Through the summer and fall, which were used to inform senior u. S. Officials, including president obama. The work also was leveraged for the Intelligence Community assessment that was completed in early january. Second, it should be clear to everyone that russia brazenly interfered in our 2016 president ial election process and that they undertook these activities, despite our strong protests and explicit warning they do not do so. Along these lines on 4 august of last year, i spoke to the head of russias federal security bureau, the fsb, russias internal security and intelligence service. The bulk of the scheduled call focused on syria, as he was my principal russian interlocker on matters. I took the opportunity to raise two additional issues with him. I first told him as i had several times previously that the continued mistreatment and harassment of u. S. Diplomats in moscow was irresponsible, reckless, intolerable, and needed to stop. Over the years it has been his fsb that has been most responsible for this outrageous behavior. I next grazed the published media reports of russian attempts to interfere in our upcoming president ial election. I told him that if russia had such a campaign under way, it would be certain to backfire. I said that all americans, regardless of political affiliation or whom they might support in the election, cherish their ability to elect their own leaders without outside interference or disruption. I said American Voters would be outraged by any russian attempt to interfere in the election. Finally, i warned him that if russia pursued this course, it would destroy any near term prospect for improvements between white house and moscow. As i expected, he denied russia was doing anything to influence our president ial election, claiming that moscow is a traditional target of blame by washington for such activities, saying russia was able to work with whatever candidate wins the election. When i repeated my warning, he again denied the charge. I believe i was the first u. S. Official to brace the russians on this matter. Third, through the socalled gang of eight process we kept congress apprised of these issues as we identified them. Again, in consultation with the white house i personally briefed the full details of our understanding of russian attempts to interfere in the election with congressional leadership, specifically senators harry reid, mitch mcconnell, dianne feinstein, richard burr, and representatives ryan, pelosi, schiff between 11 august and 6 september. I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of eight members. Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counterintelligence case involving an ongoing russian effort to interfere in our president ial election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of congress. Each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member. The substance of those briefings was entirely consistent with the main judgments contained in the january classified and unclassified assessments, namely that russias goals were to undermine public faith in the u. S. Democratic process, denigrate Hillary Clinton and affect her potential presidency and to help President Trumps election chances. Let me conclude by saying it was a very special privilege to serve as a cia officer for the first 25 years of my public service, and it is the highest honor of my professional career and always will be to have served another four years as director of cia. Cia officers of all disciplines, past, present, and future, serve this country and citizens with tremendous dedication, talent, and courage. They recognize that this countrys National Security rests heavily on their continued outstanding work and on the sacrifices they and their families make every day on behalf of their fellow citizens. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to all cia officers and their families for what they have done and continue to do to protect this country. And i will now be pleased to take your questions. Again, mr. Brennan, thank you very much for your long service, distinguished, and for agreeing to come this morning. Im joined on our task force by two able prosecutors so id like to yield my five minutes to tom. Tom . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, if you could just take a quick minute before i start with my line of questioning with regard to what happened last night in manchester to do whatever you can, the best you can, from your Expert Opinion to try to reassure the American People that what we do in this country and what were trying to do would help thwart and stop any kind of similar activity here in the future. If you could help try to put american minds at ease briefly, i would appreciate any words that you might have of advice. Well, i would say isis and al qaeda and terrorist affiliates try to carry out these outrageous attacks in europe, as well as the United States, but i can say with great confidence that this country has the absolute best Counterterrorism Community that knits together the experts from intelligence, Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, and does a great job of making sure that our federal structure is interoperating as best it can with state and local officials and local Law Enforcement. And so i have seen a tremendous, tremendous growth of capability, as well as in enhanced National Architecture since 9 11 in terms of the ability to share counterterrorism information quickly, terrorist threat information, so that when its collected overseas or wherever, it gets to those individuals who have to take action on it, so i can assure the American People i know today my former colleagues are working even harder than they ever have before to prevent attacks. Thank you, sir. And to the matter at hand, we heard the Ranking Member speak in his opening, as well as weve heard in the press numerous times with regard to, and in your Opening Statement the Russian Investigation, what the russians rr trying to do with our election, whether it be through the r. T. Propaganda or whatever. We know that is now unfortunately the new norm and something were all going to have to deal with and my charge on this committee isnt so much necessarily to try to seek out and root out criminal behavior, especially now in light of the new special counsel robert mueller, who will be looking into those kind of things, but for us on the Intelligence Committees, whether it be here or in the senate, to try to improve the Intelligence Communitys ability to do our jobs and to make a report, a recommendation to you and the new administration as to how we better defend ourselves against what russia and or others may be trying to do with regard to affecting our republican, our democracy, and in doing so, if we do find any kind of criminal behavior, i think the minority would agree that those type of that type of information would be referred to the justice department, which is the proper jurisdiction. But with regard to the question at hand, in your experience with the russians trying to involve themselves in our election, did you ever find any evidence as the Ranking Member spoke of collusion while you were the director, did you find direct evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and putin in moscow while you were there . Mr. Rooney, i never was an fbi agent, i never was a prosecutor, so i really dont do evidence, i do intelligence throughout the course of my career. As an intelligence professional, what we try to do is to make sure that we provide all relevant information to the bureau if there is investigation under way that they are looking into criminal activity. As i mentioned in my Opening Statement, i was convinced in the summer that the russians were trying to interfere in the election. And they were very aggressive. It was a multifaceted effort, and i wanted to make sure we were able to expose as much of that as possible. But was there intelligence that said that the Trump Campaign was colluding with moscow during their campaign . There was intelligence that the Russian Intelligence Services were actively involved in this effort and having been involved in many counterintelligence cases in the past, i know what the russians try to do. They try to bore individuals, including u. S. Persons, to act on their behalf either wittingly or unwittingly, and i was worried by a number of the contacts that the russians had with u. S. Persons, and so, therefore, by the time i left office on january 20th, i had unresolved questions in my mind as to whether or not the russians had been successful in getting u. S. Persons involved in the campaign or not to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and so, therefore, i felt as though the fbi investigation was, certainly, well founded and needed to look into those issues. When you talk about the and im running out of time, but hopefully ill be able to circle back. Can you describe their capabilities beyond just propaganda and actually infiltrating whether or not there was you had intelligence to infiltrate the campaign with capabilities beyond just propaganda and beyond just reaching out or trying it to influence the news or the campaign and how long have we known about these type of capabilities . Theres a lot of intelligence thats been built up over the years about russias m. O. In terms of trying to gain influence in western democracies. How theyve been able to use individuals, politicians, Political Parties, elements within the media to try to make sure that their objectives are realized, and so, again, knowing what the russian m. O. Is and has been, including in elections in europe, i certainly was concerned that they were practicing the same types of activities here in the United States. And thats why, as i said, we set up a group in late july that included the fbi and nsa. I want to make sure that every information and bit of intelligence that we had was shared with the bureau so they could take it. It was well beyond my mandate as director of cia to follow on any of those leads that involved u. S. Persons, but i made sure that anything that was involving u. S. Persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump Campaign were shared with the bureau. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Schiff, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on a comment that i made in the Opening Statement, and that is with respect to a number of allegations that have been made recently that the president or his aides may have sought to enlist the help of members of the i. C. Or director comey himself to drop the Flynn Investigation. Have any members of the i. C. Shared with you their concerns that the president was attempting to enlist the help of people within the Intelligence Community to drop the Flynn Investigation . No, sir. Are you aware of any efforts the president has made to enlist the support of Intelligence Community personnel to push back on a narrative involving the collusion issue that mr. Rooney was asking about . I am unaware of it. I want to ask you about the allegations concerning the president s meetings in the white house, in the oval office with the russians. First, what concerns you might have if the allegations are accurate about sharing information that we may have obtained from an intelligence partner, what impact you think that might have on not only that partner, but other intelligence partners willingness to share intelligence with the United States, but more than that, if you could also shed your insights on one other thing, and that is the russians reaction to that meeting was at least twofold. One was Vladimir Putins offer to validate what happened in the oval office, to provide his own transcript of that meeting. But also the russian publication of photographs from that meeting. The russians had to understand that the publication of those photos would be harmful to the president or the president would have invited American Press into that meeting. What do you think motivated the russians to publish those photos . What do you think motivated putin to make a claim to provide their own transcript of the meeting . Is this just further efforts to weaken the president , disrupt our political process . How do you explain those events . A lot of questions there, mr. Schiff. First point id like to make is i shared classified information with the russians when i was director as cia. Cia on a routine basis shares classified information with russians on terrorism matters. Doesnt mean it becomes unclassified, it means it retains the classification but is releasable then to russia or other partners, so that in itself is not unprecedented, and i dont know what was shared or said in the oval office, but if the reports in the press are true that mr. Trump decided to spontaneously decided to share some intelligence with the russians, i think he would have basically violated two protocols, and those two protocols are, one, is that such intelligence, classified intelligence, is not shared with visiting ambassadors because it needs to be handled the right way and make sure it is not exposed. He didnt do that. Again, if the press charges are accurate. Secondly, before sharing any classified intelligence with foreign partners, it needs to go back to the originating agency to make sure that the language in it is not even providing substance going to reveal sources and methods and compromise the future collection capability. So it appears as though at least from the press reports that neither did it go in the proper channels, nor did the originating agency have the opportunity to clear language for it. So, that is a problem. What i was very concerned about, though, is the subsequent releases of what appears to be classified information purporting to point to the originator of the information, liaison partners. These continue to be very, very damaging leaks, and i find them appalling and they need to be tracked down. So, that was where the damage came from, i think, that it was released in the press. Now, the russians are watching very carefully whats going on in washington right now, and they will try to exploit it for their own purposes and to see whether or not they can further, i think, seed partisan animosity here in washington and try to roil the waters, the political waters. Even though the election is over, mr. Putin and Russian Intelligence Services are trying to actively exploit what is going on now in washington to their benefit and to our detriment. Follow up again on mr. Rooneys questions, when you had these concerns raised about the russian efforts and their potential effort to sub born u. S. Persons to their cause in the hacking operation, did you take steps to set up an organizational structure to analyze the Russian Campaign so members of the fbi, cia, nsa and other agencies would look at these allegations in a cohesive fashion . Yes, and i also recognize that this was an exceptionally, exceptionally sensitive issue. An active counterintelligence case, trying to stop and uncover what the russian intelligence activities were. In the midst of a hotly debated president ial campaign. That included information that may have involved u. S. Persons contacts with russia, whether benign or not. Therefore, one of the key pieces of any type of counterintelligence effort is to compartment that effort so that your operators, your investigators, your collectors, can continue to uncover what the russians were doing. We set up a group within cia. I spoke to jim comey, i spoke to mike rogers to make sure they were able to send over their exe exerts so that they could share information among them, even the most Sensitive Information that was not disseminated within the community. I want to make sure learning the lessons of 9 11 there were not going to be any stove pipes and barriers to sharing information from the intelligence and Law Enforcement communities. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Time expired. Mr. Gowdy, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, director, thank you for your service to our country. Lets go back to where we were a couple minutes ago. You mentioned or you testified that you had a conversation in august of 2016 with your russian counterpart. You testified that you briefed at least eight members of congress throughout your investigation. When you learned of russian efforts, and well get to that in a minute, because my understanding from your unclassed report is russia has historically attempted to interfere with our electoral process and they did so without coordination, collusion, or conspiring with any of the candidates. So they have a history of doing it. Well lay that aside for a minute. 2016 electoral process. When you learned of russian efforts, did you have evidence of connection between the Trump Campaign and russian state actors . As i said, mr. Gowdy, i dont do evidence. And we were uncovering information and intelligence about interactions and contacts between u. S. Persons and the russians, and as we came upon that, we would share it with the bureau. I appreciate that you dont do evidence, director brennan. Unfortunately, thats what i do. Thats the word we use. You use the word assessment, you use the word trade craft. I use the word evidence, and the good news for me, lots of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use the word evidence, too. One of my colleagues said theres more than circumstantial evidence of collusion between the russians and the Trump Campaign. Now, there are only two types of evidence, theres circumstantial and direct, so if its more than circumstantial, by necessity, it has to be direct. Those arent my words, those are the words of one of my colleagues on the other side of this very committee. Another democrat colleague on the other side of this Committee Also used the word evidence, that he has seen evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign and the russians, and yet a third california democrat said she had seen no evidence of collusion. So thats three different members of congress from the same state using the same word, which is evidence. And thats the word that my fellow citizens understand, evidence. Assessment is your vernacular. Trade craft is your vernacular. You and i both know what the word evidence means, and were not getting into whether or not you corroborated, contradicted, examined, cross examined, were not getting into how you tested and probed the reliability of that evidence. Its a really simple question. Did evidence exist of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and russian state actors at the time you learned of 2016 efforts . I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between russian officials and u. S. Persons involved in the Trump Campaign. That i was concerned about because of known russian efforts to subborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals. I dont know whether or not such collusion, and thats your term, collusion existed. I dont know. But i know there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not u. S. Persons were actively conspiring, colluding with russian officials. Do you know the basis of that information that you share with the bureau . What was the nature of the evidence . I think, mr. Gowdy, the committee has now been provided information that relates to that issue in terms of information that the agency shared with the bureau. And that is something that is appropriately classified. All right. And you learned that when . When in this chronology did you learn of the contacts between these official members of the Trump Campaign or because theres kind of a hierarchy. Theres trump himself, theres official members of the campaign, then folks that represented themselves as being connected with them. Im not going to try to identify individuals, nor try to parse it. I dont want you to parse it, i just want you to identify the individuals. Im not going to identify the individuals, because this is information, again, that is based on classified sources and intelligence. Were the official members of the campaign . Im going to defer to Current Agency officials to be able to further provide to you information related to that, but my understanding is that this committee has access to the documents that we would have provided to the bureau. All right. Last question, because im out of time. We can use the word evidence, we both know what the other one is talking about. How did you test, probe, examine, cross examine or otherwise test the reliability, believability, credibility of that evidence that you uncovered . I made sure that the components within cia that have responsible for counterintelligence, cyber, and russia were actively working to understand as much as possible about the reliability, accuracy of the information that they already collected, and information that was available that needed further corroboration. Well come back to it next round. Time expired. Five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director brennan for being here. Its good to see you again. I want to use my five minutes to try to paint a more specific picture around the methods and mechanisms that the russians use to sub born, which is the word used today, and i want to start with a quote by a report i know youre familiar with, csiss report, the kremlin playbook, in which they say, russia seeks to corrode democracy from within by seeking political divides, know when they trigger chaos, even if it ends up negatively affecting them, that they are serving the purpose of weakening us. I want to talk about people, because you made reference to people. And i want to do it specifically, i want to do it in the abstract. The kremlin playbook that i just referred to says further that russia looks to corrode democracy by, quote, investing in rising politicians, cultivating relationships with prominent businessmen, or helping to ensure that its business affiliates become well positioned in government. Mr. Brennan, assuming that you agree with that, how specifically has the kremlin gone about cultivating relationships with key americans in an efforts to influence our policy . It is traditional intelligence collection trade craft in terms of identifying individuals that you think are either very influential or rising stars, and you will try to develop relationship with them and the russians frequently will do that through cutouts or through false flag operations. They wont identify themselves as russians or as members of the russian government. They will try to develop that personal relationship. And over time they will try to get individuals to do things on their behalf, and thats why, again, having been involved in a lot of counterintelligence cases over the years and seeing this pattern over and over again, my radar goes up when i see that the russians are actively involved in a particular intelligence operation or campaign, and that u. S. Persons are being contacted by russian officials. So is it fair to assume the phrase you used previously is you were worried by contacts that there might have been efforts to sub born. Fair to say those contacts that worried you might have been consistent with that ageold russian recruitment methodology . Sure, and these are contacts that might have been totally, totally innocent and benign, as well as those that might have succumbed somehow to those russian efforts. Great. Let me shift focus from americans to russians. We hear a lot about russian oligarchs and im not asking questions about specific russian oligarchs, we may do that in closed session, but can you tell us a little about what the rule of russian oligarchs is in putins plan . What levers of influence do they use, and why do some americans fall for contacts with russian oligarchs and political people . Well, mr. Putins standing in russia is certainly well supported by key oligarchs who control billiondollar industries and parts of the russian economy, and he is, i think, reliant on them for support, and they are reliant on him for support. And so they, obviously, have a lot of international connections, a lot of business connections, that they will use to advance their business interests, but also we see that russian intelligence agencies do not hesitate at all to use private companies and russian persons who are unaffiliated with the russian government to support their objectives. And so weve talked about americans and russians now in these couple of minutes. Do americans who are sub borned in such a way and russian oligarchs that are recruited or sub borned, do they necessarily need to know that they are doing russias bidding . No. Many times they do not. They do not even know that the person they are interacting with is a russian. Many times they know that individuals may be russian officials, but they dont know theres an intelligence connection or an intelligence motive behind it. Thank you. Thank you. Im running low on time, so ill just close with this thought. Theres hardly anyone left today who doubts that russia attacked us, but what we have to realize is the true thrust of the russian attack is what they have triggered in us, the partisanship. Every time we refuse to face facts, every time we attack the messenger rather than confront the actions that happened, every time we undercut our allies and our alliances and our values, i think were playing precisely into russias fondest hopes. Were doing something that, in my opinion, the great cold warriors, ronald reagan, Harriet Truman would not have allowed. Yield back the balance of my time. Time expired, mr. King, five minutes. Before i yield to mr. Gowdy, i have one question to ask you, and i realize were in open session, so im going to word it a certain way, but i think youll understand what im saying. In preparation for the report on the 2016 election, which concluded that russia favored the election of donald trump, who would have made the decision to include or exclude any evidence or indications of russian intentions that were contrary to that conclusion . Myself, jim comey, mike rogers, and jim clapper relied on the experts, who pulled this draft together in the Intelligence Community assessment, and it was a process where the representatives from those entities wrestled with the language to make sure they had as much accuracy and precision and good sense as possible, so any adjustments that were made were made during the process. I met with some of my officers who were involved in it. I asked them questions, i wanted to make sure they were comfortable with the language that was being used, but it would have been that internal interagency process that then resulted in the Intelligence Community assessment. That is the traditional way that these assessments are drafted, are coordinated, and are published. Without even getting to the financial conclusion, if there were other evidence, though, that indicated contrary, should that have been listed or not . Youre dealing with a lot of information when you put together an intelligence assessment, and it comes down to a distillation of process, and as you know, there were two products that were produced, an unclassified version and a highly classified version, and the attempt was to try to include in that highly classified version all of the relevant and pertinent information that needed to be in there in order to undergird the judgments contained. And so what was 100 of all of the Information Available put into that highly classified one . No, but it was taken into account, so, therefore, again, some decisions had to be made about it. But i am unaware that anything was intentionally excluded because of intelligence that was for some reason one of the agencies didnt want in there for any reason that was not a very legitimate intelligence reason. We discussed that in the executive session. Mr. Gowdy, i yield the balance of my time to you. Thank you, my friend from new york. Director brennan, last time we were talking about the inception of your investigation 2016. I want the next question to include the inception, the pendency up until your very last day at the cia. Did you see evidence of collusion, coordination, conspiracy between donald trump and russian state actors . I saw information intelligence that was worthy of investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not such cooperation or collusion was taking place. That doesnt help us a lot. What was the nature of the information . As i said, mr. Gowdy, i think this committee now has access to the type of information that im eluding to here. Its classified, and im happy to talk about it in classified session. And that would have been directly between the candidate and russian state actors . Thats not what i said. Im not going to talk about any individuals. But that was my question and you answered it. You didnt answer it that way. No, yeah, i sponresponded tor query. Im not going to respond to particular elements of your question, because i think it would be inappropriate for me to do so here, so i can only repeat what i said, which is i was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between russian officials and u. S. Persons that raise concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the russians either in a witting or unwitting fashion and that serves as the basis for the fbi investigation to determine whether such collusion cooperation occurred. Right. There were a bunch of words that start with c floating around, i ask about collusion, coordination, and conspiracy and you used the word contact. I think in a previous answer you did a really good job establishing that contact could be benign or not benign, so was it contact that you saw, was it something more than contact . What is the nature of what you saw . I saw interaction and aware of interaction that, again, raised questions in my mind about what was the true nature of it, but i dont know. I dont have sufficient information to make a determination whether or not such cooperation or complicity or collusion was taking place, but i know there was a basis to have individuals pull those threats. I dont want to put words in your mouth, but you saw something that led you to refer it to Law Enforcement, and in your judgment it is up to Law Enforcement to test, probe, corroborate, contradict, otherwise investigate the full nature of that information you passed on, is that a fair way to put it . It is, because its not cias job to make a determination about whether a u. S. Person is cooperating, colluding, whatever, in some type of criminal or illegal matter. Its our responsibility to give the bureau everything that they need in order to follow that path and make such a determination and recommendation if they want to press charges. All right. Well pick it up next time. Five minutes. Welcome, director brennan. Building on the questions that my colleague mr. Himes talked to you about, id like to ask you more specifics about russia attacking us and how their attacks specifically cause us to doubt our own credibility as americans. Id like to talk about truth and what it means to be truthful to your country if you are in a position of power. Director brennan, was putin, first within russia, and then against us, working to undermine truth . And how exactly has he done that . Mr. Putin and Russian Intelligence Services are determined to do what they can to influence in a very inappropriate and illegal way activities within western democracies, to undermine the western liberal democratic order. They do that on a regular basis. They see that as western democracy, as a threat to them, so thats why the cyber domain right now is a growing playground for russian activities, and they will use that and exploit it whatever way they can. So theyve been involved in elections for many years, including trying to influence the ones here in the United States with propaganda, whatever, but this cyber environment now provides new opportunities to collect, to collect and release, to influence, and they are increasingly adept at it. Adept so, you said that theyre going to do it again. The ic unclassified assessment said that. And has there been any blowback or consequences to russia for their interference in our election . And, most importantly, what would you do to try to prevent that from happening in future elections . Well, first of all, i think exposure is very, very important. Make sure that were able to confront the russians and make sure that partners and allies in other countries around the globe are aware of this type of russian capability and also important i think to have the russians encur costs, not just in terms of reputational damage but actions that i think this government and other governments should take against the russians when theyre caught in those types of activities. It is an at this time ma to our Democratic Values and something we need to push back hard against. Have you seen the Trump Administration do anything to push back as you said . Have you seen or witnessed i know youre no longer a director, but have you seen any indication that were trying to punish or stop the russians from doing this again . Im not in a position to evaluate because there could be things going on behind the scenes. We were doing things behind the scenes to try to counter russian activities. We took actions in the days of january in terms of russian officials here and trying to clamp down on their intelligence activities. Maybe the Current Administration is doing the same thing. I dont know. So, director brennan, can you talk about more about russias Disinformation Campaign and what tools the russians use to do that . They use all sorts of tools. As i said, they have been able to control various media outlets. Obviously they use rt tv here in the United States which has a fairly significant audience. They use individuals who have who are writers or publishers, editorialists. Again, some of this is very obvious to those who are involved because theyre on the payrolls. Im talking globally now. Theyre on the payrolls of russian intelligence and so they place pieces that advance russias interests. So i just wanted to really go back to what i was trying to say before and the truth. I cant emphasize enough how this Disinformation Campaign is and it troubles me so much there are those in this countries who are practicing similar tactics i think. Calls disagreeable facts fake news and attacking the messenger rather than the message. Its divert. Its dissimilar. Its deny and these are putins tactics that are that were seeing and embracing in america. In other words, truth is being replaced by trust. People trust this person or this news source. Even if it isnt objectively true. So we cant all agree on a common set of facts and thats a big problem i believe that really is leading to the divide we see in this country. Our National Security has never been as partisan as it is now and i think that the truth is that they interfered in our elections and the truth is the American People want to get to the bottom of it and the truth is we as elected officials and on this committee should be doing all we can to make sure that we find out how they do it, we make sure we know who helped them do it an enthat we also get to the bottom of making sure that it doesnt happen again. So, my last question to you is, do you believe that one of the things you talked about was exploit. You said that even though the election is over, putin is still and russians are exploiting us. What did you mean by that . I mean that, again, this has been a pattern of Russian Intelligence Services to try to take advantage of the openness of western societies, free press and other things, and Political Parties and systems to find opportunities and vulnerabilities that they can use to advance their interests. Theyll continue to do this. I think theyre probably taking some lessons from this past experience. I dont believe that this is going to make them at all recoil and not engage in these times of things in the past. I think that what theyll do is to further refine their tactics so that they can be as successful as possible in the future. Thank you. Five minutes. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Director brennan, thank you for being here today. Thank you for your service. And i have a number of questions i know and then open setting you wont be able to answer so im looking forward to the closed setting. But ms. Sueell asked what the elements of russian active measures in the campaign of the election were. So, are these can you be anymore specific than your answer with her about what they were doing, what you saw . I think theyre all chronicled in the unclassified Community Assessment and the giu was responsible for hacking into the networks of the dnc, dccc and were responsible duh a cutout releasing it to lucifer 2. 0, wick leaks and taking advantage of the information they determined if it was publicly released was going to advance their objectives i had enumerated before. In addition, they amplified a lot of fake news stories that tried to denigrate secretary clinton so it was a mixture of propaganda. It was cyber collection. And it was the release of information that was, again, seen as damaging to one of the candidate that is they were trying to harm. So, you said a moment ago that you dont believe theyll be deterred from engaging in activity like this in the future. Do you think they would attempt to influence the 2018 midterm elections . I have, unfortunately, grudging respect for russian intelligence capabilities. And their aggressiveness, pervasiveness and their determination to do what they can do to undermine this countrys democracy and democratic institutions, as well as those certainly in europe and other areas. So i believe that they will try to exploit elections but they will not wait not only until elections. We know theyre aggressively collecting and trying to evaluate individuals who may be influential, who currently are in government and are not. The russian intelligence threat is a serious one and this is just one manifestation of the nature of that threat. During your tenure at cia director, did you have the resources and authorities necessary to conduct what you needed to with as it pertained to the russians . I had resources and authorities that allowed us to do things but i think this is something that may be in classified setting we can talk more about it and if we need to go to classified setting, i understand, but were there additional suggestions that you would give to this Intelligence Committee of what we should be doing proactively to enable not just the cia but the fbi and the nsa for to thwart future meddling . Sure. Okay. Based on what happened here, do you think there are ways that we can assist our allies in thwarting what the russians are doing . Is it simply sharing information or are there additional measures that can be taken . Because i think if one of us is successful then more of us can be successful. I think its a combination of things and id be careful again, here in open setting, but certainly sharing of information and making sure theyre aware of the techniques, tactics, procedures, the practitioners that the russians use. Thats something thats very important. We also need to be able to work some joint operations together so that we can expose russian actors in a variety of places and i know that my former colleagues who currently are still in the Intelligence Community are working very closely with a lot of Sister Services to do exactly that and to catch the russians in their efforts to undermine democratic institutions. We need to continue to do that and even more of it. Im not sure you can answer in this setting but while were focusing on russia, do you have indications that there was any collusion with the russians with other state actors, the iranians, north koreans, to meddle against us . I i do not believe that they were partnered with other countries in this most recent effort to undermine last years election. Do you believe that other countries were involved in attempting to influence us . Id have to think about that and id want to talk to you about that in closed session. Okay. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Carson, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, director, for your service to our country. Weve talked about putins desire to weaken our democracy from the inside out. I want to turn to how our democracy has been undermined by attacks on our military, diplomatic and military officials. In 240 years, america has spent a lot of blood and treasure to make the world safe for democracy. We work to ensure this at home and we work to ensure it abroad. Our diplomat, intelligence and military professionals have been at the forefront of that effort. Theyre the reason weve succeeded. Theyve worked tirelessly to promote Democratic Values because we value democracy in itself. But also, because it helps us to prevent war. Those professionals have helped advance the cause of freedom and they have helped enable economic opportunities. Director brennan, in your mind, does putin want us to be successful . And secondly, does he want towa see democracy thrive around the world . I would imagine he doesnt. No and no. Director brennan, how do your intelligence professionals in particular support Americas Mission to protect the world from war and to maintain global stability . We are the nations Forward Deployed radar. We are the ones that need to make sure that we understand what is going on but also what is underway in the future. We need to make sure that were able to assess capabilities and intentions of foreign actors. If they try to do us harm. As well as to support our diplomatic efforts, war fighters, Homeland Security specialists and others. The foreign intelligence ic community has an enormous task to cover the globe, do it 24 7, frequently and in places where theyre in harms way, but also, in other areas where the threat to u. S. National security is much less obvious, much more insidious and sometimes much more threatening. And so, therefore, our nations intelligence professionals really have a lot on their shoulders as far as keeping this country safe and secure. Yes, sir. Lastly, director brennan, do you believe, sir, that putin and the kremlin would like to see us hamper and shrink our military and intelligence capabilities . Sure. We are their principle nemesis and why they have not been capable. I wouldnt suggest for one moment that the u. S. Intelligence community has not been very successful in preventing and thwarting russian activities. So important, sir. You know, secretary of defense jim mattis think he knows the diplomats are the tip of spear. He said himself, 2013, and i quote, if you dont fully fund the state department, then i need to buy more ammunition, end quote. So im concerned as we all are, sir, when we see proposed cuts of a third to the state department, a third to the entire budget, their entire budget and announcement that we, the United States of america, no longer champion human rights around the world. We are concerned with efforts to undercut our intelligence professionals comparing them at times to nazis. Comments from by own leaders. We cant Vladimir Putin continue to undermine us doing exactly what he wants us to do. Generations of intelligence, diplomatic and military professionals have fought for our independence and for the march of democracy around the world and i dont think, sir, neither do the rest of us, that we cant let the important work prove to be nothing. I thank you for your commitment and service to our nation. I yield back. I skipped mr. Rainey so five minutes. Thank you. Dr. Director, i want to say i have been up to the agency to review the documents you referred to before and i look forward to talking about the information therein in our closed session. I also want to mention something we had talked with admiral rogers and mr. Comey in the last two open sessions ago from the intelligence, house Intelligence Committee. Its one that sort of got a lot of hoopla on tv with regard to our side of the aisle here trying to make a diversionary tactic when we talk about the importance of what leaks do with our Intelligence Community and i just want to ask you if you agree with admiral rogers that when high level Intelligence Community officials, i think some news reports had almost 20 people leaking classified information to the press, if you agree with admiral roger that is that kind of leaking with our ability to have to reauthorize things like 702 so we can gather intelligence on bad guys for political purposes if you agree that that kind of activity actually hurts our National Security. I think the unauthorized disclosure of unclassified compromised the capabilities. And needs to be investigated and needs to stop. Absolutely. Thank you. With regard to more specific questions, with regard to hacking, when did you learn of the russian hacking in the last election cycle . In the roughly. In the summer. And did you at that time notify the both campaigns that you or did somebody at the agency or are you aware that both campaigns were notified at that time there was an effort by the russians to hack and try to influence the Political Campaign of last year . I was aware that both campaigns were being contacted and notified about it, yes. You said i believe to mr. Gowdy that you believe that there was information of contact between people and the trump universe and moscow, whether or not that was collusion or not remains to be seen. You said you didnt know if it was actual collusion. I think that your words were i dont know. Can you tell us whether or not from the information that youve looked at, it looks like the intelligence shows that moscow was actually rooting for donald trump or were they rooting against Hillary Clinton . And why . I think my assessment is it was both. I think that they at different times in the campaign, they felt that the fortunes of one candidate or the other was going up or down and i think that they most of the time believed that secretary clinton was going to win the election and so their efforts to denigrate her were not just to try to diminish her chances of winning but also to hurt her and for her eventual presidency. But also, its my assessment that they clearly had a more favorable view toward mr. Trump and actions they were taking were trying to increase his prospects even though i think they probably felt they were not all that great. Why . Why did they want her or why did they want her him and her not . I think a variety of reasons. One is theres a traditional i think animus between mr. Putin and secretary clinton, as well as there is not been a Good Relationship between the putins between putins and the clintons over the years. Felt that secretary clinton with some of her actions while he was secretary of state led to some of the domestic disturbances inside of russia and i think he was more concerned that she was going to be more rigid on certain issues, particularly human rights and other issues. What was donald trump going to do for them then or is it just that they didnt like hillary . No. I think that they felt that mr. Trump being a bit of an outsider, that they have in the past had some good relations with business men who happen to elevate into positions of government authority. And so, felt as though from a negotiating standpoint he might be good relations. What if thats true, one of the questions that i have and this might be more appropriate for closed session but if thats true was there in your review of the evidence, was there more damaging evidence of secretary clinton that was not revealed . And if it wasnt revealed, what does that say about their the russian ability to be actually rooting for her to win . Well, you know, we can talk about it in closed but as i said i think they anticipated that secretary clinton was going to win the election so they i believe they tried to damage and bloody her before the election, but also, i would have anticipated that had she been elected the efforts to denigrate her and hurt her would have continued during her presidency. If they did collect more information about her that they did not release, i think they were probably husbanding it for another day. Thank you. Chairman yields back. Chairman spear for five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, director brennan, for your service. I would like to spend sometime talking about the outsized role that the russian oligarchy plays in terms of supporting the russian government. Its been said that there when the russians want to cultivate a u. S. Person, theyll do it over a long period of time. Is that your experience . Yeah, i guess a lot depends on the u. S. Person and their willingness to work with the russians. Were you aware that they were attempting to cultivate then Real Estate Developer donald trump for almost eight years . Im not going to talk about any individuals, no. Are russian ol garks encouraged to invest in the United States . By whom . By putin . There are some tremendous Investment Opportunities here in the United States, and certainly, i think that mr. Putin would like to see more russian involvement and investment here in the United States so yes. And with that, russian investment, is there an expectation that theyre going to provide information to president putin about whats going on in the United States . I would fully anticipate that some of the key russian ol garks and business interests are tapped on a regular basis by russian intelligence for information, yes. Were any of them investing in u. S. Properties owned by then Real Estate Developer trump . I dont know the answer to that question. Are you aware in 2015 alone there were 106 visas granted to russians for investing in the United States in amounts of money of 500,000 or more . Theyre called eb5 visas. Im unaware of that. As a general rule within the cia, you did not investigate those who are granted eb5 visas . It may have come across our screen. We may have intelligence on it. Im not personally aware of a lot of the information that the cia had collected. So in 2014, the United States, the European Union and canada imposed sanctions on russia in response to their invasion of ukraine and crimea. These sanctions greatly restricted the flow of private money to the russian government and business leaders. How much pain do you think those sanctions have caused russia . I think it has been increasingly painful and i believe that one of mr. Putins priorities has been especially over the last year to try to get those sanctions reduced and his strategy is getting European Countries to separate from the u. S. Led sanction effort and thats why i think as part of this effort they were trying to drive a wedge of europe and washington, and some of the unfavorable characterizations of secretary clinton indicated she was an unreliable leader and problems for europe so i think thats part of a broader russian strategy. Again, i think that mr. Putin wants sanctions removed sooner rather than later. You would say thats a top if not one of the very top policy objectives in dealing with the United States . Its certainly its a key one and dealing with us indirectly by trying to wean the european nations off of the sanctions wagon. So igor sechin the ceo and then Rex Tillerson the ceo of exxonmobil were doing a deal in russia that was about a billion dollars, i believe. The sanctions that were imposed in 2014 shut that down. Is that correct . I believe so. Im not sure. So, again, it would make the case that the impacts on russia are grave in terms of the sanctions. Let me ask you another question. There have been reports in newspapers that british and dutch intelligence had provided information about meetings in european cities between russian officials associated with president putin and associates of the Trump Campaign. Is that how you first found out about those meet sngs. Im not going to talk about anything our International Partners might have shared with us. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Because of your long history with the agency, i think that youre the perfect expert to give us some Historical Perspective on how long russia has been at this, this active measure campaign. How long would you say that russia and the soviet union sought to undermine the process of our democratic framework here in the west . For many, many decades. For decades. And did russia attempt to collect intelligence on specific u. S. President ial candidates or target Political Parties or organizations in the u. S. Before 2016 . Or, was it more of a general campaign . Well, i would defer to the b bureau which would have the Investigative Lead in terms of what might be happening here on u. S. Soil, but i know that, again, the russians try to cultivate relationships with individuals but again i would defer to the bureau. Thank you. Can you provide any examples of past russian or soviet active measures as theyre called . Well, it run it is gamut from targeted assassinations of dissidents, of members of the media, of inside of russia as well as outside of russia. To getting people on their payroll in foreign governments and to carry out their actions, to their efforts in ukraine as not just the military takeover of crimea but their basic intervention in to Eastern Ukraine with the intelligence and paramilitary services, to the active propagation of propaganda and disinformation as they try to besmear much individuals and blake mail, kaprimat, that they would be able to leverage for their own purposes. So it really does run the gamut from the most heinous and violent to that which is much more subtle and insidious. Yes. The scope is alarming. How does the kremlins attempt to influence this previous election compare to soviet active measures during the cold war . What has changed in their stage craft . Well, i think when we talk about u. S. President ial elections and we know that the russians were trying to influence outcomes as well as perceptions back to the 1960s, i believe. But again, the cyber environment now really provides so much more opportunity for a variety of troublemaking and the russians take advantage of it. So the ability to go in and to collect and to use different types of techniques, spear fishing, whatever else, to gain access to peoples emails, computer systems, networks, it is something that the russians are quite adept at. And what we have seen recently is the collaboration between Russian Intelligence Services and organized criminals. I think it was march that department of justice indicted four individuals, two members of the fsb and two wellknown organized criminals, hackers, because of the pillaging of the yahoo servers. And that collaboration between russian intelligence and russian organized crime i think is more and more of a concern so that they can promote their respective interests so this is something that i think the russians are looking for new opportunities to partner with whomever they can in order to do what they want to do. As a young analyst, you probably had a lot of dealings with the head of the kgb in the early 80s and he was very focused on this active measure campaign. Well, yes. As a young analyst, i wouldnt have had direct interaction but i studied russian intelligence activities over the years and have seen it, again, manifest in many different of our Counter Intelligence cases and how they have been able to get people including inside of cia to become treasonist and frequently individuals who go along a treasonist path do not realize theyre along that path until it gets to be a bit too late and thats why, again, my radar goes up early when i see certain things that i know what the russians are trying to do and i dont know whether or not the targets of their efforts are as mindful of the russian intentions as they need to be. Thank you for your service. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Quigley five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service. You said you became aware of u. S. Persons interactions with the russians and you mentioned your radar going up. Is part of that who the russians were that were meeting . Im sorry . As part of your concern not just the fact they were interactions but who the particular russians were . Yes. It was on both sides. Yeah. Not just the nature of the contacts and the commune cannots. Its not just the fact they met. Right. You said, i want to make sure i had your words correctly. You knew that meant there was a basis to pull these threats. Can you elaborate on what that means generally . Well, frequently, and even totally divorce from the president ial election issue, if there are russian known or suspected russian Intelligence Officers who seem to be cultivating contacts with u. S. Persons, and there are reasons for cia or others to be concerned about whens happening there, we would make sure the bureau is aware of it. We wouldnt know what those followup investigative steps were taken by the bureau would have private sy rights and Civil Liberties of the people but we have the authority to follow the Counter Intelligence leads wherever they may go. Cia has unique authorities, as well. We have unique collection of authority that is make us the i think the closest partner with the bureau in this matter because we have the intelligence leads on relationships with our foreign service, Sister Services, covert action responsibilities, Collection Services and authorities. We have allsource analytic capabilities, the best in the u. S. Bar none, that combination of talent and capabilities is able to give the bureau what they need and thats why any type of suspicion we have that something may be afoot here that the russians are trying to get and not just the russians, other foreign services, as well. We make sure the bureau is fully apprised of that and thats why we have fbi agents serving inside the cia. Thank you. Switching topics here, ms. Speier mentioned the sanctions and how theyre impacting the russians. You talked about how the russians are attempting to get avoid the sanctions, getting aid from others but do they also use Money Laundering . Correct . Yes, they do. And can you elaborate just how extensive that is and where theyre doing it primarily . I would defer to some of the experts in cia and department of treasury and others but Money Laundering is a long practiced part in the russian government officials and others as well as Russian Intelligence Services in order to cover their tracks and be able to carry out their illegal, illicit and immoral issues. Avoid taxes, sanctions . Im sorry . Avoiding taxes, sanctions . Avoiding any number of problems for them and they become very adept over the years at Money Laundering. Are you particularly concerned . Im aware of some but i would defer to the bureau. Sicyprus . They use Banking Institutions in a number of countries. A lot of times what theyre doing with some of the financial elements in countries is unbeknownst to the governments and so there are a number of Financial Centers around the world that the russians have become quite active in. And i agree that the home country may not be aware and probably isnt aware of all thats taking place but you would certainly be aware and concerned if theres u. S. Persons involved with those financial institutions. Correct . Anything that we might uncover related to that we would make sure that the bureau, department of treasury and others are aware of it. Theyre the ones to follow up. Are there areas of concern involving this there . Well, i think its a wellknown fact theres a Large Russian presence, a Large Business interest, a large financial interest on the part of russia in cyprus. Again, any type of involvement of u. S. Persons or companies would be the responsibility of the fbi and other u. S. Agencies not cia to follow up on that. Finally, if a u. S. President asked any intel official not to pursue an investigation, would you construe that as obstruction . I do not have the legal basis to determine what constitutes obstruction of justice. How would you react if a president asked you not to pursue an investigation . I have never been asked that and if i was i would certainly not follow such a directive. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Turner, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Brennan, in turning back to the exchange that you had with mr. Gowdy, you stated by the way, i want to also thank you and others have as the specificity you provide. Intelligence assessments, evidence. We have got the fbi, the cia. Each of you do different jobs and your expertise is certainly helpful to us to unwind as were dealing with elements of this what were looking at and what in means trying to move forward with an investigation. You indicated that you saw when asked about whether or not youd seen evidence of collusion or collaboration, you said that you saw intelligence that indicated that there had been contacts with individuals, with russians that were of a nature that bore investigation. You said that those contacts might have been benign. Might not have been. But they rose to the level of indicating that they need to be reviewed for their nature and looking into an investigation. Did i characterize that correctly . Yes. But i dont want to take this out of context. You know, we see context interactions between russian officials and u. S. Persons all the time. It is when its in the context that theres Something Else going on and so we knew at the time that the russians were involved this effort to try to interfere with our election, so with that backdrop and increasing indications that they were involved in that, seeing these types of contacts and interactions in the same period of time raised my concern. Excellent. I appreciate that qualification. But if someone left this hearing today and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your statements. Correct . They would have misheard my response to the very good questions that were asked of me. Im trying to be as clear as possible in terms of what i know, assess and can say. You would say thats a misreputation of your statement. Yes . I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal of my statement. Absolutely. It was inscent with let me go to the next step. If someone saw what you saw and only what you saw with respect to those contacts, if they looked at the intelligence that you saw where you said it might have been benign, might not have been benign, and then they characterize what they saw as having been evidence of collusion or collaboration, theyd be misrepresenting the intelligence. Would they not . I dont know what else they have seen that could corroborate or is only what you saw. They would be misrepresenting the intelligence, correct . I presume they would be misrepresenting what it is that i saw. Again, i dont know excellent. Thank you. I appreciate that because i believe there are members of this committee that deserve that counsel because your specificity gives us an understanding of what we are reviewing and i believe there are those that reviewed some of the information that you have seen and represent it to the public absolutely incorrectly and misrepresent it. I like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. Gowdy. Sorry. I was colluding with my friend from florida. And i want to pick up where well, i want to do this. The last time you and i had talked you referred information to the bureau. Am i right . What you had seen you referred to the bureau. Okay. Well i dont know if thats the last thing we talked about but ill grant you one of the last. Yes. Wasnt a trick question. One of the last things you referred to the bureau what you saw. Is that fair . Yes. Did you also refer to director clapper . Not everything that was shared with the bureau is shared with director clapper. Why would that be . Because on counterintelligence matters, dealing with u. S. Person information of a very sensitive nature, the office of the dni and the dni does not have that type of operational responsibility and what we try to do is to make sure theres as little exposure of that information as possible. I would keep general clapper informed about the nature of my engagements but the materials that were shared with the bureau would not have been shared with the dni. Do you know if the bureau opened a matter . Well, when did you refer that information to the bureau . Would you accept last year as the answer . It was during the summertime in the okay. But even previous, there are ongoing, ongoing sharing of information with the bureau and so it was over the course of the year. All right. And in conclusion because im out of time, sometime in the summer you shared the information with director comey at the bureau . Sometime over the summer there was information that the cia had that was shared with the bureau but it wasnt the only period of time where such information was shared with the bureau. Good enough. Thanks. Gentleman yields back. Five minutes. Thank you, chair. Thank you, director. Since you passed that information to the fbi, director, have you reviewed the fbis development of that evidence or any other evidence . I am unaware of what the bureau has done with that information and i have no knowledge of anything even that the agency has done since january 20th. Are you aware of what the bureau has briefed this committee with respect to evidence of collusion . I watched jim comeys hearing and his comments and ive gone through his transcript so im aware of it, yes. Are you aware of what the fbi has briefed this committee in a classified setting with respect to evidence of collusion . No, im not, totally not. Director, may 10th of this year produced an unsettling image inside the oval office. President standing and laughing with russias ambassador and lavrov. Its been further reported that President Trump shared highly sensitive code word information with russia putting at risk u. S. Lives and jeopardizing sources and methods. Director, are the russians worthy of receiving such information in the manner alleged . I believe its important for the u. S. Intelligence to provide to any of our foreign partners any information related to terrorist threats, to Foreign Countries or their citizens. And thats why i authorized the provision of classified information numerous times to the russians that i believe saved russian lives. As i mentioned, theres an appropriate manner and procedure for doing that. They need to be followed scrupulously so theres not going to be an undermining of those collection capabilities and systems. Director, you warned that there would be consequences if they meddled in our elections. When you look at that picture and the manner in which allegedly classified information was conveyed to the russians, do you see consequences for their actions . Again, i dont know that the totality of the actions that have been taken against the russians. I know that, again, the Obama Administration in january took actions against them. So, i believe that depending on how this investigation proceeds, by the fbi and special counsel, as well as by the work of the committees, i agree that the appointment of a special counsel should not in any way stop these committees, Intelligence Committees in the senate and house to do its work because youre supposed to look at what do we need to do to strengthen our system to be better prepared. I believe consequences need to be levied on russians for it. Director, with respect to the contacts between russia and Trump Campaign persons that you referenced earlier and whether they were innocent or benign contacts, when you see a multiplicity of contacts between one country and one campaign, when does it in your mind when youre dividing whether to refer it to the fbi, when does it move from mere coincidences to a pattern . In this case, when did it . I guess its all sort of very as far as the instances are concerned but as i said, there was a backdrop there of known russian efforts to interfere in our election. And there were a variety of activities taking place that wandered whether or not they were part of that campaign and strategy. We dont have a totality of insight into all the things the russians were doing and i left it up to the professionals, the counterintelligence and russian experts to make sure that whatever information that they deemed appropriate to share with the bureau because it could be relevant to their investigation, they did that. So i wasnt the one to make decisions. Share this with bureau, share this. It was based on a longheld practices on the part of the cia to make sure that were not holding back from our bureau colleagues. Director, there is what is referred to as consciousness of guilt evidence, thats when somebody lies about a material fact, and that fact, the fact of them lying can be used against if, you know, youre telling the truth you wouldnt have anything to cover up. With respect to some of the contacts that youve referred to between russia and Trump Campaign officials, are you aware of any of those u. S. Persons who had contacts with russia either making false statements about those contacts or failing to disclose those contacts . I think thats something that you can pursue in closed session. And director, with respect to the contact that is you have seen, have you ever seen in your history working as an intelligence official this number of contacts between a foreign adversary and a president ial campaign . I think our collection systems have increased over the years and so i dont know whether or not its a result of better collection or because there were more contacts this time than i just do not have a basis to make a determination about this. Thank you. Yield back. Doctor . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, director brennan, for being here and your candor in this conversation. Have you ever been asked to give your opinion to the fbi . Do they engage you in that way . You said theres fbi engaged in this, cia. So i didnt know if they have an opinion or ask your opinion on that. Well, we would we would make a referral to the department of justice in many instances when we saw classified information appear in the public and unauthorized fashion and so that referral is made to the department of justice to determine whether or not there should be a followup investigation and its the fbi that then takes a look at the circumstances, and makes the decision to that would be the referral we make. Okay. And weve pretty much established that rusians, soviet unions, they have tried to meddle with our elections for years. You came in as director after the last election. And which leads me to something mr. Himes was talking about. He said, you know, the rules the russian playbook or whatever they try to build relationships, especially with influential americans and you would agree with that. Thats one of the things youre kind of looking out for, these relationships, at least thats what i believe youve said so im just trying to understand process here a little bit. What sets up a red flag . What type of conversation do you hear that says, hmm, maybe we need to take a closer look into this or refer it on and i cant help but thank back through the previous election when we see on videotape president obama says this is my last election. After my election, i have more flexibility. And president medvedev who hes speaking to, says i understand and i stand with you. Now, you talk about the playbook. Sounds like i stand with you, thats a strong relationship. This is certainly an influential american and we are talking openly about elections so again im not trying to launch another investigation here but i am concerned about the process. So, you werent sitting as a director at that time but, you know, as mr. Sewell used the term, i think thats a disturbing image to americans is the kind of relationship. Would you question this interaction or were where that type of conversation is taking place . Again, im just trying to understand process of how it moves from cia to fbi to doj. It was a direct conversation between the heads of government and state between two countries. Im not going to respond to your okay. Thats what i think were again, im trying to get some understanding of what sets off a red flag. You know, and when do you refer it to Law Enforcement . I know you werent the director at that time. But boy, that just hits all the things you were talking about in the playbook. Elections, influential americans and building a relationship. I stand by you. Again, just trying to get to the substance there but thats interesting you cant respond to a personal conversation but this is what were talking about. Anyway, with that yield i back go ahead. I try to avoid getting involved in political, partisan issues. With respect, will not recognize that question. Thank you. And with that, i yield the remainder of my time to mr. Gowdy. Thank you, dr. Wenstrup. Congressman rooney and you were discussing generally the motive. Lets assume its given that the russians did not like secretary clinton, did not like president obama for that matter. And desired a negative things for her. But they also thought she was going to win. Was it your testimony that all of the information stolen was not publicly disseminated . No. I said if they had collected Additional Information as i think was implied, the effort to try to further hurt her if she became president , that information, any type of derogatory information about her could have been husbanded for postelection perhap. Do you know if negative information was husbanded to use your word and not disseminated . Again, i think that would be inappropriate to talk about in an open session like this. Is it inappropriate to both i get not asking you about the nature of it. Is it inappropriate to answer yes or no was it husbanded but not disseminated . My request would be that we could talk about that in closed session. Im honor that request and talk about in it a little bit. Chairman yields back. Mr. Castro. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony here today. Over the course of the last several months, the intelligence agencies have been berated by the president for the possibility of leaks. Have you are you aware of his tweets and other criticisms hes made about leaking in the intelligence agencies . I know there have been a number of allegations made publicly about intelligence individuals responsible for those leaks. Are you aware of a story yesterday that quote three white house staffers are identified for leaking information. Potus will fire multiple people when he returns to d. C. Im unaware of that story or the facts if any underneath it. If the story is true, we dont know if it is or not, if its true that there may have been people that leaked classified info at the white house, it seems like an obvious question, should be an obvious answer, are there people at the white house that would have classified information to leak to journalists . White house officials if they have the appropriate security clearances based on the position would have access to classified information, yes. Okay. And then the second part of that is, if the white house has determined that leaks are coming from within their operation, could you tell us how they would go about determining that . How would they figure out that they have leakers in the white house . If there is a sense that there are unauthorized disclosures of classified information from within the white house, i think its imperative that the fbi be brought back into the matter to be an appropriate investigation to determine whether or not that conduct was criminal or not and there shouldnt be just an independent investigation that takes place. They can do some efforts to try to contain any hemorrhaging of information but it really is the responsibility of Law Enforcement and the bureau to investigate criminal leaks of classified information. Thank you. Now, i have some questions about the ic assessment itself and the declassified report because there has been a lot of disinformation and confusion about the intelligence assessment and its been attacked, also. So, mr. Brennan, when did the ic start warning about the russian threat and how was the assessment produced . Do you believe that the people working on it has the skills and expertise to write such an important assessment . Well, the Intelligence Community assessment that was produced in early january was initiated by president obama in early december to ensure that there was going to be a full accounting of russian activities. And directed that there be a classified and unclassified version of that. The effort to uncover the russian activities took place prior to that, and in both instances, i believe that the right people with the requisite array of skills were involved in the initial collection effort and assessment effort of russian activities up to and even in the aftermath of the election in november and then there was additional individuals who were added to that to a group that could draft this assessment so that it could be produced in early jn. Let me ask you, how and why did all three agencies come to such a high degree of confidence about their assessment . I think that they rigorously intergrated the data. Very careful and deep discussions about what the data told them about their assessments and so therefore there was a unanimous consensus of the three agencies and odni of the judgments. There was one variation as far as the nsas confidence level in terms of the russian advocacy of mr. Trump but with that lone exception it was a consensus assessment. And the report also talked extensively about the role of wikileaks in working with russia on the covert action campaign. Can you talk a bit more about how they fit . I think as the assessment says that the russians used cutout for the wikileaks exposure. And when you look at the wikileaks releases over time, you can see that sometimes they are timed to coincide with certain events and i think theyre always intended to undermine u. S. National security and russia protests theyre not working with wikileaks and wikileaks protests theyre not working with russians i think on both parts disingenuous. Back to the leaking at the white house, or potential leaking, what surveillance methods would the president or white house have to engage in on its own staffers that would be legal and where might they cross the line . Im not a lawyer and youd have to go to department of justice and the fbi in terms of what statutory authorities they might have which i just am not aware. I dont know. Thank you, director. Gentlemans time expires. Mr. Stuart, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Director, for your years for service. I want to reserve our time and go through and make a point worth making and just add that ive reviewed the raw intelligence of the cia regarding the analysis of whether they preferred mr. Trump. I dont agree with the conclusion, particularly that its such a high level of confidence. I just think there should have been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and for those that also didnt share in the conclusion of a high degree of confidence but having said that i do think we can agree that russia wants a weakened u. S. President. Would you agree with that . Yes. Yes. Certainly. And in regards to secretary clinton, you have said that their primary goal seemed to be to weaken her candidacy so that she would be a weakened u. S. President. Would the same thing be true now . Would russia want a weakened u. S. President mr. Trump . I think they want to be able to weaken u. S. Policies, especially on the international stage. I do think that there is an interest on the part of the russians to improve relations with the United States and i do think its important that relations between washington and moscow be improved because but even if they want improved relationships, they would want that on their terms as much as able and that would be better accomplished by having a weakened u. S. President , regardless of who it is. Wouldnt you say thats true . One can argue the point or that a stronger president is able to make have an accommodation with russia out of strength as opposed to out of weakness. Okay. I would agree with you that there are some circumstances but i think in general they weak nled u. S. , a weakened western influence in the world is in their interest. The active measures, the propaganda, false news reports, they dont end with the u. S. Election and i think its appropriate that we would warn the American People that the active measures, propaganda, fake news stories, et cetera, would be applicable today, as well. And that they would be trying to weaken our u. S. President and foreign leaders, as well as, as we look at upcoming elections. Would you agree with that . Yes, generally. Thank you. I yield the remainder of my time to mr. Gowdy. I thank my friend of utah. Director brennan, why sit important to protect the identity of u. S. Persons as part of our surveillance programs . Because there is, i think, a right of alm americans to privacy. And that sometimes information is collected about u. S. Persons who may or may not be involved in any manner of criminal activity. And therefore, respecting that privacy of u. S. Citizens the Intelligence Community goes to Great Lengths to cover the identities of u. S. Persons if they happen to be included in an intelligence collection. For all those reasons and others, were not talking about leaks, we are talking about masking within the Intelligence Community, right . Were not talking about reading it on a front page of newspapers. We are talking about prohibitions that you place on yourself with respect to identifying u. S. Persons as part of our surveillance programs, right . Thats correct, yes. All right. And you cited some of the very Important Reasons that we do that and i would assume that there is a process, a protocol under which the Intelligence Community goes through if they seek to unmask a u. S. Persons name. Thats correct. Have you ever requested that a u. S. Persons name be unmasked . Yes, i have. Have you also ooetder approved or denied requests of others that a u. S. Persons name be unmasked . I dont recall in my tenure at cia any decision on unmasking for someone else coming up to my level. It would have been that decision would have been made at a lower level within the agency. Are you aware of any request within the community that were denied . I i do not i didnt have visibility have visibility to. So i dont recall one that i was denied. Do you recall any u. S. Ambassadors asking that names be unmasked . I dont i dont know. Maybe its ringing a vague bell, but im not i could not answer with any confidence on that. Do you remember what your last day on the job was at the c. I. A. . What was the date . It was noon on january 20th when i gave up my responsibilities as director of c. I. A. On either january 19th or up until noon on january 20th, did you make any unmasking request . I do not believe i did. So you did not make any request on the last day that you were employed . No, i was not in the agency on the last day i was employed. I definitely know on the last day i was employed i definitely did not make such a request. Thank you, director. Your time expired. Mr. Crawford, five minutes. Im sorry, mr. Heck. Mr. Heck, five minutes. I just want to make sure youre awake. All over it, mike. Thank you, sir. Director brennan, thanks for being here. I wanted to freely confess theres an element with this Russian Investigation which i struggled. It is this, how do i explain why this should matter and why people should care . What words do i use to explain this to folks who have a lot of other things on their mind, things like their kids, like keeping their job, managing their debt, carrying for an elderly parent. Why should people care that the russians hacked into our computers and then selectively disclosed that information with the express purpose of swaying an election . Why should they care that the russians are doing this in other western democracies and will continue to do so, by the way, at minimal investment. Thats the precise question that i actually put to then director comey and admiral rogers when they were with us in march. I now pose it to you, sir. So, not for my sake, but for americas sake, as someone who has devoted your entire life to public service, in your own words, please tell my constituents, my neighbors why they should care, not just here in washington, d. C. , but in Washington State and texas and connecticut and points in between. Why should they care . Why do you care, sir . Because for the last 241 years this nation and its citizens have cherished the freedom and liberty that this country was founded upon. Many, many americans, brave americans over the years have lost their lives to be able to protect that freedom and liberty. Ive lost their lives also to protect the freedom and liberties of other countries and other peoples around the world. Our ability to choose our elected leaders as we see fit is, i believe, inalienable right that we must protect with all our resources and power. The fact that the russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American People was not going to be realized by that election, i find outrageous and something that we need to with every last ounce of devotion to this country resist and to try to act to prevent further instances of that. And so, therefore, i believe that this is something thats critically important to every american. It is certainly very important to me for my children and grandchildren to make sure that never again will a foreign country try to influence and interfere in the Foundation Stone of this country, which is electing our democratic leaders. In other words, sir, because you love your country. Thats the cliff note version of it, yes. I believe much is at stake here, including the following whether american whether america will have elections that we can trust, that our continuing measures of self determination, free from foreign interference, whether we will smartly arm ourselves against any future such digital invasion, whether we are Strong Enough to make good on the promise to be a nation of rule by law, whether we will hold those accountable who seek to abrade our cherished institutions, whether we will stand up for democracy or enable this insidious atok krasy much is at stake. No one should be misled, however, because this isnt just about russia, this is about us and our meddle. The famous american dip employee mat George Kennen said at the outset of the cold war much depends on the health and vigor of our own society, and indeed it does. Were being tested. Were divided. Weve gone to our respective corners and claimed our own set of facts. Anger has become the currency of our civic discourse. Reason has been replaced with decibel level. But you know what, people also yearn for a reaffirmation of the value of narrative of america, which is the very thing that makes us great. Thats what i hear when im home, whether im playing cards with my buddies or out to a movie with my wife paula or having coffee in the nar thex of church. And do you know why . Do you know why americans yearn for this . Its because its what makes us makes it possible for us to be for something bigger than ourselves. And that is precisely what america is hoping if not counting on us, on this dias to do. To be for something bigger than ourselves and to put our country above party. And i pray that thats what well do. Thank you, sir, for your decades of service and for your presence here today. Thank you. Gentlemans time has expired. Mr. Crawford, five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will yield to the gentleman from mr. South carolina. I thank my friend from arkansas. Director brennan, do you know who commissioned this steele dossier . I dont. Do you know if the fbi paid for any portion of the steele dossier . I dont know. I know that there are press reports related to that, but i dont know. I have no firsthand knowledge of that. Do you know whether any of the underlying allegations made in this steele dossier were ever tested, probed, examined, crossexamined, whether the sources were examined for reliability, credibility . I know that there were efforts made by the bureau to try to understand whether or not any of the information in that was valid, but i just i dont have any firsthand knowledge of it. Do you know if the bureau ever relied on the steele dossier as part of any Court Filings . Applications, petitions, pleadings . I have no awareness. Did the c. I. A. Rely on it . No. Why not . It wasnt part of the corpus of intelligence that we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community assessment that was done. It was not. All right. This is my last line of question, and i hope i have waited sufficiently waited long enough to wait about leaks to not inflame the anger of people in the media who think we are hype focussed on it. Well do it last. Some of your colleagues testified that our surveillance programs are critical, vital, indispensable to our National Security. Do you agree with their assessment . Speaking generally yes, some of those programs are absolutely essential and vital to our National Security. Do you think theres a tas sid agreement between the American People and their government that they will allow a certain power, certain freedoms in exchange for safeguarding the privacy of the information collected . I think there is certainly an expectation that there would be a protection of privacy as the government carries out its responsibilities, yes. And you and i discussed some of those privacy protections even within the Intelligence Community as it relates to u. S. Persons and youve been very clear this morning, in fact, ive noted the times youve said u. S. Persons. You could have inserted a name, but you did not. You had the discipline to say u. S. Person. And that discipline is practiced throughout the Intelligence Community unless and until there is a request to unmask that u. S. Persons name, correct . I would like to think that discipline is still exercised even if a request to unmask a name is made. All right. We protect u. S. Persons even within those like yourself and director pompeo and admiral rogers and director comey and the people that we trust with awesome powers, we still impose some restrictions on them and that they have to request an unmasking, there has to be, i assume, a justification, you cant wake up in the morning and say, hey, i feel like knowing who participated in x, y and z, there has to be justification, right . Yes. So how do we get from that to names being on the front pages of certain major u. S. Newspapers . Thats an excellent question. What would be an equally excellent answer . That somebody violated their oath to protect classified information and violated an oath and shared that information in an unauthorized fashion with members of the media. Well, my friend from washington and is my friend, i was impressed not only with his eloquence but with the conviction of which he just spoke, but ive got other colleagues, not from washington, that tend to minimize the nature of leaks as if there is some how a weighing and balancing that needs to take place between how interesting we may find the underlying information, how interesting we may find the underlying names. I have seen attempts unfortunately by members of this very body to mitigate and explain away and minimize what it does to the surveillance programs to have leaks of classified information. So, i will finish with this, i believe theres some surveillance programs that are up for reauthorization. What would you say to the American People as names you can watch the res of this online just go to our cspan video library, cspan. Org. Live here on cspan 3, a sub House Committee hearing people who remain in the u. S. With expired visas. Speaking now, martha mcsally, the chairman of the sub committee. But the numbers are stark. Cpb calculated that we had nearly 740,000 people overstay their visas at some point in fiscal year 2016. Even using cpbs more generous numbers that account for some of those overstays who eventually leave, albeit late, we had almost 630,000 overstays still in the country at the end of last fiscal year. Over more time as more and more
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.