Video: Sen. Mark Warner to Tulsi Gabbard – “Repeatedly, you have excused our adversaries’ worst actions, and instead blamed the United States and our allies for them.”

See below for Sen. Mark Warner’s opening remarks on Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination hearing this morning before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Sen. Warner is Vice Chair of the committee…

Below are Vice Chairman Warner’s opening remarks as prepared for delivery: 

Before I begin, I want to recognize the tragic loss of life that took place last night at Reagan Airport. This morning, I received a briefing at Reagan Airport from the Department of Transportation, alongside my colleagues. I am praying for all the families and the victims. I also want to thank the brave first responders for their efforts. This is a true tragedy. 

Ms. Gabbard, welcome. And congratulations on your nomination to be the next Director of National Intelligence. 

I would like to begin by thanking you for your decades of public service to our nation, both in uniform and as the former representative for Hawaii. I applaud your continuing commitment to serve, should you be confirmed. 

The President has nominated you to be the next Director of National Intelligence. Many people may not understand the importance of that position: If confirmed, you would lead the 18 agencies of the Intelligence Community. You will also serve as the Principal Advisor to the President, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council for all intelligence matters related to national security. And you would be responsible for over $100 billion between the National Intelligence Program and the Military Intelligence Program. 

It is a position of great importance and significance to our national security, created after one of the worst security failures in our nation’s history: 9/11. For that reason, when Congress established the position – thanks in large part to the work of my good friend, Susan Collins – it mandated in law that any individual nominated for the position must have, and I quote, “extensive national security expertise.” 

I appreciated you taking the time to meet with me in my office and I will note as I did in that meeting, I continue to have significant concerns about your judgment and your qualifications to meet the standard as set by the law. 

First, as I noted previously, the DNI was created in part to fill an intelligence sharing gap, which the 9/11 Commission identified. That mission – to share intelligence not only between all U.S. departments and agencies, but also with allies – is predicated on trust… trust that we and our allies will protect each other’s secrets. Yet repeatedly, you have excused our adversaries’ worst actions, and instead blamed the United States and our allies for them. 

For example, you blamed NATO for Russia’ 2022 invasion of Ukraine. You rejected the conclusion that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, despite it being the unanimous assessment of the Trump Administration DOD, State Department, and IC, as well as the assessment of our European allies. Instead, you blamed the United States for supporting al Qa’ida, ISIS, and other terrorist groups in Syria. 

Now I don’t know if your intent in making those statements was to defend those dictators, or if you were simply unaware of the intelligence and how your statements would be perceived. In either case, it raises serious questions about your judgment. It also leads me to question whether you have what it takes to build and develop the trust relationships necessary to give our allies confidence that they can share their most sensitive intelligence with us. Make no mistake about it – if they stop sharing that intelligence, we will all be less safe. To take just one example, last summer, intelligence sharing between the United States and Austria saved countless lives by disrupting a terrorist attack at a Taylor Swift concert. 

Second, you have been publicly outspoken in your praise and defense of Edward Snowden – someone who betrayed the trust and jeopardized the security of our Nation. The vast majority of the information he stole and leaked – before running off to hide in China and Russia, might I add – had nothing to do with Americans’ privacy and compromised our nation’s most sensitive collection sources and methods. Yet, you have celebrated Snowden as a, quote, “brave whistleblower” and advocated for his pardon. 

Furthermore, when given the opportunity to clarify your position in the Committee’s pre-hearing questions, you declined… and instead you expressed that, and I quote, “The DNI… has no role in determining whether or not Edward Snowden is a lawful whistleblower.” 

This is troubling to me in a bunch of ways. Not only do you seem to believe that someone who divulged sensitive national secrets to Russia and China should be celebrated as “brave”… you also do not seem to understand the DNI’s role in whistleblower determinations. 

In fact, the DNI has a significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to this Committee… and I would have serious concerns about confirming someone who cannot distinguish between complaints that are made lawfully, and those that are not. Further, it is the statutory responsibility of the DNI to “protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.” What message would it send to the intelligence workforce to have a DNI who would celebrate staff and contractors deciding to leak our Nation’s most sensitive secrets as they see fit? 

Third, until just recently you had a clear and consistent record of opposing FISA 702.  I know the Members of the Committee already understand this, but for those watching today who may not, it is hard to overstate the importance of this law.  It is responsible for sixty percent of the intelligence in the President’s Daily Brief, and it has been instrumental in disrupting everything from terrorist attacks to fentanyl trafficking to foreign cyberattacks.  

Many in Congress and on this Committee have, at various points, supported reforms to better balance security and civil liberties. However, you have consistently gone further. Not only did you vote against reauthorizing 702, you introduced legislation to repeal the whole thing and have called its very existence a, quote, “blatant disregard for our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.” 

I understand that since you have been nominated to be DNI you have expressed a change of heart. That is welcome, but I do not find it to be credible given your record. 

The world today is more complex and more dangerous than ever before and we need serious people with sufficient experience and expertise to navigate that complexity. I hope you will use this opportunity to address my concerns and I look forward to a robust and thorough discussion.