about the standard we want to use in interrogations. and that is the army field manual. the very important thing to know about c.i.a. is we follow the law. we followed the law then and we follow the law now. but i would never permit c.i.a. to resume an interrogation program. >> so that's a very good segue into a very important question. as the candidate, president trump repeatedly expressed his support for water boarding. in fact, he said we should go beyond water boarding. so if the c.i.a. has a high value terrorism suspect in its custody and the president gave you a direct order to waterboard that suspect, what would you do? >> senator, i would advise -- i do not believe the president would ask me to do that.

but we have today in the u.s. government other u.s. government entities that conduct interrogations. d.o.d. uses the army field manual and they conduct battlefield interrogations and c.i.a. has incredible expertise it can bring to the table in support of those interrogations. the f.b.i. has its authorities to conduct interrogations. and as you know, we have the high value interrogation group. so i would be advise -- advise anyone who ask me about it that c.i.a. is not the right place to conduct interrogations. we don't have interrogators and we don't have interrogation expertise. so i believe that would be the reason i have been nominated is that people have some respect for my views on these issues. my experiences during those days after 9/11 inform my views.

i am extremely knowledgeable and i'm also extremely knowledgeable about the price c.i.a. working level men and women out in the trenches paid for decisions made after 9/11. >> so debriefing a source is different from interrogating a detainee. should the c.i.a. even be in the business of interrogating detainees? >> we're not in the business of interrogating. we're not in the business of interrogating detainees, as you said there is a big difference between interrogation and simple question and answer. having access -- direct access to a terrorist is extremely valuable for intelligence collection and we do that but c.i.a. does not today conduct interrogations. we never did historically and we aren't getting back in that business. >> thank you. >> senator heinrich. >> you didn't actually answer

the question. what would you do if the president ordered you to get back in that business? >> senator, the president has selected me to give him advice. i would not restart under any circumstances in an interrogation program at c.i.a. under any circumstances. >> thank you. you have repeatedly said that at the time the c.i.a.'s use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding were determined to be legal. now, there was an opinion written by the office of legal counsel. i don't believe those actions were ever legal. they certainly didn't meet the bar set by either the geneva conventions or our own army field manual and i'm not aware of a single court ruling that affirmed that opinion. today i'm not really interested in whether you believe those techniques were legal but i am interested in the question that senator warner asked you. we got a very legalistic answer

to that question. let me ask you again were these the right thing to do? are they consistent with american values fundamentally? what do you believe? >> senator, i believe very strongly in american values and america being an example to the rest of the world. that is why i support the fact that we have chosen to hold ourselves to a stricter moral standard. >> that's about congress and all of us. i want to know what you think. >> i think we should hold ourselves to a stricter moral standard and i would never allow c.i.a. to be involved in coercive interrogations. >> where was that moral compass at the time? >> that was 17 years ago. like the u.s. army and u.s. marine corp is an organization, a large bureaucracy. when you're out in the trenches at far flung outposts in the

globe and washington said here is what we need you to do. it's legal. the attorney general has deemed it so. the president of the united states is counting on you to prevent another attack. >> i know you believed it was legal. i want to see -- i want to feel and trust that you have a moral compass that you said you have. you are giving very legalistic answers to very fundamentally moral questions. >> senator, we've provided the committee every evaluation since my training report when i first joined in 1985. in all of my assignments i have conducted myself honorably and in accordance with u.s. law. my parents raised me right. i know the difference between right and wrong. >> let's move on to the videotapes. you told me earlier this week that you supported the decision of the c.i.a.'s deputy director of operations to order the

destruction of those videotapes depicting the use of vits. would you still support that order today? >> senator, i would not. i think as i said, it's very important that people learn. experience is a good teacher. the piece that was missing from the tapes was making sure we had all the stakeholders concurrence. there is also another very important leadership lesson. and as director of c.i.a., when your officers are concerned about their physical security, you can't let it languish in your in box for three years with no action. >> we should support that security. why couldn't the agency have simply digitized that video and blacked out the faces of any agents in those videos? why actually destroy the videotapes? doesn't that feel like a cover-up even if it isn't? >> i don't think we were worried about official release. this was at a time when the entire program was the subject

of unauthorized leaks and someone was found guilty of those unauthorized leaks. the concern was an irresponsible leak of our officer's faces to the world, not an official release. >> i understand that. if you have blacked out the agents' faces and kept a digital record that would have addressed those security concerns. >> i'm just not a technical person so i don't -- >> it's not that complicated. >> well, i don't -- senator, i don't know if that was considered or not. >> do you think that a transcript that says the detainee continued to scream or the detainee appeared to be drowning has the same gravity, the same reality as an actual video? >> senator, i never saw the videos. i do know that we keep very

complete and almost verbatim records in our cable traffic. i think the issue was the security risk posed to our officers. >> senator blunt. >> thank you, chairman. miss haspel we haven't really mentioned the broad support that you have had publicly from democrats, republicans, people who have run this agency in the past, people associated with -- frankly, people that this committee has -- members on this committee have shown great respect and regard for have shown that same respect and regard for you. i heard general hayden, the former c.i.a. director, say the other day that he would be incredibly comfortable when the president was making decisions, he may have said -- maybe even more than comfortable. he feels more secure or something like that if you were the person in the room. that's really what we're

talking about right now. we aren't talking about what happened 17 years ago. we should be talking about what might happen 17 days or 17 weeks from now. i thought general hayden actually captured my exact feeling on this topic. the importance of you being in the room. your mastery of the facts, your broad understanding of what has happened during your career all over the world, the cause, the result, the relationships, all of those things. this is a term i think that's often overused and i try not to use it very often but is the truth to power. you're in the room, you understand the facts, talk about your sense of obligation to present those facts and to speak truth to power at a moment when it matters. >> senator, thank you. truth to power is one of

c.i.a.'s most important missions. like with any new administration, c.i.a. has to demonstrate to the new team what we can bring to the table. i'm incredibly proud, even though i come from the operational side. i'm incredibly proud of the analysts at c.i.a. that's really our face with policymakers, including the congress. they do an incredible job on the president's daily brief each day. they do an incredible job on the expert briefings they provide to inform the important decisions our policymakers must consider. as i mentioned, there isn't a week that doesn't go by that i am not the subject of a request to have an analyst by name come over and talk about some of the big issues. our north korea team has a superb reputation. our china team is running all over this town they're so busy

providing briefings. we're all about bringing the most sophisticated, objective, all-source analysis we can to make sure that the president and his team have the best intelligence that we can deliver. it is hugely important. [person shouting in back of the room] >> capitol police, please remove her. [person shouting in back of the room] >> so let's go back. as a leader of the team, i appreciate that, i appreciate your respect for the team. let's be sure we talk specifically about you. you are in the room, there is a

fact that hasn't appropriately been looked at, considered or appreciated in your view. what do you do at that moment? >> senator, thank you. i've already worked with this president and his team for 15 months. i think i have a great reputation with them at the table with secretary mattis and general the dunford and secretary mnuchin. i'm at many of the principle's meetings. i back up the former director in the oval office. i'm part of director coates's team. sue gordon is with me. we bring a high-quality product. as a senior intelligence officer, someone who spent a lot of time overseas in these places the president turns to me for my view on certain countries and certain experiences. i give him my best advice. but i always separate my view, as someone who has been out in

the field, from the view of our analysts. we're really there to deliver the objective all-source analysis that they write to support the president. >> you would see yourself as the master of the facts. the facts to be sure the president knows all the facts the president needs to know. >> i think that's incredibly important, senator. >> thank you. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i've been to some of those garden spots with the committee and i have the greatest admiration and respect for what you and your colleagues have done over the years and do now. that's one of the great responses i have when i come back from one of those trips and the stations are -- the people in those places are brave and loyal and patriotic americans. a quick yes or no question. not having to do with what we've been talking about. in january of 2017 the i.c. issued a joint report on the russia involvement in the 2016 elections.

do you agree with the findings of that report? >> senator, i do. >> thank you. we've talked a bit about the statement in mr. rizzo's book that you had previously run the interrogation program. i understand he has changed his view on that. your career timeline 2001, 2003, 03 to 04 senior level supervisor, 04-05 deputy chief national resources division. in any of those jobs were you in a supervisory or management capacity in connection to the rendition and interrogation program? >> senator, we'll be able to go over -- i know you have some of this information but we'll be able to go over any of my classified assignments in this afternoon's session. and i can talk about that. just to be clear, mr. rizzo didn't change his view. he was wrong and he issued a correction.

>> who is deciding what is classified and what isn't in terms of what's released to this committee? >> we are following the existing guidelines. >> who is deciding? >> we are following the existing guidelines. >> who is we? >> i have chosen to follow the guidelines that exist. >> you are making the classification decisions about what materials should be released to this committee? >> i am electing not to make an exception for myself but i am adhering to existing rdi guidelines. if i may just -- >> that's fine. i just wanted to understand that. with regard to the cable, mr. rodriguez said that he asked you to ask two questions of the lawyers the day before the drafting of the cable, one was it legal to destroy the tapes and second did you have the authority? did you mention to those lawyers the intention to issue a cable that would destroy the tapes when you asked those two questions or were those the only questions you asked? >> no, senator, i explained that mr. rodriguez wanted to

get resolution on this issue and that he was planning to have a conversation with the director about it. and he needed to have revalidation of those two points. >> you drafted the cable, is that correct? >> yes, at his request. >> isn't it common practice when a cable of this importance is drafted that it be copied to various parts of the legal establishment within the c.i.a. and was that done in this case? was that cable copied to mr. rizzo or other lawyers within the agency? >> senator, there was robust coordination with the lawyers at c.i.a. >> were they copied on the cable? >> mr. rodriguez chose not to copy the lawyers on the cable because he took the decision on his own authority and he wanted to take responsibility for it. he has been very clear and up front about that. >> you were aware because you drafted the cable that the lawyers weren't copied on it. >> i knew they had been consulted in a meeting and many

times over three years. >> in may of 2005, mr. rizzo reports i told jose and his chief of staff, that was you, is that correct? i can't recall if i talked to them separately or something. they were crest fallen because they were now on notice the dni, two successive white house counsel's and vice president's lawyer -- i don't recall that specific conversation. >> i was aware there were some objections and that's why jose was going to go back to the director. >> those are very straight forward prohibitions to not destroy the tapes, were they not? >> senator, i don't recall that specific conversation. >> but you do know -- mr. morell in the report that has been released says something similar. he said the record is clear that mr. rodriguez, i presume you, were aware that two white

house counsels, the counsel to the vice president, the dcie and hipsy ranking member had expressed reservation about the destruction of the kaips. did you know that at the time you drafted the table? >> i didn't know the entire list but i knew there were some objections and why we were going back to the director of the central intelligence agency. >> was it a matter of coincidence that this decision was moved to destroy the tapes the same week the 11th amendment was being considered and the mccain amendment was on the floor. was it a mere coincidence after three years of delay the decision was taken to destroy the tapes? >> senator, i don't believe in the director of operations front office we were aware of legislation. the lawyers may have been aware. i do not believe we were aware. >> a broader question not legislation. stories in the newspapers, a great deal of public interest just that week in the whole interrogation question. were you aware of that when you

made this decision? >> senator, i do not recall being aware of that. >> senator's time is expired. chair would note at this time since there has been a reference to declassification, i just want to draw a distinction that the durham investigation done by the department of justice is not in the purview of the central intelligence agency. any decision to declassify or keep classified is a department of justice decision and i just wanted to separate that from the discussions about miss haspel's background at the agency. with that, the chair recognizes senator langford. >> thank you very much. thank you for your over three decades of work for our nation. the lack of -- the recognition that you have had for three decades from our nation because you've served in a way that no

one has seen. this is an opportunity we get to be able to say thank you to you. for a lot of years of a lot of service protecting our nation and pretty remarkable in some of the dialogue today as i go through the very long list of people that have recommended you and that are both republican and democrats, and to be able to see the reports that have been written by the inspectors general about you, about previous d.o.j. about you, that have any concerns and that reaffirmed you whether it's president obama's director of the c.i.a., john brennan, or whether it's jim clapper, director of national intelligence for president obama, henry kissinger, john mclaughlin, mike morell. mike mccasey, leon panetta, george tenet. the list goes on and on of the people that have looked at your record and said you would be a

qualified leader. we appreciate that very much. let me ask you a little bit about some ongoing threats coming at us that we haven't had much time to talk about today. let's talk about the counter narcotics threat coming at us and some of the changing situations that's happening in our hemisphere dealing with drug trafficking organizations, international drug trafficking in particular. what do you sense is a role the c.i.a. should have in the ongoing work to do counter naar -- narcotics work. >> thank you for the question. when i returned from my overseas posting in early 2017, i was frankly shocked at what i saw was happening in our country, particularly in places like my home state of kentucky where there is a real crisis. but i think the number is 63,000 americans we lost last

year. we're losing 115 americans a day. that seems to me to be an extraordinary crisis for our country. i would like to talk about this if we could some this afternoon. but as you know, c.i.a. does have a fairly modest program to try and stop the flow of drugs from coming across our southern border. heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. we work very closely in central america and latin america to try and stop that flow. i've been talking to our team at c.i.a. headquarters about this for several months. i've asked them to come up with some options to grow that program. we have extraordinary support for that program on this committee. but i think in light of the fact that we're losing 115 americans a day, that we're losing almost a generation in some places, that we have to do

more. c.i.a. is not the primary agency but we can do a lot. but it has to be a whole of government effort. >> flip on that into the cyber activities and some of the cyber threats we have. some of those are changing internationally. there were criminal gangs in other countries that were trying to steal credit cards and steal information and be able to sell that out there. now there are some governments using the criminal gangs in their own country and become the strange hybrid that's out there between a criminal gang sometimes and a government entity at other times. and we're very dependent on trying to be able to identify where these threats are coming from and who the threats are coming from. what is needed with c.i.a. and what do you anticipate would be the need to determine the threats and where they're coming from? >> you're quite right it is a growing threat and another area where you have to have a whole of government effort. it's a very murky world, as you

point out. but china, russia, iran, and north korea have very aggressive offensive cyber programs both to steal secrets but also in some cases to earn illicit money. c.i.a. can probably make a biggest contribution in collection about these other countries' activities and various groups' activities so we can inform the u.s. government agencies that have to mount our defense. and everyone in the u.s. government has been struggling, as all western governments are, on what is the most effective way to organize yourself for cyber defense. we're still working on that but c.i.a. has a big role. it is another area that i would like to amplify on a bit this afternoon if i have the opportunity. >> i will look forward to that. >> i want to thank you for your service to our country and also i thank you for your efforts on

drugs. we are ground zero in west virginia and we need everybody in this fight because it is a war. we must win it. let me ask the first. what was your thoughts and greatest concerns for the united states of america after the 9/11 attack? >> i think for probably every american it was so surreal but i was worried and we weren't wrong, is that other attacks were being planned. so i think everyone in the u.s. government probably across the board, but certainly in the intelligence community and f.b.i., we all felt that we had let the american people down somehow. we didn't know these attacks were coming. and it was very important to identify who was behind these attacks and stop future attacks. >> i think back on that day and i remember it vividly as if it was happening this morning. the only thing i cared about first of all, my first thought was anybody in my family harmed that day. anyone i might have known or

related to or thought about or had acquaintances with. next my final thought was, was any other americans harmed. that's all i cared about. what was this -- i thought about history. pearl harbor. how did we react as a nation after pearl harbor? i remember the cruel and unusual internment of japanese americans. and we've never gone down that road again. our thought process would have been there. let me go a step further. after 9/11 had any laws or rules or procedures changed because of the attacks -- of those attacks? did we change any procedures after that? you're saying you would never do it now. you said you would say no to the president because that's not where you want c.i.a. to be. were those changed after that? >> senator, i'm not sure i understand directly. c.i.a. doesn't do interrogations. we have historically not done them and we don't do

interrogations today. >> are there any other tapes that would reveal agentsy i -- agency's destroyed or tapes that haven't been destroyed of your knowledge? >> probably i don't know. i don't know if there are any other tapes. i don't believe there are any other tapes associated with the particular interrogation activity that was on the 92 tapes but i simply don't know if there are any other videotapes of any other activity. >> we'll go into this. explain why you feel so strongly today that c.i.a. should not be in the interrogation business? who it have anything to do with the makeup of the c.i.a. with the appointment now for that versus the code of conduct for the military? is there a difference of why you think that the c.i.a. should not be in that business and why it shouldn't be done in the military? >> that's a great question.

c.i.a. historically has not done interrogations. we don't have interrogators so we just don't have any expertise. >> most of the questions have been directed to you has been because of that. >> yes, that's right. dod of course does do battlefield investigations and why we have the army field manual. we have policy guidance for those dod interrogations which i support. the f.b.i. has its own authorities for interviewing terror suspects and as we mentioned we have the high-value interrogation group and c.i.a. is part of that. we support that with substantive expertise about a particular group or individual but we don't conduct interrogation. >> you state it strongly and compelled to tell the president no, it's not something we do and not our line of work. >> i think there are other u.s. government entities suited to holding detainees and it isn't c.i.a. >> let me say this about the c.i.a. and being on this committee for one year and on

armed services for six years prior to that. when i speak to the west virginia citizens today i brag about what you all do and the clandestine services and people that provide the service for our country to keep us safe. i have never, ever seen the quality of people at that level to make the sacrifices they make and to make sure that they understand the importance and how successful and how good they are is that for a country that has a target on its back the way the united states has had since 9/11 and probably will for a long time, to be as safe as we have in a most troubled and dangerous world with the terrorist mentality, i want to thank you on behalf of every west virginiaian in this country for the job you all do. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you for your many decades of service to our country and taking on the new

position from the protestors and colleagues -- i have to clear up some things said here before. senator warner said he worried about the message we would be sending if we confirmed you to the director of c.i.a. let's look at that, what message would we be sending if we didn't confirm you to the c.i.a. to the men and women of the c.i.a. to the gs15 to ask to take on a controversial position that a future administration with new lawyers might not like? and for that matter, what message does overwhelming democratic opposition to your nomination send? in fact, if you had been nominated by president obama or if hillary clinton had won and nominated you to be c.i.a. director, how many votes do you think you would have gotten to be confirmed as c.i.a. director? you don't have to answer. [laughter]

>> i take exception to what senator warren said the opinion of office of legal counsel that was a get out of jail free card. do you believe acting under the legal approval of the attorney general that you or any other c.i.a. officer should have gone to jail and yu needed a get out of jail free card? you can answer that one, please. >> senator, c.i.a. follows the law. >> exactly what i thought. let's turn to the circumstances of what the counter terrorism center was doing the days you were there. i think senator collins asked an excellent sequence of questions that got at many of these points. i want to tie a bow on some of them. these programs were to the best of your understanding approved by the commander-in-chief, legally approved by the attorney general and supported by the director of the c.i.a. who i point out at the time was the former democratic staff

director of this committee, is that correct? >> that's correct, senator. >> you said you were not a senior manager when those programs were created, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> was john brennan a member of the senior intelligence service and deputy executive director at the time a senior manager if your opinion? >> senator, i believe mr. brennan was the deputy of the agency at the time. >> you would consider that a senior manager position at the c.i.a. >> i believe it's the number four position. >> for john brennan, who was confirmed to be the c.i.a. director by the following members of this committee, senator warner, sen fine sign, collins, man muchin and wyden and rubio. let's talk about the tapes that were destroyed in 2005. did any lawyer at any time in any organization of the federal government say there was a legal prohibition to destroy those tapes? >> senator, they did not.

they were very consistent that there was no legal requirement to preserve the tapes because of the written record. >> it is your testimony that there is a written record that fully documents whatever may or may not have happened? >> senator, yes, and there were two reviews done of the written record by the office of general counsel and the office of the inspector general. >> in other words, the c.i.a. has a record no different from the federal court system which keeps transcripts and allows sketch traution but doesn't allow video recordings in a federal courtroom. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> you were the chief of staff to mr. rodriguez when this happened, correct? >> yes. >> at his direction you drafted a cable that he later sent. >> that's correct. >> michael morell who supported hillary clinton in the last election cleared you of any wrongdoing in drafting that cable? >> he do. >> bill: as did an investigation by the office of special counsel and the office of the inspector general?

>> that investigation was closed without charges for mr. rodriguez or anyone. >> would holding you responsible for drafting a cable at your boss's direction than holding a senate speech writing blame the boring speeches senators give on the senate floor? >> i'll refer to you. >> it does not. there is a lot of talk about policy guidance and some awareness by mr. rodriguez that higher officials in the government who were political appointees had qualms or expressed reservations. i would say that's another way for which politicians don't want to take responsibilities when they're placed in certain positions whether they're elected or appointed and give the answers that they are responsible for giving yes or no and take the chips fall where they may. >> time has expired. senator harris. >> thank you. so let's just be clear, this hearing is not about the

incredible importance of the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the c.i.a. that's not what this hearing is about. this hearing is not about the importance of the agency's mission. both of which i wholeheartedly support. this hearing is about your suitability to be the director of the c.i.a. and in our responsibility to participate in choosing who will be the next director of the c.i.a., the mission that we have now includes understanding that who we choose will be a signal to the men and women of the agency, to the american people, and to our neighbors around the world about our values as americans on critical issues that range from our adherence to a rule of law to what we prioritize in terms of professional accountability and what we prioritize in terms of

our moral authority as americans and as a country. so one question i have not heard you answer is do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? >> senator, i believe that c.i.a. officers to whom you referred -- >> it's a yes or no answer. do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? i'm not asking do you believe they were legal. do you believe they were immoral? >> senator, i believe that c.i.a. does extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country given the legal authority we were able to use. >> do you believe that those techniques were immoral? >> what i believe sitting here today is i support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to. >> please answer the question.

>> senator, i think i've answered the question. >> do you believe the previous techniques now armed with hindsight, do you believe they were immoral? yes or no? >> senator, i believe that we should hold ourselves to the moral standard outlined in the army field manual. >> so i understand that you have not answered the question but i'll move on. so i understand that you from previous answers are serving as the authority over whether or not c.i.a. information concerning you will be classified or not. given an obvious appearance of conflict, will you agree to recuse yourself from the responsibility and the authority to make decisions about whether or not that information will be classified or not? will you agree to recuse yourself of that responsibility and authority, yes or no? >> senator, i am following the guidelines that exist at c.i.a.

and there is another declassification authority called the iro. i have not interfered with -- >> due believe you have the authority to recuse yourself? >> i'll take that for the record. i may have the authority to recuse myself. i'm not a lawyer. i'm not sure about that. >> assuming you do, and i believe you do, will you agree to recuse yourself from the responsibility and the authority of making decisions about what c.i.a. information about you and your record will be classified or declassified? >> senator, if i had agreed with the proposals that have come up because people thought it would be advantageous to me i think i would have been abdicating my responsibility to follow the rules that everyone at c.i.a. follows. >> okay. you also in this hearing have a responsibility to answer the questions that are being asked of you. i'm going to ask you a different question. do you -- would you agree that given this appearance of

conflict or potential conflict around the classification -- i.d. classification of these documents would you agree that director coates should have the responsibility for declassification decisions regarding your background? >> senator, i think one important thing is that this committee plays a unique role to review the classified record and we have sent over every piece of paper we can lay our hands on upon my classified record. all of my evaluations over a 33-year career and i hope every senator has had the opportunity to look at that classified material. but there are -- >> another question for you then. i only have a few minutes left. a few seconds left. the president has asserted that torture works. do you agree with that statement? >> senator, i don't believe that torture works. i believe that in the c.i.a.'s program -- i'm not attributing

this to enhanced interrogation techniques -- i believe as many people and directors who have sat in this chair before me that valuable information was obtained from senior al qaeda operatives that allowed us to defend this country and prevent another attack. >> is that a yes? >> no, it's not a yes. we got valuable information from debriefing of al qaeda detainees. i don't think it's knowable whether interrogation techniques played a role in that. >> thank you. >> senator cornyn. >> i note that one prominent national security expert has said that if president obama had nominated you to be director of the c.i.a., it would be an easy decision to support your nomination. so it strikes me that you are being treated much differently than director brennan was, which senator cotton noted he was voted out of this committee by a vote of 12-3 and confirmed

by a vote of 63-44 to be c.i.a. director. so it strikes me -- this is not a question for you. this is an observation by me, that you and this president are being held to a double standard. and i think that's regrettable. i also remember that president obama in 2009, when he declassified the office of legal counsel memos that have been referred to here, promised the men and women of the c.i.a. that, quote, we will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the department of justice that their actions were lawful. they need to be fully confident that as they defend the nation, i will defend them. and i think this committee and this senate should remember those words by president obama and apply those when considering your confirmation.

senator feinstein was kind enough about a year ago to send me a book by peter bergen called "manhunt." a 10-year history of the search for osama bin laden. i was reminded that post 9/11 president bush was concerned about reports that he had received that osama bin laden and al qaeda was meeting with pakistani officials connected with their nuclear program to gain access to a nuclear device that they might then use for a follow-on attack against cities like washington, d.c. without divulging classified information, can you confirm that there were concerns about

follow-on attacks using nuclear devices, biological weapons, other weapons of mass destruction that might have killed more innocent americans that happened on 9/11. was that the environment you and the country were operating in at the time? >> there were very grave concerns on that front and indeed al qaeda had those kinds of programs. efforts to acquire crude, dirty bombs, efforts to develop -- they had a program, a biological weapons program. i remember the operative who was in charge of that. there was very deep concern about potential contacts and we continue to monitor this very closely today between extremists and pakistani nuclear scientists. >> so here we sit years following the terrible events of 9/11 feeling very safe and

secure thanks to the incredible work being done by the intelligence community, including the good men and women at the c.i.a., as well as the men and women who serve in the united states military. we're feeling very safe and secure and the memories of that terrible event are very distant. but it strikes me that in addition to the double standard that i believe you and this president are being held to, compared to secretary brennan -- director brennan and president obama's administration, that people have simply forgotten. and that's dangerous to have forgotten the circumstances under which they were operating at the time in doing their dead level best to protect the country from a follow-on attack. i just want to note in closing that recently i had a chance to travel to a garden spot with the chairman and visit with

some of those unnamed patriots. >> thank you for doing that. >> in the c.i.a. and i was struck by talking to one gentleman, he was talking about his girlfriend that he no longer had. and i said -- >> it's a common story. >> i said this must be incredibly difficult on marriages, and on relationships and on families. would you just take a second to comment about the sacrifices that intelligence officers, rank and file employees of the c.i.a. make when it comes to those sorts of relationships? >> senator, thank you. you know, maybe i could start by saying i talked about how c.i.a.'s boots were the first on the ground in afghanistan. we suffered the first u.s. casualty. maybe it's important for the american people to know that c.i.a. officers are still out

there in afghanistan. our officers are out there fighting extremist, al qaeda and the taliban. we have 125 stars on our memorial wall now. many of those. it is shocking how many stars we've added. i believe we added seven stars to our wall last year. perhaps i could cite one personal example of an officer who worked for me. she was the most extraordinary woman. she was our number one al qaeda expert. i worked with her in the counter terrorism center. she was having her third baby in those days following 9/11. but we needed her because she had such deep expertise. she later worked for me on terrorism issues in a foreign capital and then she went to afghanistan. and she and six colleagues were murdered by a suicide bomber

who penetrated our base. these are very real sacrifices. these are my friends and colleagues. all of us at c.i.a. have a commitment and an honor-bound obligation to uphold the memory of those officers, mothers who have left their children to go to the field and sometimes have given in their all in service of this country. >> thanks, senator cornyn. senator reid. >> thank you. you've been working with the administration now 15 months. you have had the opportunity to brief the president. have you ever been alone with the president? >> senator, i'm usually there with senator coates, a brilliant analyst who delivers the actual analytic briefing, and usually the national security advisor, the vice president.

>> there have been allegations, mr. comey one, that while he was alone the president asked for personal pledge of loyalty. if you were ever approached by the president and asked for a personal pledge of loyalty what would you respond? >> senator, my only loyalty is to the american people and the constitution of the united states. i am honor bound and will work very hard to deliver to this president and his administration the best performance and intelligence c.i.a. can deliver. >> and if you were approached in such a way and such a demand was made of you would you inform this committee and the congress that you had been so approached? >> senator, i work very closely with this president. i don't believe that such a circumstance would ever occur. c.i.a. has been treated with enormous respect and our expertise is valued for what we bring to the table. >> if it occurred would you inform the committee? >> senator, it's a hypothetical.

i don't think it's going to occur. >> it does not seem to be a hype thet call. people have alleged it's happened already. >> i don't know anything about that conversation. >> okay. now, senator harris was asking you about the morality of the enhanced interrogation techniques, the waterboarding. at the time that you were involved in it, in fact, fairly directly, you expressed no moral concerns. in fact, you have suggested that it was good trade craft in that it contributed to information that was developed. if one of your operations officers was captured and subject to waterboarding today or tomorrow or the next day. >> i want to interrupt here.

>> senator will suspend, capitol police will remove. [person in back of room shouting] >> stop resisting. >> if there are any other further disruptions i will ask the capitol police to remove all individuals. >> if one of your operatives were captured and subjected to waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques which you supervised would you consider that tore moral since the other entity did not have legal restrictions and good trade craft, as you appeared to do when you were involved in it previously. >> senator, i don't believe the

terrorists follow any guidelines or civilized norms or the law. c.i.a. follows the law. >> excuse me, madam. you seem to be saying that you are not following civilized norms and the laws for anything else when you were conducting those same activities if that's the analogy you are going to draw. very simple. if an operations officer is captured and being waterboarded. i've asked you simply would you determine that to be immoral and something that should never be done, condoned in any way, shape or form? your response seems to be that civilized nations do it or uncivilized nation. >> a civilized nation was doing it until it was outlawed by

this congress. >> i wouldn't support any inhumane treatment of c.i.a. officers. we've lost c.i.a. officers over the years to terrorists. khalid sheikh mohammed killed a "wall street journal" correspondent and filmed. there is no comparison between c.i.a. officers adhering to u.s. law and terrorists by their definition are not following anybody's law. >> finally, in the morell report which you have somewhat acknowledged, there was opposition to the destruction of the tapes by two white house counsel. the dni, the dcia and a member of the congress and yet those tapes were destroyed. do you consider that to be insubordinate actions without the director in this case mr.

goss being notified? >> senator, i think that in consultation with the director, was essential. and a lesson coming out of that is the importance of making sure all the stakeholders have agreed to include congressional oversight. there is also a leadership lesson. don't let real security issues go unaddressed. >> so the action was insubordinate and you would not countenance anyone in your organization doing something like that. >> i expect my officers to bring those difficult issues to me and i think i have a reputation for not just leaving them in the inbox. i will say this. mr. rodriguez has taken full accountability for his decision, which he thought he was operating under his own authority. >> thank you. >> time is expired. we've come to the conclusion of the open session. and i would duly note for members it is my understanding we'll have two recorded votes

starting at 12:00. my intention is to start the closed hearing immediately after the second vote. and the vice chairman and i would like to make some closing statements. i do want to take the opportunity, miss haspel, since two individuals have been mentioned. and they will be the subject of conversation in the closed session but for the american people's purpose would you share for them who khalid sheikh mohammed is and nisiri. >> khalid sheikh mohammed was the architect and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. his nephew, ussaf was behind the 93 attack on the world trade center and mohammed financed that operation and he was behind the plot in the

philippines. tragically, he was the individual who personally killed a "wall street journal" american correspondent and filmed that heinous act. he also, after 9/11, carried out an attack on a synagogue in tunisia and he had other attacks planned. we were able to warn allies about a planned attack, for example, on heathrow airport. mr. nashiri was the amir in the attack in 2000 on the u.s.s. cole and behind the attack on a french ship, the limbergh. and he was the al qaeda chief of operations in the gulf and the arabian peninsula. >> i think it's important to

note what their role was in terrorism and why they were the focus of not only the agency, but law enforcement. with that i would like to recognize the vice chairman for any closing statements he would like to make. >> thank you. >> they're wrapping up the hearing for gina haspel, the nominee to become director of the c.i.a. she has spent a career in the agency starting in 1985. in her 16th year she was transferred to the counter terrorism division on september 11, 2001. mr. trump now speaking. let's listen. >> president trump: it will not be there, no. everyone thinks so. i would never say it. you know what i want to do? i want to get it finished. the prize i want is victory for the world. not for even here. i want victory for the world. that's what we're talking about. so that's the only prize i want.

>> [inaudible question] >> president trump: everything can be scuttled. a lot of things can happen. a lot of good things can happen, a lot of bad things can happen. i believe that we have both sides want to negotiate a deal. i think it will be a very successful deal. i think we have a really good shot at making it successful but lots of things can happen. and, of course, you will be the first to know about it if it does. i think we have a really good chance to make a great deal for the world. thank you very much. >> what will you do if iran starts up their nuclear program again? >> president trump: iran will find out. i would advise iran not to start their nuclear program. i would advise them very strongly. if they do, there will be very severe consequence. okay? thank you very much. thank you.

>> what a week in washington the president there remarking with his cabinet after on the day after he decided to pull the united states out of the iran nuclear deal and capitol hill you have gina haspel in front of the senate committee considering her nomination. >> it has been fascinating to watch the back and forth. calm under pressure. she won't shake under the questioning we've seen on capitol hill today? >> democrats believe the issue of waterboarding is monumental enough to the american people they are willing to torpedo her nomination that she briefly oversaw one of the black sites, the so-called black sites where waterboarding was practiced and permitted under american law at the time. most democrats seem to think it's reprehensible and should

torpedo the nomination. republicans seem to feel the other way. >> people going after her personally morally. her moral code. to that i think my favorite response from her throughout the day my parents raised me right. i know the difference between wrong and right. it has been fascinating to see how she has chosen to push back on that issue. >> there will be more questions for her this afternoon from the same senate committee but they will be holding a closed-door hearing talking about some of the things that cannot be revealed in public. again, a fascinating glimpse into a way washington works and you can decide for yourself is waterboarding and the kind of thing that was practiced in the days immediately after the 9/11 attacks, is that something that should disqualify her from running the agency that she has served throughout her career? >> it remind us what it was like that time. the concerns for family members and friends just in the immediate aftermath and the concern for the broader country in the days and weeks that

followed. and so that all has to be put into context when we're talking about those issues. >> thank you for joining us for our truncated hour today. >> "outnumbered" starts right now. >> fox news alert as you've been watching fox news you know it has been a fluid situation in just the last few minutes. let's catch everybody up. the hearing by the way with gina haspel is closing remarks for the c.i.a. director confirmation. that will be wrapping up shortly. they're in the closing remarks and they'll break for a vote and go into a classified session and they will not be back as news is made on that, of course, we'll talk about it this hour for sure. keep watching for that. but we just heard from the president on north korea in specific. what we've learned today is that three american hostages are coming home with the new secretary of state mike pompeo. the president expected to meet their plane overnight at 2:00 a.m. eastern. 2:00 a.m. eastern overnight to meet those