decided and determined that it met their standard for high confidence. So, bill barr has appointed a u. S. Attorney, john durham, to look into the origins of the russia investigation. He by news reports and the New York Times and elsewhere he is looking into this analytic process. He brought you in to for a lengthy interview on this. How much did mr. Durham focus on this part . Was he asking you questions about this very moment . How much was a rely gating, reviewing to relitigating, reviewing the formation of the assess independent 2016 . As you can imagine during an eight hour interview we touched upon a lot of issues and certainly the Intelligence Community seesment was one of them which is rather puzzling to me why a special prosecutor is asking questions how judgments win the Intelligence Community came about on this assessment. But he asked me about that. I explained exactly similar to what i explained to you about how i approached the issue, how i deferred to those responsible for drafting assessments, but we touched upon a lot of issues during those eight hours, and i felt that the interview was conducted very professionally, john durham and his thendeputy the principle questioners. Thought it was conducted in a very fair mannerism was a bit concerned and disconcerted when he heard that nora had moved away from the investigation and in fact resigned from doj because of reports of politicization that is going on and hoping that john durham will stay true to what has been a very strong reputation for being a professional member and officer, official of the department of justice. But well have to see because as you note, william barr i think has used his office of the attorney general to continue to allow donald trump to deflect the various charges and concerns that are directed at him. The media has reported a key russian informant was extracted and relocated after in the early days of the trumps term, and the media, including myself, has reported that this source was a critical part of the conclusion on putin support for trump. Now, i know you cannot talk about sources but would your conclusion have been based on one source . Would the cia ever come to a high confidence conclusion based on one person . Well i aglee im not going to talk but sources and not going to say anything that could in any way compromise the safety, security, of sources whether they be human sources or technical Collection Systems. But cia has a long history, nearly 75 years history of working with sources, human and technical, and the analysts and cia are exceptionally welltrained and the standards of analytic tradecraft are very high and so they take a lot into account in terms of multiple sources, what us the credibility and track record of the sources . You can have a lot of sources but maybe the sources were not as reliable, didnt have the access you wanted. Also could have single or two or three sources whose access information has is not only great but also has been verified. So, again, theres a lot that goes into the intelligence process to validate a sources access to validate their reporting, and when information comes in from the sources, its looked at in the context of reliability, access to for accuracy. So, mr. Ratcliff, the new dni, who is a fierce defender of president trump, has been declassifying a lot of intelligence around the russia investigation. Including some snippets of notes of a briefing you gave obama about russian collection of Hillary Clinton and her plans to criticize trump over his attitude toward russia. Some current in former officials suspected this information is disinformation, russian disinformation. Im curious if you can talk about that, why it was presented to obama in the summer of 2016 and what you think about these dni declassifications . Are they helpful . Well, first of all i think mr. Ratcliff has abused the office of he dreamtor of National Intelligence by plate dantley ohill sizing his able to declassify very selectively information that he believes and the republicans in the Trump White House believes are going to allow them to make an argument against Hillary Clinton. Its clear that, again, this was the intention of the release, very selective in terms of what was pulled out of various reports and so i am limited in terms of what i sake to only what has been declassified in this note but let me say that when i was director of the cia i fulfilled my responsibilities to brief the president and senior officials but what the russians were up to during this president ial Election Campaign season, and i was blind to the issue of Political Party or which candidate they referred. To i wanted to make sure i presented information as accurately and as thoroughly as possible. And so the report includes in mr. Ratcliffs very selective memo was that the russians were reporting this and it also says that its unclear whether its a fabrication or something else. So the accuracy of that information i think is very much in doubt, and is questionable, but even if that information was accurate about that Hillary Clinton had approved this plan to go after trump for the reported connections between trump and the russians, there is nothing at all i see in that snippet that would violate u. S. Law, and so i think people have to be very cautious about associating that phrase and then what i says in the ratcliff memo but the referral that was made to the fbi in terms of what is considered to be a counterintelligence operational lead. But to there is nothing at all in those within those quotation marks referring to hillary that constitutes a violation of u. S. Law and the fbi would not be investigating whether or not Hillary Clinton is trying to amplify or bring greater attention to the reported connections between the Trump Campaign and russia. So, again, its just a very, very curious but also a very disturbing release of selective information by John Ratcliff who seems to be doing what william barr and others have done which is to try to give trump anything, any shiny object they can point to, to distract from the problems that trump is encountering on a daily basis. Im curious of your thoughts how we got here where the allegations, the conclusions that a foreign power is interfering in our democracy has become a partisan issue and do you think the republican skepticism over russian intentions are today interfering in our ability to combat, stop, foreign influence operations . I absolutely believe that what the republicans are doing now in terms of defending trump is helping the russians continue their efforts to divide us as a country, to fuel this tremendous partisan battle that is going on in washington right now. Throughout my 33 plus years of service and i talk about this in book i had a lot of battles with members of congress from both sides of the compile during the Obama Administration, most of my battles were were the democrats who had called for my firing or resignation numerous times. So i have seen the democrats pursue partisan agendas and frequently then not representing the truth the way i think they need to, but the worst of the democratic transgressions pales in comparison so what were seeing today in terms of mr. Trumps continued lies and the republicans continued support and defense of him. And so therefore i i would call out members of either party when i think they are abusing their office and they are putting Party Loyalty or loyalty to an individual ahead of their obligations and responsibilities to the American People and the constitution, and over the past three and a half plus years, i have been just appalled at what i have seen republicans do and say in misrepresenting the facts frequently and im seeing it including today. I was watching earlier this Senate Judiciary committee here on james comey and Lindsey Graham misrepresenting the facts and the questions to jim comey. They die sometimes out out of ignorance but times willfully misleading the American Public and i find that as something that is a dereliction of their duties and responsibility to the American People. You have in the past done battle with democrats, but in this era you have become one of the sharpest critics of president trump. You have gone quite far in criticism particularly after the hell helsinki News Conference with Vladimir Putin. Some people say ah you have again too far especially someone who has held a traditional through nonpartisan post like cia director. Have you ever felt like you have gone too far or just feel its your obligation given the fact that intelligence is at the center of this political debate . Well, since january 20, 2017 i have been a private citizen. Before that, for most of that time, i was a u. S. Government official. And i worked hard to defend the rights and liberties of the american citizenry to express their views openly and freely. So maybe now i am taking advantage of that opportunity. Whatits not just a question of policy differences. I have policy difference twiz donald trump and the Trump Administration in terms the Iran Nuclear Agreement and at the blizzard climate accord and that was fine and i wouldnt bet speaking out so much if it was policy differences. It is his dishospitaly, his corruption, his abuse of the office of the presidency, that just gets to me and that i feel a responsibility and obligation to call him out for it. And so i was hope that when i retired for the second time in january of 2017 i was going to be able to ride off into the retirement sunset and not stir up any controversy or issues. But i cannot remain silent when donald trump denigrates the Intelligence Community, the men and women of the fbi and these professions, and just continues to deceive the American Public about reality, and quite frankly i find this rather disappointing and surprising that not more people from pass pass drs past as merchandises have spoken up and spoken. I think its important to call donald trump out for the dishonesty and for the fraud lens of behavior that he has engages in. So, its hard to imagine mime pompeo, relying on you for advice, but its easier to imagine gina haskell, the current director, whom you have known over the years, whom you have worked with, having a sort of relationship with you, but it seems you write in the book, you indicate that to a certain extent director haskell has had to keep you at a distance because of your role as a with the president in the political sphere. What this cost of your political activism of calling it out . Has that stopped you from offering seems to have stopped you from offering private advice and was that a tradeoff worth making . Well, i know that the white house announces they were revoking my security clearances back in 2018. I still have my security clearances because theres no basis whatsoever to revoke them and all previous directors have maintained this security clearances for the benefit of the government so that as you point out if senior cia officers want to talk to me about my experiences when i was director and how i interaberdeen with certain form official marrieds perspectives on certain issues with the russians or chinese or whatever i could easily talk to them and they can talk freely to me to include classified information, but Donald Donald trumps issued a directive to the cia and Intelligence Community protecting hem from discuss october are sharing any classification information with me. So although i retain my security clearances they are hoe prohibited from discussing anything classified with me and so therefore it has i think certainly inhibited the agency. They have not reached out of to me. Ive tried not to put any of my former colleagues in harms way by reaching out to them. I am at their disposal if they want to talk with me. Since gina haskell was confirmed as cia director i had one meeting with her and she invited know cia headquarters to thank me for my support for her nomination and that was the last time i ever heard from gina unfortunately. In this book, to prepare this book the cia did not let you have access to your files as director our presumably other work product from earlier in your career. How much of a challenge was that to sort of put that together and there are some times in this narrative where the reader would want more detail and 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 its a combination of the two first of all, i have a life long obligation to honor my security requirements as far as protecting classified information and sources and methods. So, even if i had access toy classified files i still would have had to some the manuscript to cia to review it for classified information, and i did that with the manuscript and 134 areas where the cia asked me to change some things and i agreed with many of them. I disagreed with some. We went back and forththerapy. Rehelped on some and i i relened on some but i had to make sure that it was going to have a classification review. Unfortunately, they did not allow me to have access to my files and all previous cia directors and acting directors who have written memoirs or books were granted that access promptly and routinely but again it was because of Donald Trumps i think the cia was not allowed to do that. I wish i had access to remind myself of the discussions and i wish i would have been able to review my classified notes. The cia did give me access to an unclassified version of my calendar at the for official use only level but had redacted any of my reverence to even what day of the week my phone calls to a foreign official took place. So, it was did hamper me but fortunately i think i still have pretty good memory of a lot and i tried to explain in the book to the best of my recollection what happened during various meetings and events and i had the opportunity to talk to a number of my former colleagues who were no longer at cia so that they could help me think through and remember some of these i think seminal events that tike place over the decades. You messengered your fights with democrats during the Obama Administration and theres a good portion of the book that you talk in detail about your struggle with the Senate Intelligence committee over their report on cia interrogation, torture allegations, and youre very critical of the Senate Democrats and the media. You argue kind of both allegations of torture and allegations of spying that the cia spied on the senate were overwrought. Sometimes this backs sounds like a little score settling more than a detached evaluation of how you or the agency sort after handled that relationship with congressional oversight. What was your purpose when you were diving into that and what looking talk a little built about that time and your feelings about how the senate and the media handled this. Well, clearly i had my own views, perspective but events that took place when the Senate Intelligence committee that was led by the democrats embarked on this review of cias Interrogation Program, and i dont no i wouldnt say its again, i was one of the protagonists involved in this drama. I do acknowledge in the book i think think there were a numb of times i could have happen these congressional relations better but i didnt. Looking back on it there were thing is wish i would have done different live but what really riled me during this time and continues to is the mischaracterization of what the cia did in the aftermath of the 9 11, yet yes me stakes were made and yes things that needed to be addressed and to individual officers held to account, but all of the good stuff in the very positive thing thats the cia did seem to be ignored by the Senate Democratss who were drafting this report. But also in a more fundmentally the implication and the claim that the cia spied on Senate Computers was absolutely a specious allegation that i want i tried while i was director but i still was limited in terms of what i could say at that time i wanted in this memoir to put the affects on the table that the the fact that the Computers Computers the sens using were cia computer and we had the obligation to determine whether or not there was a vulnerability in that system that allowed the Senate Staffers to access a document that they were not authorized to have. And so when our security and specialists were trying to understand how that document got to those computerses that the senate was using, there was a mistake made that a couple of internal message that the staffers were sending to one another were accessioned by cia officers. That was wrong. And that is why i apologizeed to Dianne Feinstein and chambliss, the leaders of the Senate Intelligence committee that the cia did something wrong. Did we spy on them . Now. Did we have an obligation to carry out the security review . Absolutely. I wanted do this as a joint review with the Senate Committee, but because of i believe the Senate Staffers concerns that what they did wrong might be exposed in that joint review, they balked at that and so i go into some detail into this chapter because, one i think its complicated issue that a think a lot of meshes still have this impression but cia spying want told provide the detailed bowled the nature of this issue and its various complexitieses and explain what the cia did and why and, three, howl we were able to try to address the shortcomings and to be up front and honest with the Senate Committee which is why again i apologized. But the senate never decide an investigation of what the Senate Staffers died wrong and i believe they did things wrong, but in this memoir, again i like to think its its more trying to ensure that i present what i believe is a accurate and honest depiction of what happened during that period of time. This idea that the sort of forensic test that the cia did to see if this report, this panetta report that the Senate Staffers were not supposed to have under your agreement, wow dont think that was wrong to that could forensic analysis on these computers used by the senate, only that it went too far and looked at these messages, but the actual investigation you did to find the document that was on that Computer System was not improper. Well, as i note in the book the security and it specialists responsible for the integrity of the system decided to do this refer to as a forensic which is look for a unique binary code, not that reveals the contents of that side of the network firewall. They did that forensics search and it did reveal a unique binary code, again just zeros and ones, which to them indicated that panetta review report was on that side. They brought to it my station and we decided to try to understand better without any type of intrusion into the content or the substance of what the committee was doing, and so one can argue that should not have happened. I believe that the cia officers were operating in good faith, went to great length to not have any access to the senate work product or any of their communications. There was one misstep and mistake that was made, but Everything Else based on the review that was done by an accountantabilityboard that included evan bayh, determined that the cia did not act at all in bad faith and were carrying out their security obligations to the belles of its ability. Were you surprised they made movie out of this and i take it from the book you werent much of a fan of it. No. Also i say in the book it was known at the time that the lead investigator of this senate staff had noted he was interested in making a movie. So unfortunately i think there were some political and personal agendas that were at play here, and there were many, many factual misrepresentations in that movie that again just mischaracterized very badly cias actions and activities. It presents a scene where cia officers go interest the dead of night and go into the room, what is called that controls the classified systems and databases that the senate was using, go in the middle of night and steal things. Couldnt be anywhere from the true. This was an effort to try to mask the wrongdoing that was done by the Senate Staffers and to vilify i if i can use that term, vilify the cia. One more question on this before i go to other topics. You dont like the term torture put you were the comfortable with the enhanced interrogation tech teaks at the time and you raised techniques and you raised questions. Why was its mistake . Do you think we wet good goo this situation again with the cia Going Forward and would be involved in situations and would we would have a president who would order the use of torture . I testified understanding of i would never, ever authorize the cia to engage in such an Interrogation Program again. I do think it was mistake. Think the cia was ill prepared to do Something Like this. Never had that responsibility for a program like that before. But in the aftermath of 9 11 cia was asked to do everything it could to prevent the recurrence of the 9 11 attack against the homeland. And so the reason why i say that the cia program, enhanced Interrogation Program was not torture was because that program was authorized by the president of the out, president bush who was duly authorized to direct the cia to carry out covert action activities and this was a covert action activity. This program also was deemed to be lawful by the highest legal advisory body in the executive branch which is the office of Legal 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 the cia required for it to go forward with this Program President ial authorization, determination by the department of justice it was legal and congressional notification, took place. The cia carried out that program. My crowe officers that acted outside of the boundaries of they approved and authorized program, again, violated their responsibilities and exceeded what they were authorized to do. And should have been and many were held to account but if they operated again win the win the confines of what was authorized and the cia was engaged in torture when torture by u. S. Law is unlawful, i think that is a applying a new Legal Standard to something that was different during the aftermath of 9 11. Now, i have my personal viewed but the program. Dont think it should have ever been instituted and i believe the department of justice memos written ton the program that dealed it lawful were very ill founded and were not i think sold legal argument. Im not a lawyer, though so the cia senior officials at the time had a dill lem half. Are dilemma. Were they going to do this or carry out the program to the best of their able and unfortunately some cia officers fell short, some of those programs and activities were poorly managed, and were not carried out to the spirit and level of the covert action authorization. So a big chunk of this book is your career at the cia and one of my favorite parts was when you describe join thing the cia and those initial poly grandfathers and the initial days polygraphs and the initial days and you get a sans of the excitement of joining a cloak and dagger organization. And there is a kind of funny scene of you getting polygraphed in the beginning of your cia career and having to admit that you disclosing your votes for the president ial candidates. I want you to talk about that and maybe speak a little more broadly what you think of polygraphs in the cia and if theyre effective and important and or just the cost of doing business. The polygraph is an important tool that the cia uses in order to determine whether or not somebody is being truthful and that individual can be somebody who is an applicant to the cia, somebody who the cia has contact with overseas and is recruiting and as well as dealershipping who shouldnt is accurately somebody is accurately reporting foreign intelligence. So when i was applying to the cia i was living in texas at the time, going to graduate school, and i came up here to washington, dc for a battery of tests and psychological tests, as well as polygraph tests and when i sat down with the polygrapher i had to walk through with him my big e issues in terms of the experiment with drugs or whatever else, but then when he asked me a question about whether or not i ever belongs to any Subversive Organization or organization that was dedicated to overthrow of the u. S. Government i was present to say, absolutely not. No. But maybe it was my catholic guilt that kicked in, because i. Ed then that the first time i had the great honor and privilege to vote in a president ial election which was in 1976, at that time i was already very much a avowed nonpartisan and was already upset with the partisan shift i saw, phenomenon both sides of the aisle, when i went into at the voting booth i didnt know who i was going to vote for and i decided to go down the list and i saw the name gus hall, the candidate nor communist party of the United States and i flipped that level. And so in when the polygraphy asked me the question whether i was involved in an organization dedicated to overthrow of the American Government i thought that of that 1976 vote and expand to the polygrapher that i voted for gus hall, protest vote, but i didnt even know much but him at the time other than his name and the polygrapher calm me asked me was there any other support i had provided to the the communityist party and i said, no, that was a oneoff event, and as i relate in the book i was very anxious about how he was going to react to this, very concerned that my application was going to be tossed in the waste bin, but to his great credit he said, it is your absolute right to vote for whomever you wish in a u. S. Election. It will not be held against you in your application that you voted for gus hall. And at that moment any qualms about joining the cia with the report what it was involved in and the type odd nefarious actives overseas, by hearing him tell me that the cia respected and honored the rights of american citizens to cast their vote as they see fit, speak out as they see fit, it just made me even more interested in being hired by the cia. So, i have taken many poly graff since then. That polygraphs. That one was the most memorable. In your career, you have both been the briefer of the president , delivering the president s daily brief, you have also sat next to the president s while theyve received that brief. In the Trump Administration, this has been a very fraught deliver you for he Intelligence Community. Talk a little bit about the president s daily brief and its importance and how you saw different president s handle it and what the intelligence briefer should prioritize when briefing a president. Well, in 19194 and 1995 i was the brief at the president clinton and Vice President gore and other senior officials in the white house and National Security couple, council and give me insight into that a president is involved in so many Different Things things and so y Streams Streams of information information and advisers and so i needed to make sure that during those morning briefings i would be able to ensure that the president understood what it was that the cia and the Intelligence Community was concern about. What were the near term issues that might require president ial attention and the longer terming extra county issues that the point point to hurt National Security interests and when i briefed george w. Bush and barack obama, all three of those president s and even george h. W. Bush who i briefed before clinton, all of them had this tremendous interest and thirst for information and intelligence that the Intelligence Community was able to provide them and there would be a lot of back and forth and questions. President clinton was somebody who almost had a computer like mind, tremendous powers of recall. Could absorb and process information very quickly. He was a voracious reader and engamed with me and with others, but he was just always on intake. George w. Bush read the pdb religiously but also he really enjoyed and asked for the interactions with analysts or operations officers or intelligence experts. He really 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, readily, he also had almost a unique ability to see relationships, second, third, and fourth order of effect how one issue or one Intelligence Report or one piece of analysis or one recommendation for policy might in fact affect our interests or National Security interests in other areas or other parts of the world or other issues. So, i found that the cia and the intelligence briefer really needs to understand how best to provide intelligence to the president , the first custom sore theyre able to gain the insight that they need in order to carry out their responsibilities. Have been very, very disheartened by the report is hear that trump doesnt take the briefings, the intelligence and reports and analysis he doesnt agree with. A lot of times when i went down the white house where the message and he intelligence i was deliver was counter to the policy druthers or prefer reins or inclinations of the president and Senior Officers but its the responsibility of the dwellings brief ore are the director of National Intelligence or director or cia to ensure they hear this information irrespect of of whether it comports with what they want to hear. We only have a couple of multiples left and unfortunately im having to leave a bunch of my questions hope to cutting room floor. Let me ask you to conclude a little bit about how you think the agency is doing right now with this president , president who is resistant to intelligence its gina haskell doing a good job . Is the cia doing the best they can in these unusual situations to deliver intelligence to the white house on china or russia or whatever else is a challenge. Well, i think this is an exceptionally challenging time for intelligence professionals which its gina haskell or a new cia because its clear we have somebody in the white house, donald trump, who has disregarded the importance of the Intelligence Mission and the work and the sacrifice of the cia officers across the board. I would like to think that my former cia colleagues are continuing to do the great work that it they have done for since the cia began back in the 1940s to bring truth to power, and to ensure that they are working every day to keep their fellow citizens safe. That i think is incumbent upon them to do this again irrespective of whether or not donald trump paid attention to their work. But at the same time im sure its very demoralizing to them that the person that really should be paying the most attention the intelligence that they provide is ignoring it, and so cia i know and other intelligence agencies will be very resilient and when trump is a form are president , that a former president they will be able to respond very quickly and very effectively and efficiently to the demands that i am certain the next president of the United States will make. So, i am concerned. I am worried, at the same time i have real strength of belief and conviction in the goodness and the professionalism of the rankandfile throughout the Intelligence Community and the Law Enforcement community and he Homeland Security community that even if their letters are not doing what they need the leader are not doing what they need to do the professionals in these organizations will continue to carry out their responsibilities with their obligations to the constitution intact. Director brennan, thank you so much for your time and for discussing you new book and best wishings to you. Thank you very much, julian, i enoutside the discussion. This program is available at a podcast. Youre watching booktv on cspan2 a with the latest mon Fiction Books and authors. Cspan2, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service. And brought to you today by your television provider. Later the Cato Institute ilya shapiro shares his thoughts on the judicial nomination process and how to improve it took that starts now on book tv on cspan2 good morning and welcome to this webinar featuring doctor lynne cheney and Vice President cheney in a conversation about doctor cheneys newest book, the virginia dynasty
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.