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?

was that cable copied to mr. rizzo or other lawyers within the agency? >> senator, was there -- there was robust coordination with the lawyers at cia -- >> 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's been very clear and up front about that. >> and you were aware because you drafted the cable that the lawyers weren't copied on the cable? >> but i knew that the lawyers had been consulted in a meeting and consulted over 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 together, they were crestfallen because they were now on notice that the dni, two successive white house counsels and the vice president's top lawyer had weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes. do you recall that conversation? >> senator, i don't recall that specific conversation however, i was aware that there

mr. rizzo's books so i didn't even know that was out there. mr. rizzo and actually i read about it in "the washington post" last night. eric wemple wrote a story talking about the failure of certain organizations to correct their facts. and that was one of them. and he noted that mr. rizzo about ten days ago he was wrong, he didn't in fact check, and that has been corrected. i would never even served in that department nor was i the head of it. >> let me read directly his quote from the book. several weeks later party promoted jose rodriguez to the position of deputy director for operations. jim pavis former job. once more, jose installed as his chief of staff an officer from the counterterrorist center who had previously run the interrogation program. between them, they were the stanchest advocates inside the building for destroying the tapes. >> senator, i did not run the interrogation department. in fact, i was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year. i never served -- >> were you an advocate for

and for the record, if you have your staff check, mr. rizzo has issued a correction. >> mr. rizzo, what is that correction? >> well, the correction was, this was -- just put it in context for a second, katy. this was one sentence in a 330-page book i put out four years ago. in this one sentence i said that miss haspel -- i couldn't use her name then because she was under cover -- before becoming jose rodriguez' chief of staff, quote, ran the interrogation program. when this was brought to my attention a couple weeks ago by a reporter that asked me about it, i gave -- i usually give standard response to stuff in my book, that i stand by what i said. so then the report comes out, other media pick it up and it causes me to reflect back as to what miss haspel's role was. and in retrospect, i overstated her role. she didn't run the program. so that's why i was happy to correct the record. >> she did oversee that black site, correct? >> see, here's problem. as you know, katy, from the hearing, miss haspel is reluctant to give any more details about her precise role. she -- let me p

mr. rizzo's book so i didn't even know that was out there. mr. rizzo, and actually i read about it in "the washington post" last night. eric wimpel, i believe, wrote a story talked about the certain organizations to correct their facts and that was one of them, and he noted that mr. rizzo about ten days ago, he was wrong. he didn't fact check, and that has been corrected. i would never even served in that department nor was i the head of it. >> several weeks later porter promoted jose rodriguez to the position of deputy director for operations and jim's former job. once more jose installed as his chief of staff an officer from the counter terrorist center who had previously run the interrogation program. between them, they were the staunchest advocates inside the building for destroying the tapes. >> senator, i did not run the interrogation department. in fact, i was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year. i never served -- >> were you an advocate for destroying the tapes. >> senator, i absolutely

mr. rizzo's book so i didn't even know that was out there. mr. rizzo, and actually, i read about it in the "washington post" last night. eric wemple wrote a story talking about the failure of certain organizations to correct their facts, and that was one of them. and he noted that mr. rizzo, about ten days ago, he was wrong. he didn't fact check. and that has been corrected. i would never even have served in that department, nor was i the head of it. >> let me read directly his quote from the book. several weeks later, porter promoted jose rodriguez to the position of deputy director for operations. jim's former job. once more jose installed as his chief of staff an officer from the counter terrorist center who had previously run the interrogation program. between them, they were the staunchest advocates inside the building for destroying the tapes. >> senator, i did not run the interrogation department. in fact, i was not even read into the interrogation program until it was up and running for a year. >> were you an advocate for destroying the ta

was that cable copied to mr. rizzo or other lawyers within the agency? > senator, there was -- there was robust coordination with the lawyers at cia -- >> 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. >> and you were aware because you drafted the cable that the lawyers weren't copied on the cable. >> but i knew that the lawyers had been consulted in a meeting and consulted many times over three years. >> in may of 2005 mr. rizzo reports i told josÉ and his chief of staff -- that was you, is that correct? i can't recall if i talked to them separately or together, they were crest fallen because they were now on notice that the dni two successive white house counsels and the vice president's top lawyer had weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes. do you recall that conversation? >> senator, i don't recall that specific conversation, however, i was aware that there

was that cable copied to mr. rizzo or other lawyers within the agency? >> senator, there was robust coordination with the lawyers at cia -- >> 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. >> and you were aware because you drafted the cable that the lawyers weren't copied? >> but i knew the lawyers have been consulted in a meeting and many times over three years. >> in may of 2005, he reports i told the chief of staff, was that you. they were crest fallen because they were now on notice that the dni, two successive white house counsels and the white house lawyer weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes. do you recall that conversation? >> i don't recall that specific conversation. however, i was aware that there were some objections, and that is why the jose -- >> those aren't some objections. those are very straightforward prohibitions by your superiors to not

mr. rizzo -- actually i read about it in the "washington post" last night.a reporter wrote a story talking about the failure of certain organizations to correct their facts and that was one of them. and he noted that mr. rizzo, about 10 days ago, he was wrong. he didn't fact check. and that has been corrected. i would never even serve in that department nor was i the head of it. >> let me read his quote from the book. several weeks later porter promoted jose rodriguez to the position as deputy director for operations. jim pafsh itch's former job. once more jose installed as his chief of staff an officer from the counter terror center who had previously run the interrogation program. between them they were the staunchest advocates inside the building for destroying the tapes. >> senator, i did not run the interrogation department. in fact, i was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year. i never served. >> were you an advocate for destroying the tapes? >> senator, i absolutely was an advocate if we could within a