as well. you indicate in april of 09 you were part of a team of officials who provided a briefing about the initial stages of the process of reviewing the detainees and authorized during the briefing to discuss the review process. you are not authorized to discuss the deliberations or decisions on specific detainee's and so in accordance with those rules used eight on page five we've provided a full and candid briefing about the detainee review process. so i would like you to address this issue. you have raised the congressman will's letter and address it head on if you will for this committee. >> yes. thank you very much, madame share and vice chairman chambliss for providing me with the opportunity to address this

question raised. let me just say at the outset essentially has ali understand from congressman blair or two questions. one is that we offered information or that that information was offered in the course of the task force review and that there was intentional misleading during the briefing and i would say at the outset neither of those occurred and i appreciate the opportunity to provide additional explanations of that. first, the question of whether or not that information was changed or altered over the course of the task force review. the job i had as the executive to return of the guantanamo task force in 2009 was to bring together career professionals and compile all of the information that have benefited over the course of several years but each detainee. something that hadn't been done before, and to bring that information together in one place or give that information a

fresh independent and objective review. we've taken that information and under my leadership and under the guidelines we adopted in the innovation effort we looked at that information. it was my responsibility to ensure that was done in and in partial indian unbiased we've all the information was reviewed that was done by an approach that every dissenting board disparate opinion or view and we took that information and presented it to the group of senior level decision makers along with our recommendation and the decisions are made based on that information by the senior level group or review panel on six different agencies. the result on that over the course of the year is all 240 detainees were given a disposition and every single case every detainee was

determined on a unanimous basis on what the appropriate status was on the detainee to get there was never at any time any effort to change threat information to hide from any fact explicit guidance with my particular responsibility was to follow every fact and be as precise and specific and rigorous in analyzing those facts and presenting the information to the policy level decision makers there were occasions we looked at the facts and looked at them different than the prior prayer sessions had them. the gitmo task for said gitmo had prepared assessments. those were all part of our information and in many cases those cases i believe agreed with those assessments. but there were instances we looked at the facts and came to different conclusions but there was never on any occasion an effort to change altar or hide from those factors. those were all fully aired. on the second question, if i may

come the question of whether or not i intentionally misled congressman wolf in the briefing. again, i did not. we met in april 2009 in his office and i was part of a team from the department of justice and the white house that went to brief congressman wolf on not just the guantanamo taskforce but all three of the task forces that were set up under the three executive orders issued by president obama in january of 2009. this is the early stage of the review process. we had just begun efforts to review the set of detainees and it was made clear to congressman wolf during that briefing that the ground rule would be that we could discuss the process that we are undertaking to conduct that reach you but we were not authorized to discuss any particular decision or specific detainee's. we did in fact lee of the process for him and i understand

now he has expressed concern he wasn't given full information about the actual decision making process with the group of detainee's known as chinese uighurs at guantanamo. i did not discuss, not because i was not authorized or make a unilateral decision the department of justice officials what the status was of the decision making process. i certainly as i said to the congressman wolf in a conversation i had on the telephone a few months ago, and to stand his frustration i very much regret he has the view that i intentionally misled him coming and i do hope that if i am confirmed i would have the opportunity to regain his trust and work with him in a collaborative and cooperative we moving forward. i will say that as a general matter, i have been candid, honest and direct with my

actions of congress i've met many times with staff and members of this committee over the course of my career as a government official not only on the guantanamo review but also d amendment act and other matters and i take it as a matter of pride in the deeply held view that life and honest and candid and direct and as i said i do hope i have the opportunity to regain and work with the trust of congress and walls and work with him. >> thank you very much. mr. vice chairman? >> thanks, madame chair. mr. olsen, let me carry that question one step further because obviously it is a very, very serious issue when you have a member of congress who thinks that he has been misled so i want you to have the opportunity to explain and i want to quote to you what congressman wolf's recollection of the scenario was in the memorandum that he

prepared within the last couple of weeks. i know you had the opportunity to look at it. here is what he says. he said it has recently come to my attention that i was misled about the status of the transfer of the knees in april, to those inclined to read the information confirms the newsweek report the federal employees were explicitly directed to hide the information from the members of congress especially republican members. during an april 22nd, 2009 meeting in my office with members of the guantanamo bay detainee review task force including mr. olsen, i inquired about the status of the potential transfer of uighurs detainee's to the united states. mr. olsen indicated that the decision had not yet been reached on the transfer of the detainees. none of the other carrier or political officials in the meeting countered mr. olsen's assertion. i was deeply concerned to learn

in an april 2011 "washington post" article that the final decision on the transfer of the uighurs detainees had been made during a white house meeting eight days before my meeting with mr. olsen. according to "the washington post" article, the first concrete step towards closing of a detention center was agreed upon during an april 14, 2000 - session at the white house. it was to be ase dolph moved. they were going to show up here and we were going to announce this said one senior official describing the swift secretive operation that was designed by the administration to putting up any political outcry that could prevent the transfer. mr. walls goes on following the publication of this article in april and i personally call mr. olsen to ask whether he was aware of the time of any meeting with him on my meeting with him on april 22nd, to thousand 9 that a decision had already been made on the transfer of the

detainees. he told me that he was aware of the decision prior to our meeting. i believe i was intentionally misled by mr. olsen and other administration officials during my april 22nd meeting with the task force, but i'm also concerned that the attorney general did not acknowledge that a decision had been made when he appeared before the house commerce a house appropriations subcommittee in the following day. that's why i was surprised when my office was notified by the federal employee that the administration was misleading the congress and planned to secretly transferred the detainee's a around may 1st, 2009. now white understand you are saying you were not at liberty to discuss the details of any particular detainee, but this goes beyond that. his comments go beyond that so i want to give you a full opportunity to address what congressman wolf remembers about

that meeting. at the time that briefing occurred, congressman wolf, in april 21st or 22nd, they're had at that point and a decision by senior level members of the administration, again, the process was to make recommendations to a senior review group in this case this went to a very high level group of senior officials and the decision at that point i think april 14th is the right date i went back and looked at my notes to have been the decision to take to move transferred a small number of detainees, uighurs detainee's to the united states. there was not at that time a decision on which detainee's to move or as i recall no decision about where exactly they would go. but i remember a time of the briefing that there had actually been as i said a decision to

move the two detainee's to uighurs detainees to transfer those detainees to the united states. so, at that time, they're had been that decision. the fbi and the department of homeland security as i recall were given the responsibility not my task force, not guantanamo task force to determine which detainee's were the right to move given the consideration when to do that and what circumstances owned where they would go and those efforts were underway. i at no time did i say that there was no decision to congressman wolf. i just believe it's the recollection or misperception. there were operations under way and i wasn't authorized to talk about the detainees. i did understand the frustration. i don't -- i did not mislead, i wasn't in the position to decide myself out that time and the

process was. we have met before the briefing and talked about what we were going to say and talked about in terms of the review process, and i do very much regret she has taken that view and i do understand his frustration with learning the through the press leader that that decision making process was well under way. but senator, that is exactly where that stood on that day when i briefed congressman wolf the decision to bring the detainee's at which ones and there was no decision about exactly where they would go within the united states. >> condra symbol's memo he refers to other political officials that were in that meeting. did you go back and visit with of those individuals to get their recollection of exactly what was said after congressman

wolf came forward to this? >> i talked to of verse where preparation for the briefing. i haven't talked to >> i talked to other members of that team several months ago because i talked to congressman bullfighting in april of this year and around that time i talked to a number of the individuals who were part of that briefing, and it was -- and i think our recollections were the same as to how that briefing went. >> can you provide the committee with the names of the above their individuals in the meeting at that time within the next 24 hours? >> absolutely. absolutely. and i have the other steps i took, vice chairman, was to talk about the department of justice legislative affairs office, and i believe that the attorney general submitted a letter to the kennedy along the same lines the ground rules for that

briefing or that we would talk about the process but not the specific decisions were detainee's. and in fact a letter was sent to congressman wolf in july of 2009, so after the april 2009 briefing which reaffirmed the decisions in the detainee's or not the subject on which the briefings with ochre or had occurred that we were able to talk about the process, so even at that time in july 2009 in the letter to congressman wolf, that was made clear and present it to congressman wolf in a letter from the department of justice. >> if i may add one other quick point on this because i think -- i really want to address what i understand from the committee define confirmed and in a position such as the director of the ctc, i believe wholeheartedly that in that role i have an absolute of certain legal obligation to the best of my ability to provide all

intelligence information in a full and timely way to this committee, and i believe that if i am in that position, i authority and ability to make that judgment greatly exceeds what it was in april of 2009, and the committee has my full commitment that i will live up to that obligation. >> mr. vice chair, there is a letter dated july 22nd, song and by the assistant attorney general which clearly states the officials who provided the briefing including mr. olsen to discuss the review process in general but were not authorized to discuss deliberations or decisions about any specific detainee's and it goes on to say consistent with the parameters set for the briefing she did not discuss the decision making or specific detainee's and this

would be available in the next up is senator conrad and he's not here, senator wyden? >> thank you madame chair and mr. olsen, thank you for the visit. i appreciate your candor and also taking time to go over and meet in the secure facility so we can discuss since it is matters. i've been on this committee for morgan a decade now, and i believe this is the first time we have had this top lawyer the national security agency before the committee in an open session. i'm not going to get into any details of how the nsa does business but since you're the chief legal officer at one of the country's largest intelligence agencies it's safe to say that you are an expert on surveillance law. estimate that like to ask

several areas of the surveillance law and how you and your colleagues interpret the law so we can get some of this information on the public record. >> the first question is would you agree the key portions of the patriot act has been the subject of significant secret interpretations and these interpretations are secret today? >> thank you. i did appreciate the opportunity to talk to you in your office and the classified setting to talk about some of these matters come and i appreciate your ongoing interest and concern. the direct answer to your question is there are provisions of the patriot act that are the subject of matters before the intelligence surveillance court. that meets in a classified

setting and some of the pleadings and opinions that relate to the patriot act that have been part of proceedings before the intelligence court are classified. >> so it is fair to say that the patriot act and how they are illegally interpreted are being kept secret as of today. >> it is certainly fair to say that there are opinions from the court that are classified. i feel it is important to add that those opinions are part of what is provided to this committee and the activities undertaken in accordance with those orders of the court are subject to oversight. >> would you agree the key portions of the amendment act of 2008 would be the subject of significant legal interpretations? and those are secret? >> yes and let me add that the

answer is similar to the patriot act there are particular provisions of the act in the course of implementing those provisions the government and part of this effort submits pleadings to the court and by design again under the statute that by the court issues considers those pleadings in a classified setting and issues opinions authorizing or not those activities and it is the case if i may also added as we have reviewed those opinions and looked at those opinions working with you and others that it's very difficult at times to separate those portions of the opinions that are subject to be disclosed because the only contain legal information verses the linkage or the intertwining of the legal analysis and facts. >> say you have said that there are in fact secret legal interpretations with respect to

both the patriot act and the amendment act and is their anything further that you can tell about the subject matter? >> i don't think that there's anything further i can discuss in an open setting and i know that you will appreciate that. i know that you appreciate and you do the importance of protecting the sources and methods described in those opinions. i would restate what i just said. >> my time is very short. kube giving thoughtful answers as you know we have a difference of opinion here. it's my view that we have to keep operations and methods secret, but we have to also have public awareness of bill law is on the books we are going to continue this discussion. i need to ask you one other question and that is on a different legal topic to the government agencies have the authority to use data to track the location of americans inside the united states for intelligence purposes?

>> i know that is a question that you have opposed to the director of national intelligence. it's a question that is a complicated and difficult question to answer particularly in this setting. i would say that the intelligence community is working as we speak and i know we talked to your staff in developing a comprehensive answer to that question which will be provided in writing. >> madame president, i know my time has expired but just a quick follow-up on that. you seem to be suggesting that the executive branch is not yet settled the question. is that accurate? >> i think it's important to be precise about exactly what the question is. >> the question is does the government have the authority to use the data to track the location inside the country? i think you answered initially

it haven't been settled by the executive branch by respect whether or not there is that authority. this is an extremely important point. you are saying it's not yet been settled by the executive branch it has that authority. >> there are certain circumstances in that authority. it is a very complicated and difficult question and i would ask your indulgence to allow that question to be prepared in writing to you, senator. >> thank you, madame chair. >> i know of your concerns, and we have discussed them and what i would like to do in the first hearing in september when we come back assuming there is an august break, i'd like to have that classified session and would ask mr. olsen that you have that many of prepared and the answers in writing that you

and any authority that you wish to bring with you will attend the hearing. do i have your agreement? >> madam chair, i would just like to say to you and colleagues you have been fair in terms of handling this issue. as you know, senator udall and i have had concerns about it and have been examining it in both classified and open session and i want to thank you for the when you're handling. >> you're very welcome. >> senator conrad? >> madam chair and vice chair and members of the committee, instead of asking questions i would like to make a further statement if i could, madam chair, about this nominee. she comes from a family that i have known for 30 years. a family that was on the other side of the aisle from as i

indicated before his saw there was the chief of staff and the man i defeated for the united states. yet he treated me with the greatest generosity of spirit that anybody could ask for. now i just want to say these are people of the highest of the very highest quality in every single way, the highest character. i would trust matt olsen with every penny that i've got because of the character of his family, and i know around here as all demolition derby my god when does it end? ..

i put my entire reputation on the line for this nominee. that is how strongly i feel. so, i have been here 25 years and i think i have conducted myself with character and i hope it counts for something when we have a nominee of this quality. >> thank you very much, senator. i think is a very heartfelt remarks and very much appreciated so thank you.

senator coats. >> thank you madam chair and mr. olsen, and appreciate the discussion we had in my office earlier and your testimony today. your educational background is superb and your experience background is if not unmatched, very impressive. and the recommendations you have had from former attorney general mccaskey and mr. mcconnell and general alexander speak highly a few and other people, very credible people including senator conrad have spoken about your character, your family and the kind of person you are and i think it is a high recommendation. from my colleague as well as a number of other people. as you know we discussed in my office concerned with senator saxby discussed with you. i don't want to repeat all of that. i do want to state that it is disturbing that listening these news sources are credible about

secretive plans, a stealth plan, it is disturbing if those are true. these are reputable news organizations. ism "the washington post," which i don't always agree with everything they do, but they usually check very carefully before they make this type of allegation, this serious of an allegation, this kind of can't talk good stealthy secret plan. you have discussed and for the record explained your position relative to this, where you were and your relationship with mr. wolf and so forth. but the larger question is, given the politics of the issue at the time, the fact that a decision was made by someone at the highest levels to end acts to bypass through a stealthy

secret plan is a serious, serious charge and if true, a serious serious offense. my question to you is, and you make your pledge to us, that you will not withhold any type of intelligence that is available to you from this committee, and i take you at your word for that. what i want to ask you is the reverse of that. if you become aware of some action or policy decision, some piece of intelligence that this committee ought to know about, but that is politically sensitive and perhaps there are concerns that you might be sharing information that people at policy levels don't want shared. are you willing to serve as an

independent director of nctc, and provide us with your independent opinion as to that? i just think it is critical that we are aware of that and so i would like to get your reaction to that on the reverse side of what you do know or relative to intelligence, or what you don't know but have some concerns about not knowing. having something withheld from you that -- i don't feel like i have been given full information relative to what this committee ought to be aware of. >> thank you very much senator. the answer is yes, i absolutely do pledge to the best of my ability to provide my unvarnished views to the committee. as i said i commit to providing full, timely intelligence information