Tulsi Gabbard Senate Confirmation Hearing - The Highlights & Deep Dive Research

I would normally reserve this for paid subscribers but I’ve decided to release it for a larger audience. The video will be available for paid subscribers only but the text version is free for everyone. I’m putting the paywall at the very bottom of the transcript/research notes.

Tulsi Gabbard was sworn in a Director of National Intelligence yesterday. Out of all of Trump’s cabinet picks she is one of the most dangerous which is why I think it’s so important to share this with as many people as possible.

This is a transcript of an edit of her confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025. I’ve cut two and a half hours down to about 37 minutes.

Her words and actions speak for themselves. She has repeatedly defended enemies of the United States, promoted crackpot theories over U.S. intelligence experts and emboldened up violent dictators.

I wanted to share this to show that some Democratic and independent senators still fought back. They did not capitulate or bow down to Trump.

Gabbard tended to repeat herself throughout the hearing so I’ve limited her responses so you don’t have to read the exact talking points with each answer.

For this particular edit I’ve included several context notes as I wanted to make it easier for readers to understand Gabbard’s complex history.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

Warner: You blame NATO for Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. You rejected the conclusion that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria despite it being the unanimous assessment of the then Trump administration's DoD, State Department, and IC (Intelligence Community), as well as the assessment of our European allies. Instead, you blame the United States for supporting 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 for this, Senator serious questions about your judgment. It also leads me to question whether you can develop the trust necessary to give our allies confidence that they can share their most sensitive. We've seen this as recently as this past year, where because of those strong intelligence sharing between the United States and Austria, countless lives were saved by disrupting a terrorist attack that was going to take place at the Taylor Swift concert in Vienna.

Warner: Pre-hearing questions. You declined. And instead you expressed, and again, I quote, the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) has no role in determining whether or not Edward Snowden is a lawful whistleblower, whatever that is. That is troubling to me in so many ways. Not only do you think that someone who divulged secrets and then ran off to Russia should be celebrated as brave, but you don't seem to understand the DNI role in determining whistleblower determinations. In fact, the DNI has a significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to this committee. They're all laid out right here in this statute. And I would have serious concerns about confirming someone who cannot distinguish between complaints that are made lawfully and those that are made not. In the statute it says the job of the DNI is to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. That's a quote. I guess I'm asking what message would it send to have a DNI who would celebrate the work of a member of the IC, or a contractor that would, on their own mission to decide what's appropriate to leak. I don't understand it. Third, until recently, you had a clear and consistent record of opposing FISA 702. I know members on this committee already understand how important this is, but for folks who don't. This law is critical to our national security. Literally 60% on average of what goes into the president's Daily brief, what President Trump will read each day in assessing what's going on in the world comes from this important piece of law that allows us to seek out those foreign foreigners abroad for coverage, and it's helped prevent terrorist attacks. It helps us prevent foreign cyber attacks. It helps us on a topic that a lot of folks are looking at. Fentanyl trafficking.

Context Note - What is FISA 702?

In 2008, Congress enacted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a critical intelligence collection authority that enables the Intelligence Community (IC) to collect, analyze, and appropriately share foreign intelligence information about national security threats. Section 702 authorizes targeted intelligence collection of specific types of foreign intelligence information—such as information concerning international terrorism or the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction—identified by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.

Section 702 is not a bulk collection program; it is a substantial and important targeted intelligence collection program. Every Section 702 targeting decision is individualized and documented, approved pursuant to a multi-step process embodied in specific targeting procedures, and reviewed by an independent oversight team.

Although all Section 702 targets must be non-United States persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, Congress has always recognized that such targets may send an email or have a phone call with a United States person. For this reason, Section 702 requires specific procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and sharing of any information concerning United States persons.

Congress also amended Section 702 to require specific procedures to ensure the querying of any Section 702-acquired information is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Section 702 program is subject to extensive oversight. The Attorney General must approve the targeting, minimization, and querying procedures, each of which are annually reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for consistency with the FISA statute and the Fourth Amendment.

FISA 702 got brought up a lot in Gabbard’s hearing since she was a huge opponent of the program but changed her position about it once she was nominated by Trump to be the Director of National Intelligence.

Warner: First, until you're nominated by the president to be the DNI, you consistently praised the actions of Edward Snowden, someone who I believe jeopardize the security of our nation and then never to flaunt that, fled to Russia, you even called Edward Snowden. I quote here a brave whistleblower. Every member of this committee supports the rights of legal whistleblowers. But Edward Snowden, in whistleblower and in this case, I'm a lot closer to the chairman's words where he said Snowden is, quote, “an egotistical serial liar and traitor who quote, deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.” Miss Gabbard a simple yes or no question. Do you still think Edward Snowden is brave?

Gabbard: Mr. Vice Chairman Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you on this committee, or seek out the IG to release that information. The fact is, he also even as he broke the law, released information that exposed egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs that are happening within our government that lead to serious reforms that Congress undertook.

Warner: Excuse me Miss Gabbard. Chairman, we got five minutes. So I take your answer, you know, and these are your quotes. “Brave. Please join my bipartisan legislation calling for charges to be dropped against him (Snowden)” Do you disagree that legislation was not appropriate? Do you believe he is brave or not? Do you back those words?

Gabbard: Once again Senator, Edward Snowden broke the law. He's also released information that exposed the United States government’s illegal programs.

Warner: We agree that he broke the law. I’m asking you a question whether your legislation or your words are still your beliefs. Yes or no, please.

Gabbard: I'm making myself very clear. Edward Snowden broke the law. He released information about the United States illegal activity.

Warner: Ma’am I don’t think you’re going to answer. I agree with Tom Cotton. He's a traitor. You for years, until you got chosen by President Trump, have celebrated this guy as brave. You've called for him to be pardoned for his charges to be dropped. I cannot imagine a Director of National Intelligence that would say that kind of behavior is okay.

How would we maintain the trust of the IC (Intelligence Community) in the contractors workforce? How would we maintain the trust of our Five Eye partners? Again, I know my colleagues going to raise these, but rather than standing up to dictators like Putin and Assad, you know, he sometimes amplified his talking points. I mean, I just do not understand how you can blame NATO for Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine. And when Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. You didn't. I mean, I can go to other quotes. You actually questioned American intelligence.

Context Note - Who Are the Five Eye partners?

The Five Eye Partners also known as FIORC (Five Eyes Intelligence Oversight and Review Council) is composed of the following non-political intelligence oversight, review, and security entities of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States

• The Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security of Australia

• The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency of Canada

• The Office of the Intelligence Commisioner of Canada

• The Commissioner of Intelligence Warrants and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security of New Zealand

• The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office of the United Kingdom

• The Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community of the United States

The Council members exchange views on subjects of mutual interest and concern; compare best practices in review and oversight methodology; explore areas where cooperation on reviews and the sharing of results is permitted where appropriate; encourage transparency to the largest extent possible to enhance public trust; and maintain contact with political offices, oversight and review committees, and countries as appropriate.

Senator Mark Heinrich (D-NM)

Heinrich: You traveled to Syria and Lebanon in January 2017. Bassam Khawam personally paid for that trip. And beside him and his brother Elias accompanied you to both Lebanon and Syria. The Coen brothers have links to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an ally of Hezbollah. And in fact, in 2008, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party participated in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister and assisted Hezbollah in Beirut. When did you become aware of the links between the Khawam brothers and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party?

Context Note Who is Bassam Khawam?

A Cleveland-based Lebanese American activist affiliated with pro-Assad groups.

Context Note What is Syrian Social Nationalist Party?

(Source - UPenn Middle East Center) The Syrian Social National Party (SSNP) was established under clandestine circumstances by Antoine Saadeh in the early 1930s. Its primary objective was to unify the people of greater Syria. Throughout the 1930s, the SSNP attracted numerous followers by expanding into Syria, Jordan and Palestine. The party gained popularity for its resistance to the Israeli invasions of South Lebanon. After a brief division in the 1980s, the party was reunited over the following decades and now has deputies in the Lebanese parliament.

The SSNP has been aligned with the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) and the Lebanese Communist Party. At the time Gabbard traveled to Syria it was a pro-Assad organization that fought alongside the Syrian Armed Forces.

According to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace - The Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP): In the Homs region and elsewhere, a branch of the small, pseudo-Fascist Syrian Social Nationalist Party, which operates in both Lebanon and Syria, has come to the aid of the Assad regime, implanting itself particularly among the region’s Christians.

Context Note - Who is Bashar al-Assad?

(Source Britannica) Bashar al-Assad basically inherited the presidency of Syria from his father, Hafez al-Assad. He ruled Syria in 2000 for 13 years until his regime was toppled at the end of an extended bloody civil war.

Assad largely continued his father’s authoritarian methods. He employed brutal tactics such as imprisonment, torture and murder of political dissidents. Since Syria has been liberated investigators have discovered vast prisons, evidence of the use of torture and mass graves.

Beginning in March 2011 antigovernment protests broke out in Syria, inspired by a wave of pro-democracy uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Syrian security forces used lethal force against demonstrators.

Assad infamously used chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. The so-called “barrel bombs”—improvised explosives dropped from helicopters and airplanes—were routinely used to devastating effect against military and civilian targets in rebel-held areas. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime.

In the summer of 2015, Russia became more involved in the conflict, deploying troops and military equipment to an air base near Latakia. Russia launched airstrikes which they originally said were targeting the terrorist group ISIL, but it quickly became clear that they were targeting mostly rebels fighting against Assad, with the intention of propping up the Assad regime.

The Syrian Civil was a complicated mess with multiple factions which became a world war by proxy in many ways. My focus for this analysis is Gabbard’s point of view towards Assad and Putin. This not meant as an overview for the entire conflict.

Tulsi Gabbard defended Assad and repeatedly implied that the United States was the main driver behind the Syrian Civil War. She has blamed both President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for encouraging the resistance against Assad as a form of U.S. backed regime change.

In 2017 she called the Syrian Civil War “our country’s illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government.”

Russia was heavily involved in the conflict the U.S. played a much smaller role.

Assad fled the country as rebel forces overtook it in December 2024. He currently is living in exile in Russia under the protection of Vladimir Putin.

I could write a lot more about Gabbard but it would overwhelm this edit of her confirmation hearing. The Week compiled a list of her many controversies.

Gabbard: Senator, thank you for your question. Just a point of clarification. I paid for my own expenses and travel on that trip. I was not aware of any accusations of, these two Lebanese Americans Association runs until after the trip occurred.

Heinrich: And I think when you reimbursed. Correct.

Gabbard: Correct. Not not not because of, I wanted to make sure that there were no perceived conflicts of interest. I address this specific question to these Lebanese Americans who had organized the trip. And they vehemently denied any associations with that group.

Heinrich: There is, not a great deal in the public record about what you and, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad discussed for so long in January of 2017. And I think there's a great deal of interest from the American people about what was discussed in that meeting. So what did you talk about? And did you press Assad on things like his use of chemical weapons, systematic torture and the killing of so many Syrians?

Gabbard: Yes. Senator, I, I upon returning from this trip, I met with people like then, Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer, talked to them and answered their questions about the trip. And quite frankly, I was surprised that there was no one from the intelligence community or the State Department who reached out or showed any interest whatsoever.

Context Note - Gabbard was not sanctioned by the State Department to go to Syria.

Gabbard was not sanctioned by anyone in the U.S. government to travel to Syria or meet with a foreign leader. At the time The State Department has issued a travel warning that warned U.S. citizens against all travel to the country.

Gabbard: In my takeaways from that trip, I would have been very happy to have a conversation and give them a back brief. I went with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who had been there many times before and who had met with Assad before. A number of topics were covered and discussed. And to directly answer your question, yes. I asked him tough questions about his own regime's actions. The use of chemical weapons and the brutal tactics that were being used against his own people.

Context Note - She was “Skeptical of Assad’s use of chemical weapons in 2017.”

According to reporting by CNN in April 2017 Gabbard made several statements about Assad’s use of chemical weapons. This was four months after she met with him in Syria.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Gabbard if she didn’t believe the President, the secretary of state and Pentagon officials, all of whom came to the same conclusion: that Assad’s regime was responsible for using chemical weapons.

She responded “So, yes, I’m skeptical,” after mentioning previous inaccurate intelligence the U.S. had before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 that suggested that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

She also said: “Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?”

Blitzer brought up specific evidence gathered by the U.S. military that backed up the accusations against Assad.

Gabbard replied, “Congress and the American people need to see and analyze this evidence and then make a decision based on that, she continued “I have not seen that independent investigation occur and that proof presented showing exactly what happened and there are a number of theories of exactly what happened that day.”

“Don’t you believe Bashar al-Assad bears any responsibility for the horrific deaths that have occurred in his own country?” Blitzer asked.

“There’s responsibility that goes around,” Gabbard said, “Standing here pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people. It will not bring about an end to this war.”

Heinrich: Were you able to extract any concessions from President Assad?

Gabbard: No. And I didn't expect to, but I felt these issues were important to address.

Heinrich: According to your revised trip report, your third meeting in Syria after meeting with Assad. And then his wife was with, Grand Mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun. Forgive me if I'm not pronouncing that correctly. In an October 2011 speech, the Grand Mufti warned the U.S. and Europe that we will prepare suicide bombers who are already in your countries. If you bomb Syria or Lebanon. What was the goal or what did you accomplish by meeting with Grand Mufti?

Gabbard: Senator, before going on the trip and during their during my time both in Syria and Lebanon. I made it a point to meet with different religious leaders, both Muslim leaders as well as, various Christian and Catholic leaders who were there, in the region. I was I did that both in Syria and in Lebanon, to hear from them about what their concerns or thoughts were with regard to the war that was being raged at the time.

Heinrich: Were you aware of his threats regarding suicide bombers in the United States?

Gabbard: I was not and had not heard that until today.

Senator Angus King (I-ME)

King: I noted that Edward Snowden was in Hawaii, of all places, for a year and a half before he fled to Hong Kong. And then on to Russia. Did you ever meet him or have any contact with him during that period or subsequently with telephone calls, emails, zooms? Contact with he or his lawyers?

Gabbard: No, Senator, not at any time. Have I had contact with Edward Snowden.

King: And you introduced a bill in 2020 that was essentially a pardon. It. It basically said, all charges should be, dropped. You had a lot of where as is in that bill, where did the factual basis for those whereas clauses come from?

Gabbard: Senator, if I recall, in that bill, it came from publicly available information.

King: I see. And, were you aware that there was a bipartisan committee, report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2016 on Snowden's activities?

Gabbard: I don't recall specifically at that time, but I am aware of that committee's report and executive summary that was reported publicly. I did not have access to the classified, report that that summary was based on.

King: Did you read that report prior to filing your bill in 2020?

Gabbard: Senator, I don't recall specifically. I, I remember reading a lot of materials prior to filing that bill.

King: Well, the bipartisan committee report number, the first, the first item Edward Snowden, perpetrated the largest and most damaging public release of classified information in U.S. intelligence history. It goes on to say Snowden caused tremendous damage to national security. And the vast majority of the documents he stole have nothing to do with programs impacting individual privacy. But you you don't recall ever seeing the work of that committee?

Gabbard: I'm aware of those conclusions drawn. Edward Snowden, are.

King: You are aware now. Were you aware at the time?

Gabbard: Yes, I was Senator. Edward Snowden broke the law. There's no question about that. He should not have released all of that information that caused that harm. There's no question about that.

King: How many documents did he release?

Gabbard: I know that he took over a million documents. I don't know specifically how many of those million he specifically released.

King: Well, you stated very unequivocally today Snowden broke the law, but you introduced a bill in Congress, along with Congressman Matt Gaetz, to essentially pardon him, that he broke the law, but it wasn't all that serious. Is that what you thought in 2020?

Gabbard: I take very seriously upholding our Constitution and have sworn an oath to support and defend that Constitution over eight times in my life. My statements in the past have been reflective of the egregious and illegal programs that were exposed in that leak.

King: But you ignore the vast majority as the committee found bipartisan. I think Devin Nunes was the chair. Adam Schiff was the vice chair. The the conclusion was that the vast majority of these, these things that he released had nothing to do with, with constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment, but indeed were enormous, compromises of our national security.

Gabbard: Senator, I focused on raising concerns around egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs that our government was conducting that clearly violated American's Fourth Amendment.

King: I think you I think you testified that you never saw the classified version of this report.

Gabbard: That's correct.

King: On page 22 of the report, there's a heading that's not classified that says, what damage did Snowden cause? And then there's a lot of redacted material. Did that not raise a red flag for you or do you not recall seeing?

Gabbard: Edward Snowden broke the law. Like I said, I did not have I did not have access to that. Classified.

King: Did you seek access to it?

Gabbard: I believe so, yes. This was quite some time ago.

King: But you still introduced your bill to essentially

Gabbard: I take very seriously the protection of American civil liberties and our Fourth Amendment rights.

Context Note - Who is Edward Snowden?

Snowden is a controversial figure who some see as a heroic whistleblower while others view him as a traitor to the United States. I used Britannica as one of my main sources because it doesn’t appear to have a political bias.

(Source: Britannica) Edward Snowden is an American intelligence contractor and whistleblower who in 2013 revealed the existence of secret wide-ranging information-gathering programs conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

• In 2009 he worked at the NSA as a private contractor for the companies Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton.

  • He started gathering information several NSA activities, secret surveillance programs, that he believed were an overly broad.

  • Snowden downloaded 1.7 million intelligence files in the single largest theft of secrets in the history of the United States

    • Many of the files included information on current U.S. military operations and could risk mission failure and troops - according to a classified Pentagon report.

• In 2013 Snowden requested a medical leave and flew to Hong Kong

  • Once in Hong Kong he started speaking with the press about what he collected while working as a private contractor at the NSA.

    • According to an appeals court some of the information leaked by Snowden did indicate unlawful mass surveillance of Americans’ telephone records.

  • June 2013 - The U.S. charged Snowden with espionage

  • Snowden receive assistance from WikiLeaks and flew to Moscow.

    • Vladimir Putin refused to extradite him to the U.S.

    • August 2014 - awarded a three year residence permit.

    • September 2020 - Snowden granted full Russian citizenship

U.S. intelligence officials have said that Snowden’s leaks were harmful to counter terrorism investigations, cyber crime, human and narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

In 2014 a classified report from the Department of Defense stated that Snowden’s actions put the lives of U.S. troops at risk. According to House members who read the report many of the files included information on current U.S. military operations and could risk mission failure.

According to reporting by the Associated Press in 2018:

“Joel Melstad, a spokesman for the counterintelligence center, said five U.S. intelligence agencies contributed to the latest damage assessment, which itself is highly classified. Melstad said damage has been observed or verified in five categories of information the U.S. government keeps classified to protect national security. According to Melstad, Snowden-disclosed documents have put U.S. personnel or facilities at risk around the world, damaged intelligence collection efforts, exposed tools used to amass intelligence, destabilized U.S. partnerships abroad and exposed U.S. intelligence operations, capabilities and priorities.

Steven Aftergood, a declassification expert at the Federation of American Scientists, said he thinks intelligence agencies are continuing to do Snowden damage assessments because the disclosures’ relevance to foreign targets might take time to recognize and understand. He said the way that intelligence targets adapt based on information revealed and the impact on how the U.S. collects intelligence could continue for years. But he said that any damage that Snowden caused to U.S. intelligence partners abroad would have been felt immediately after the disclosures began in 2013.”

Senator James Lankford (R-OK)

Lankford: And when Edward Snowden got mad at his employer that he didn't get the promotion that he wanted and started harvesting information and then found some things that he didn't like on it, and then kept going and then released them to media and went to China and then went from China to Russia and became a Russian citizen and continued to be able to layer out intelligence unrelated to the civil liberties of any American, and then said, I have more, and I can release them anytime I want.

Lankford: They (Intelligence community agents) don't see him as brave. They see him as a traitor. And the concern among so many here, and I think what a lot of the folks in the intelligence community that you have the responsibility to oversight is they want to hear that you also believe the same thing, that not just he broke the law, but that he's a traitor because they don't want that to ever happen again.

Lankford: And all the sources that they had, that they trusted and they trusted them. Now their lives were at risk. And all the programs that they had that were determined, lawful all collapsed. And that intelligence then was gone. And the president didn't have access to a lot of information for decision making. So this is a big deal to everybody here, because it's a big deal to everybody that you'll also oversee, in that role as well. And so it's helpful for them to be able to hear your heart on this. So was Edward Snowden a traitor?

Gabbard: Senator my heart is with my commitment to our Constitution and our nation's security. I, I have shown throughout my almost 22 years of service in the military, as well as my time in Congress. How seriously I take the privilege of having access to classified information and our nation's secrets. And that's why I'm committed, if confirmed, as director of National Intelligence, to join you in making sure that there is no future Snowden type leak.

Lankford: Was he a traitor at the time when he took America's secrets, released him in public, and then ran to China and became a Russian citizen?

Gabbard: Senator, I'm focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again.

Senator Michael Bennet (D- CO)

Bennet: Was Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?

Gabbard: Senator, I will also repeat my answer. He broke the law.

Bennet: You said earlier that you were offended by a question that my colleague from Kansas asked, which I think was his duty as somebody on this committee to fulfill his responsibility to advise and consent. We are not here to be a rubberstamp for the president of the United States. Let me ask you again, do you believe, as the chairman of this committee believes as the vast majority of members of our intelligence agencies believe, that Edward Snowden was a traitor to the United States of America?

(This is mostly crosstalk where Gabbard and Bennett speak at the same time)

Gabbard: Senator if confirmed as director of National Intelligence.

Bennet: This is where the rubber hits the road.

Gabbard: I will work with you to make sure that another Snowden like leak.

Bennet: This is not a moment for social media. It’s not a moment to propagate theories, conspiracy theories or attacks on journalism in the United States. This is when you need to answer the questions of the people whose vote you're asking for to be confirmed armed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation, as my colleague said, this is not about you. It's about the people that serve the intelligence agencies of the United States. Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high.

(More crosstalk)

Gabbard: Senator, as someone who has served

Bennet: Is your answer in yes or no? Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America?

Gabbard: in uniform in combat currently.

Bennet: I will go on to my questions.

Gabbard: I understand how critical our national security

Bennet: Apparently you don't. Let me. Let me ask you, I've worked very hard to put your own words here in front of the committee. Not, you know, fake news, not conspiracy theories on the internet, but the actual things that you have said. On February 23rd, 2022, at the very moment that Russian tanks were rolling across the peaceful border of Ukraine for the first time, you tweeted at 11:30 p.m. your time. This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden administration/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate, legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO. Did you say that yes or no?

Gabbard: I believe you're reading my tweet, Senator.

Bennet: Yes. Is the answer. A few months later, you said on your podcast, and I quoted it, quote, but this regime change war against Russia that the U.S. and NATO are waging via their proxy in Ukraine didn't begin when Putin invaded Ukraine. They had their eyes set on this objective long before that. Did you say that yes or no?

Gabbard: I believe you're reading my tweet. There's a lot more

Bennet: The answer is yes.

Gabbard: You're quoting a podcast that provided much more context.

Bennet: I have had a conversation with the chairman about whether I'm taking anything out of context. I don't think I am. And your answer is yes. Are you aware that your comments about proxy wars and Russia's legitimate, legitimate security concerns, to quote your own words, are in alignment with what the Russians have said to justify their invasion of Ukraine? Yes or no?

Gabbard: Senator, I don't pay attention to Russian propaganda. My goal is to speak the truth.

Bennet: The answer is yes.

Gabbard: Regardless of whether you like it or not.

Bennet: I'll take it. That's fine. You said you are used to speaking truth to power. I'm shocked to hear you now say that you know you are. You are agreeing. I'm not shocked because I know you said it. You are agreeing that you basically said that Putin was justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine, the first time since World War Two that a free nation had been invaded by a totalitarian state. And you were there at 11:30 p.m. that night to say that you were with them, not us. And let me tell you something. You say you don't know because you read Russian propaganda. Russian state TV then aired your comments. Did you know that?

Gabbard: Senator, I think you should also quote the statement that I made criticizing Putin for his invasion of Ukraine.

Bennet: What I would say, what I would say, Mr. Chairman, with the last it's up to all of us. We're the Senate. We get to decide whether we're going to confirm this nominee. Obviously, we didn't select this nominee, but can't we do better than somebody who doesn't believe in 702? Can't we believe that somebody who can't answer whether Snowden was a traitor five times today, who made excuses for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine the first time that I'm aware of any American official has done that. I'm questioning her judgment. That's the issue that's at stake here. And as you said, and I totally agree, this is about our intelligence officers and you cannot. And most of what we do here is in secret. This is one of the very few opportunities that you will ever have to have a conversation with this panel in public. And the record is going to be very clear about the position you took with regard to Edward Snowden. And the record is going to be very clear about your reaffirmation of the statements you made in the middle of the night when Russia was invading the free country of Ukraine.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Gillibrand: I want to return to the Soleimani strike. At the time, you said it was illegal. The President Trump did was illegal, would cause, very significant problems down the line. What is your position on that strike, and will you be able to advise the president in future issues with regard to national security?

Gabbard: Those broader issues that I raise with regard to war powers. I have been consistent on I didn't have access to all of the information behind that strike.

Gillibrand: Do you disagree with the president taking away the protection for those who are now being targeted in retaliation for the Soleimani strike, such as previous Secretary Pompeo?

Gabbard: Senator, I can't answer that without being able to look at the intelligence assessment and the threat assessment for that or other decisions.

Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)

Kelly: Colonel Gabbard and I appreciate that the president and others are going to rely on that. I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC (Intelligence Community). For years, the U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Eventually, we were able to assess that Bashar al Assad was responsible for a number of these attacks that slaughtered his own civilians. Do you accept the conclusion broadly that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians?

Gabbard: Yes. And I'm on the record for years of agreeing with that broad assessment.

Kelly: Thank you. Among the attacks the U.S. assessed, Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma and Khan Shaykhun in Syria. As a member of Congress and as a presidential candidate. And as recently as this month. In your written responses to this committee, you have cast doubt on the assessment that Assad is culpable in these two attacks. Is that still your position?

Gabbard: Senator, I raised those questions given, conflicting information and evidence that was presented, at that time.

Kelly: Well. Thank you. So to help inform the public, the Trump administration released declassified intelligence in 2017 and again in 2018, showing how experts analyze multiple types of evidence satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses describing sources and showing the reasoning used to determine Assad's culpability in using these chemical weapons, including in Douma and Khan Shaykhun. In these attacks, the ones that you question, I have two documents I want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Were you aware of the declassified assessments? The one I reference?

Gabbard: Yes, I was.

Kelly: And as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to review these?

Gabbard: Yes.

Kelly: Okay. Thank. Thank you. And can you explain to me then why you doubted the intelligence community's conclusions in these two cases? Douma in Khan Shaykhun But not the others. And please be specific.

Gabbard: These two cases, were being looked at as a to be used as a pretext for, major military movements. And another my fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half a million soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was, the Obama administration's goal, which was regime change in Syria. The question specifically that I raised around these two came about because there were, two reasons. One, that assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The information that they had came from those on the ground in an Al-Qaeda controlled area, and therefore were Al-Qaeda linked sources. And there was conflicting information that came from the UN's office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inspectors. As well as an MIT professor. Ted Postol.

Kelly: I want to talk about him. So, did you look into his credentials? Yes or no?

Gabbard: Yes.

Kelly: And were you aware of his appearances on Russia Today, which is used by the Russians to disseminate, disseminate government approved messages?

Gabbard: No.

Kelly: Were you aware, Postol relied on a chemistry student with a record of defending the Assad regime?

Gabbard: At that time, I was not. I have been made aware since.

Kelly: Do you consider this person or these two individuals now? Do you consider them a better source for the chemistry of sarin gas than the U.S. intelligence community?

Gabbard: I assess that, at the time, the information, I don't know the second person you're referring to, but MIT Professor Ted Postol and the inspectors of the OPCW provided some credible questions that deserved examination.

Kelly: Okay. Thank you. Did you attempt to weigh Postol’s claims against the significant evidence and assessments already conducted by the IC (Intelligence Community).

Context Note - Who is Theodore A. Postol of MIT?

Postol criticized the U.S. government's analysis of the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack in Syria, along with another chemical attack Khan Shaykhun in 2017. Postol accused the OPCW (The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) of deception. Postol submitted an article to Science & Global Security on his theories about the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack.

Investigative journalists at Bellingcat criticized Postol’s article as error-filled and methodologically flawed.

The editors of the journal responded to the criticism and decided not to publish the article after they "identified a number of issues with the peer-review and revision process", leading to Postol resigning from the editorial board.

Gabbard: Yes, I did.

Kelly: Okay. Thank you. So here's my concern here, Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions. This is what we expect of our professionals, but we just kind of walk through how you came to question Assad's use of chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach, and I don't reject seeking out differing viewpoints. We need to do that. But but you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, and then you sought out information that confirmed your viewpoint, that led you to embrace the opinions of two individuals, that I think we disagree on this. You think they had expertise? I do not, and others do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia and the Assad regime. It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelmingly information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert assessments of our own intelligence community. And they don't get it right 100% of the time. I get that. But what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time that you were skeptical of our intelligence community's assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad. And I think that's something that we should all be concerned about.

Speed round - The chairman, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) let any Senator who wanted to ask a follow-up question additional time.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Wyden: Miss Gabbard is that there was an area that I believe is still uncertain. And this is what my questions about. Earlier this week, the Trump administration illegally attempted to withhold federal funds from a broad range of organizations. I'm interested in knowing what you would do if President Trump told you to withhold congressionally approved funds from the intelligence community Inspector General. So my question is, if President Trump orders you to withhold appropriated funds from the Inspector General. Will you refuse that illegal order?

Gabbard: I don't believe for a second President Trump would ask me to do something that would break the law.

Wyden: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if you are asked about an illegal order, what will you do? You can say, oh, it'll never happen. What will you do if you're dealing with an illegal order?

Gabbard: My, my commitment has been and will be if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, to comply with the law.

Senator Angus King (I-ME)

King: I'd like to follow up on my line of questioning about Edward Snowden, and understand how you analyzed the facts leading up to your 2020 bill, providing him with a pardon. There was the House Committee report, which granted was redacted, but under the heading what damage did it cause? Were five and a half pages of redacted material. I would have thought that would raise a question in your mind. Secondly, Edward Snowden, there about 20 countries that don't have extradition treaties with the U.S. he chose to go to Russia, become a Russian citizen. Given that information, how did you decide to introduce a bill providing him with a pardon? Introducing a bill in the United States Congress is not the same as a tweet or a commentary on a podcast. I'm concerned about your, apparent lack of interest in the scope of Edward Snowden's traitorous activities.

Gabbard: Senator, I've. I've answered this. Some version of this question many times in this hearing already. My foremost concern has been remains and will continue to be. And in upholding my oath to the Constitution to support and defend Americans Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.

Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO)

Bennet: You had in your opening statement all kinds of complaints about, former officials in the intelligence agencies, the United States press, the journalists, the media, Democrat, suggested that you weren't being treated fairly when you're coming here. No condemnation at all for, for this. Which leads me to wonder why it is so hard for you to say that Edward Snowden was a traitor to our country. And the question I guess I have for you is, How if you can't say that you feel that the, that the concerns that this committee has that we need somebody here who will actually honor their oath, as you said, Edward, maybe I should make it easier for Edward Snowden did not honor his oath to the Constitution, which is what you just said was the most important duty, most important obligation that you have in this role. Why, why, why is he being treated like a folk hero by you instead of the traitor that he was?

Gabbard: Senator, as I said, my focus and what should be of relevance to all of you and everyone watching, is what I will do as Director of National Intelligence to work with you to make sure there's not another Snowden like leak. Given the paramount importance of our national security and keeping our nation's secrets.

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

Warner: Miss Gabbard I support and commend you for your service. But we have heard this morning taking some individuals advice on chemical attacks, not taking American intelligence community that, as we subsequently discovered, had if he ties not enough to diligence. We've heard this morning on your trip to Lebanon that you weren't fully aware that the folks originally paid for the trip had these relations and ties to the Syrian party? I know I've asked, and you and I understand on the trip that, you said you met with Shia religious figures and you didn't know who were there, who they were. I could I can understand that. I can't imagine Shia religious figures that didn't have ties to, to Hezbollah. And we can have a difference of opinion on, on TikTok. The Chairman and I feel very strongly that it is a national security threat. On 702 I'm I'm candidly confused. I thought you answered Senator Wyden in your in favor of a warrant. Senator Cornyn, I thought you backed off of that. And then on on Edward Snowden. You won't back off of brave. You won't back off of your legislation. You won't call him a traitor. And I think again about this is being watched by our allies around the world. I think RT (Russia Today) has been tweeting about it today, blasting me, and the men and women of the intelligence community, I don't know how they're going to have confidence that if some under your leadership, if somebody else stepped out, that you wouldn't take the same position that you've not walked away from on on Mr. Snowden. So I guess my last question, and this was one I think was in some of the press and, I believe you and your husband took a trip to Rome last summer. And, you know, I'm not talking about the conference. I think you didn't ask who paid for the trip. I just want to get this off the record right now. Not if you and your husband reimbursed. But did you pay for the trip from the outset or.

Gabbard: There was a nonprofit organization that was coordinating with the Vatican to set up this meeting that was centered around mosques and security interests in the West hemisphere that paid for the trip.

Warner: And I haven't I'm not going to go into that. I just wanted to make sure you so you didn't understand. Your trip was paid for by a gentleman named Pierre Louvrier and the Clemente Foundation.

Gabbard: The nonprofit. It was my understanding paid for the trip.

Warner: Mr. Louvrier has enormous ties to Konstantin Malofeev I'm mispronouncing his real name. But who is somebody that America has sanctioned? I imagine we can get into this in the classified hearing. But again, I know the due diligence that's required before you take these trips or make these assumptions is something that I find very troubling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator.

Context Note - Who is Pierre Louvrier?

Pierre Louvrier’s connections to Konstantin Malofeev are unknown.

Malofeev is a Russian oligarch, fervent Orthodox Christian and a believer in Pan-Slavism. Malofeev has been slapped with sanctions for financing Kremlin activities in Ukraine since 2014.

I’m not sure where Senator Warner got his information but I did find a couple of sources that claimed Louvrier was linked to Malofeev. Pierre Louvrier denied any connections to sanctioned individuals and claimed he had filed a lawsuit against The New York Time according to reporting by Bivol.bg.

The two sources that I found that linked Louvrier to Malofeev were a blog called Bivol.bg written by Assen Yordanov, an award winning Bulgarian journalist, and Intelligence Online.

The New York Times wrote a lengthy piece about Gabbard’s trip to Rome and referred to the person who financed it as a “European businessman who was on the FBI watchlist” throughout. Bivol.bg identified the “European businessman” as Louvrier.

The Times added that they were uncertain if the “European businessman” may have been put on the FBI watchlist in error.

I want to note that when this man’s name was brought up to Gabbard by Senator Warner she did not correct him or deny a relationship with him. Senator Warner might have resources at his disposal due to his position on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

I don’t feel comfortable making a call about Louvrier’s exact role but it’s yet another example of Gabbard accepting travel expenses from a problematic benefactor.