as you sat add director of national intelligence. >> i thought we would break the sig down to three parts, threats, sponsor capabilities of intelligence community then the questions that will come from the audience. that dustin car will enable the questioning to you. intelligence community that you led, april 9, 10 days ago issued a written annual threat assessment. in that, that was a pro amble to -- preamble to hearings held by committee you served on house in terms of house intelligence committee and senate select committee for intelligence this past week. i point that out because it a great backdrop for the following question that i have on national security as it applying to threats we face. as dr. carafano said, we can agree the threats are real. they are looming and getting worse and deeper and broader in terms of what america faces. so let's focus in terms of firstms question on the threats that we face from china. if you were to think about in terms of your time at the director of national intelligence, the chinese communist party continues as a whole of government to influence,

that's what the director of national intelligence does, integrates and coordinates across all 17 intelligence agencies. making the community better so we can make members of congres, the president, and our policymakers and better informed on national security decisions. my time in congress as well the committees i've been on and been legislating trading national security law i think i've got a broadoa deep more than qualifiea level of experience we talk about national security issues. i have a den if i do when there are problems with the use of intelligence authorities. i've spoken truth to power when i have seen it misused. >> i enthusiastically support your nomination. i look forward to voting for you on the committee and again on the floor. thankin you. if any member currently has additional question i be happy to entertain them. if not, senator feinstein? if you've got a quick one. [inaudible] >> if i could ask one question it's something i have tried i have been very concerned by t te growth of contractors of the last 20 plus o years in the agencies. when i was chairman of the committee

that's what the director of national intelligence does, integrates and coordinates across all 17 intelligence agencies. making the community better so we can make members of congres, the president, and our policymakers and better informed on national security decisions. my time in congress as well the committees i've been on and been legislating trading national security law i think i've got a broadoa deep more than qualifiea level of experience we talk about national security issues. i have a den if i do when there are problems with the use of intelligence authorities. i've spoken truth to power when i have seen it misused. >> i enthusiastically support your nomination. i look forward to voting for you on the committee and again on the floor. thankin you. if any member currently has additional question i be happy to entertain them. if not, senator feinstein? if you've got a quick one. [inaudible] >> if i could ask one question it's something i have tried i have been very concerned by t te growth of contractors of the last 20 plus o years in the agencies. when i was chairman of the committee

but when i became the director of national intelligence on the category of the site of the wall or the other side of the curtain and we look at all of our intelligence for what it said it was so clear that china and china alone presented the greatest national security threat, and that wasn't something i'd seen as a member of congress. that was one of the reasons i did something that dni's typically don't do. i put out an op-ed saying they are our number one nationals nal security threat. i was pleased to see in the unclassified report that came out and in hearings a recognition and a discussion about that, that china poses the greatest threat. unfortunately what worries me most about china is that got a lot of momentum. they didn't become our number one adversary overnight. we should in talking about china i think honestly more candidly and in recognition of how the ra near-peer competitor, a competitor to the u.s. in so many places. now we look up, and what worries me is not only are they and near-peer competitor in many places but that got a lot of momentum and they got a unified foc

the nominee he had confirmed was the director of national intelligence. a couple days later he had lloyd austin confirmed and then a few days after that he had antony blinken, secretary of state confirmed. it is normal to prioritize national security nominees on the floor if you are senate leadership. in the case of trump nominees, they are some of the more controversial ones. after that it will be epicenter democrats in terms of whether they would build time or not because each nominee under regular order if you use the full-time, each nominee will take a few days. host: does marco rubio get to vote on his own nomination? guest: as long as he is still a sitting senator by the time the vote happens. he could technically wait to resign until right before he becomes secretary of state, of course. that could be interesting. i've tried asking to see what his plans are. he doesn't have any specifics to share, but that could be fascinating. he does not need his own vote. he's going to get 80, 85 plus votes in the senate. host: what senators stick out for confir

intelligence. as far as experience, i started handling national securit issues back in 2005. and that included intelligence authoriti my first exposure with fisa wa 2005 and in trying to respond t in trying to respond to this committee, we found that in at least one instance, the authorities that i used -- the matters that i work on remain c. so from an experience standpoin as far back as 2005, i've been using those authorities. but i think the role of u.s. attorney, in particular, and my time as chief of antiterrorism for four years is particularly well-suited and analogous to th so as u.s. attorney, i was running a federated enterprise, working across federal agencies integrating, coordinating, sharing information, and doing so in an apolitical way. and that's very much what the director of national intelligence does, integrates and coordinates across all 17 intelligence agencies. making the community making our policymakers and the community better informed on national security decisions. my time in congress, as well. legislating, creating national security laws. i think i

that is pretty much what the director of national intelligence does, integrates and coordinates across all 17 intelligence agencies, making the community better so our policymakers are better for national security decisions. the committees i have been on, legislating, creating laws, i think i have a deep and more than qualified level of experience if you want to talk about national security issues. i have good judgment. i have identified and spoken truth to power when i see it missed used. sen. rubio: i enthusiastically support the nomination and look forward to voting for you. >> if any member currently has one additional question i would be happy that. if you have a quick one. sen. feinstein: if i could ask one question, something i wanted to cure. i have been very concerned about the growth of contractors over the last 20 plus years. when i was chairman of the committee we made a big push to ensure all inherently government functions were performed by government employees and not contractors. it is my understanding that effort continues today and we made substantial progress over th

in addition, the director of national intelligence is the president's principal intelligence advisor, and in that role, the director of national intelligence oversees the production of the president's daily brief, referred to as the pdb. this is the daily intelligence product that goes into the president, into about two dozen other senior officials. so it's a very, very important role. and it's a complicated role because of the many different intelligence agencies that constitute the intelligence community. >> yeah. in order to get confirmed by the senate, you know, this, you have to fill out certain forms, provide documentation, get interviewed often. the fbi is involved in this. this process is, for whatever reason, delayed with tulsi gabbard. however, the allegations that she's parroting bashar al assad's stuff and the kremlin propaganda, we've we've all known that for a long time. what would that what effect does all of that have on her potential elevation to dni in america's national security? what's what's the concern here? >> well, i think there are a number of concerns. and i

>> well, by law, the director of national intelligence is the senior intelligence advisor to the president of the united states. and as a result, it is the office of the director of national intelligence and the dni, the director of national intelligence, who has responsibility for ensuring the production of the president's daily brief. this is the pdb that is produced six days a week. that goes to the president and other senior members of the national security environment. and so. >> it has all the threats in there. just so people know like it is it has everything. >> on a daily basis. it provides the president and others the insight into what's going on around the world and the threats to us, but also the director of national intelligence is responsible for coordinating and de-conflicting all these various intelligence agencies, making sure that they have the budget, the resources, the capabilities, making sure that their information technology systems are compatible and interactive with one another. so there's so much that falls under it. and so therefore, you want to have somebody who

guard, but she does not have any experience working in a top national security or intelligence position. she also did not serve on a congressional intelligence committee during her eight years in congress, and there are long running concerns about her ties to authoritarians like the recently ousted syrian dictator bashar al assad and russia's vladimir putin. it's worth noting that the white house promising consequences for republicans who don't support nominees like tulsi gabbard is not happening in a vacuum. it's happening today. at the end of the week, marked by the enactment of the kind of retribution that trump promised on the campaign trail in a day one executive order, trump revoked the security clearances of 50 former intelligence officials. in what legal experts tell nbc news is an unprecedented move, which underscores both the willingness to break political norms, which we've come to expect and to punish perceived political enemies, which we should never come to accept. that list of perceived enemies, by the way, includes john bolton, one of trump's former national sec

john enlisted why partisan support to build a national cyberpo intelligence infrastructure to protect our country. president obama signed the significant cybersecurity bill that john co-authored a national cybersecurity protection advancements act, which passed the house ofce representatives with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. hisng record reflects a commitmt to continue building a forward-looking intelligence community that is integrated and coordinated. his experience signals his possession of the skills necessary to lead theth intelligence community and effectively addressing national security threats. john ratcliffe is capable of and committed to delivering the most insightful, accurate intelligence and counterintelligence possible. he will supply decision-makers with excellent information upon which they can base sound judgment, safeguarding our national security. mr.di chairman and committee members, thank you for what i consider to be the privilege of communicating to you my unreserved endorsement of john ratcliffe for the director of the central intelligence agency. thank yo

columns. >> yeah. >> and i think the thing that people have to realize about the director of national intelligencein addition to trying to coordinate the massive apparatus of the u.s. intelligence community, which is, you know, something that she's not qualified to do. she's also the principal filter of information to the president of united states. so every morning, the president, united states, starts his day with a presidential daily briefing prepared for him by the director of national intelligence. and often it's the director of national intelligence who briefs that to the president. or if there's a crisis and everybody's got to gather in the situation room, the first person to talk is usually the director of national intelligence, kind of framing up the issue and saying, hey, here's what we know. and so it's not just that this is a person with a worldview that feels kind of almost oppositional to a lot of things the united states has cared about, you know, very solicitous of putin's worldview. obviously, she had her own strange history of going to meet with bashar al assad. it's not just tha

the nominee he confirmed was the director of national intelligence. a couple days later he confirmed into a few days after that secretary of state was confirmed so it is normal to prioritize through national leadership. you could see a day one confirmation and after that it will be a senate democrat in terms of revealing time or not under regular order. >> does marco rubio get to vote on the nomination? >> he can as long as he still a sitting editor. right before he becomes secretary of state so that could be interesting. he doesn't have any specifics to share get. i will say he does not need his own boat. >> what senators take out. who tends to make them? >> it depends on the committees on the floor it's a lot different because you have the perpetual swing votes and susan carlin's and mitch mcconnell and that. you and continue to advance and how he that involved. pushing back on this is party and will way in this confirmation and vote for someone like excess. i would say in terms of the senate or have an independent and issues to focus on. it is nomin

because the director of national intelligence to someone who sits with the president of the united states every single day and brief them every single day, some people on the outside would say, well, maybe a marco rubio, secretary state, that's a more important position, isn't it? i don't think so, a secretary of state does not interact with the president as closely for as a regularly as the, the director of national intelligence. what, that's why i told the cabbage position just so important. and by the way, i don't predict that market rubia will be there very long, anyways, probably 6 months tops. so i think that's a very important to see the people who are around trump. to also echo the things that we don't want to see. a world of constantly as a war, that this idea of an american ever expanding empire through creating more around the world, the stabilizing governments around the world, that the time for that is over with it. instead, we need to have a country that's focused on its own people and its own growth. and in order to do that, you can be out empire building and. and so in thi

as trump's new director of national intelligence, ratcliffe drew criticism from democrats for declassifying unverified russian intelligence. the intel purported that hillary clinton had approved an effort to, quote, stir up a scandal against us presidential candidate donald trump by tying him to putin and the russians hacking of the democratic national committee, end quote. that assessment had already been rejected by democrats and republicans in the senate intelligence committee as having no factual basis. that's according to politico. sources also told the new york times that special counsel robert mueller had also evaluated and rejected that information. ratcliffe. ratcliffe himself even acknowledged that the intel community, quote, does not know the accuracy of this allegation. end quote. some democrats accused ratcliffe of politicizing the intelligence community. senator mark warner of virginia called move disturbing, especially so close to a presidential election. oregon senator ron wyden said, quote, his politicization of intelligence, including through selective releases to politica

national intelligence, kash patel for the fbi, pete hegseth for. >> defense. >> john ratcliffe. >> for is. >> an element of. >> trump's desire. to decapitate the. national security establishment of the united. >> states. >> decapitate it, meaning disable it. >> by putting in. >> empty heads in charge of it. >> you've written so much about the structure and history of the cia, and also the fbi is the person at the top determinative in terms of not only the actions of the agency, but potentially the fates of these agencies and these functions. >> once. >> when i was in afghanistan, the mujahideen said. >> we have an old saying in our country. >> the fish. stinks from the. >> head. >> which is a universal truth. >> yeah. if you put in. charge of the american. >> national security. >> establishment, crackpots. >> and fools. whose only qualification. >> is their. deathless loyalty to. >> donald trump. >> you are not. >> going to get. >> good intelligence. we are. >> in a very. >> dangerous moment. >> in this world. we are approaching. >> a state of. >> total war. in this world, we have the.

gabbard for director of national intelligence. kash patel. >> for the fbi. pete hegseth. >> for defense. >> john ratcliffe. >> for cia. >> what you are. >> seeing is. >> an element of. >> trump's desire. >> to decapitate the. >> national security establishment of. >> the united states. >> decapitate it, meaning disable it. >> by putting. >> in empty. >> heads in charge of it. >> you've written so much about the structure and history of the cia, and also the fbi is the person at the top determinative in terms of not only the actions of the agency, but potentially the fates of these agencies and these functions. >> once, when i. >> was in. >> afghanistan, the mujahideen said, we have an old saying in our country. >> the fish. stinks from the head. which is. >> a universal truth. yeah. if you put in charge of the american. national security establishment. >> crackpots and fools. whose only qualification. >> is their. deathless loyalty to donald. >> trump. >> you are. >> not going. >> to get good intelligence. we are in. >> a very. >> dangerous moment. >> in this

>> with the nomination of tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligence. kash patel for the fbi. pete hegseth for defense. john ratcliffe for cia. what you are seeing is an element of trump's desire to decapitate the national security. establishment of the united states. >> decapitate it, meaning disable it. >> by putting in empty heads in. >> charge of it. >> you've written so much about the structure and history of the cia, and also the fbi is the person at the top determinative in terms of not only the actions of the agency, but potentially the fates of these agencies and these functions. >> once, when. >> i was in afghanistan. >> a mujahideen. >> said, we have an old saying in our country, the fish stinks from the head. which is a universal truth. >> yeah. >> if you. put in charge of the american national security establishment, crackpots and fools whose only qualification is their deathless loyalty to donald trump, you are not going to get good intelligence. we are in a very dangerous moment in this world. we are approaching a state of total war. in th

congresswoman, to be the director of national intelligence.nd just reading from some reporting here about some private reading, she had that in her meeting with chairman james lankford. she couldn't clearly articulate what the role of director of national intelligence entails to senate republican aides. and a trump transition official said when she met with senator mike rounds, she seemed confused about a key u.s. national security surveillance power, a top legislative priority for nearly every member of the senate intelligence committee. conflating it with other issues, aides said. obviously, these are anonymous aides talking about it, but what is your posture towards the nominee to run the nation's intelligence? well. >> again, chris, this is one of the most critical jobs in government. the director of national intelligence, you got to be able to sift through and make sense of a massive amount of information. >> you know. >> she has. >> contradicted the. >> intelligence community. and pushed back when there was broad consensus. >> on the use

nation's history, 9/11. it was a failure of communication. we had the intelligence, we just weren't sharing it with each other in a way that would prevent that. and you brought up covid as the more recent example where maybe as many as 25 million people died worldwide and at least a million americans as a result of that, and one of the things when i came in as d.n.i. to your point was, i was surprised at the lack of coordination between, for instance, the intelligence community and health agencies like the c.d.c. and the n.i.h. and the ability to -- the channels were not open to share information like you're talking about. so many of these things can be, if not prevented, mitigated quickly, if we're communicating and sharing intelligence better. so i completely agree with the sentiment that you've expressed and look forward to working with you to make sure that we're doing those things if i'm confirmed at c.i.a. director. sen. gillibrand: thank you. i just want to associate myself with the comments of senator collins with regard to -- i think it is essential as i me

optimistic that the senate will not confirm her, that she will not become the director of national intelligenceof their policies in general. president trump put out a statement as soon as assad fell. his statement was way more positive than the initial statement of president biden. the biden white house put out a statement that said, "these are terrorists. "we have nothing to do with this "and we call on de—escalation." de—escalate what? the liberation of literal concentration camps where babies had their nails pulled out? the world should be celebrating what happened in syria instead of being critical about, "well, who's here and who's there? " we just got rid of a horrible evil, defeated russia and iran and hezbollah and assad at the same time, and i think only the ukrainians feel our happiness and have continued to be very good allies and now good friends of the new syrian government. the trump administration, i would say, has a lot of people that he has appointed, that i have worked with very closely, that actually are, probably, you know, very good on syria. marco rubio, mike waltz, the sp

the nominee he had confirmed was the director of national intelligence.ouple days later he had lloyd austin confirmed and then a few days after that he had antony blinken, secretary of state confirmed. it is normal to prioritize national security nominees on the floor if you are senate leadership. in the case of trump nominees, they are some of the more controversial ones. after that it will be epicenter democrats in terms of whether they would build time or not because each nominee under regular order if you use the full-time, each nominee will take a few days. host: does marco rubio get to vote on his own nomination? guest: as long as he is still a sitting senator by the time the vote happens. he could technically wait to resign until right before he becomes secretary of state, of course. that could be interesting. i've tried asking to see what his plans are. he doesn't have any specifics to share, but that could be fascinating. he does not need his own vote. he's going to get 80, 85 plus votes in the senate. host: what senators stick out for confirmati

answers i got from him about tulsi gabbard, president trump's nominee to serve as director of national intelligence. if confirmed ms. gabbard would oversee the cia and i think she would be disruptive for american security. if there is anyone who has not been fact based as you've listened to her statements over the years is tulsi gabbard. she seems to make things up out of thin air. no one could be worse in a position of dni than someone who doesn't believingin facts. i told mr. ratcliffe he should urge mr. trump to drop her nomination. he couldn't report to somebody like tulsi gabbard in good conscious. she is too risky. she has a history of cheering america's adversaries. if confirmed i'm worried she'll push false intelligence for political ends. those are precisely the moments mr. ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says and go to the president and speak truth to power. his answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying, so i'm voting no, because it's such an important position. now on the hegseth vote, today the senate will vote to advance one of the most unqualified, erratic

national intelligence, rfkjr to be the secretary of health and human services.among democrats, but they are in the minority at the moment. and, of course, if you look at the fact that we've seen all of these candidates — including, i shouldn't forget, of course, kash patel as well — to lead the fbi, that they have been lobbying consistently on capitol hill and meeting also with democrats to dry to make their case. to make theircase... i think i'd seen that tulsi gabbard was set to meet with mark warner, the democrat senator from virginia. and because of the massive snowstorm that we had here in dc, that got a bit delayed. but he had said, "i have some very serious questions for her. "i had some and i will have some." and my sense is that they will have pretty contentious hearings. i mean, that is to be expected. but i wonder if that time for lobbying was successful enough. also with the fact that donald trump wants these picks to be confirmed, that that is enough to get them over the line. i mean, fundamentally, the republicans have 53 senators, so they have the

another contentious confirmation coming up this week for tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligenceitics pointing to her lack of experience in intelligence. she's also made statements in the past blaming the u.s. for the war in ukraine, and she's also met with bashar al assad and voiced skepticism that assad was using chemical weapons against his own people despite overwhelming evidence from the u.s. some republicans even questioning whether she should oversee the 18 intelligence agencies and the $100 billion budget that comes with that role. gio? >> gio: all right. a lot to watch there, alex. thank you so much. >>> now to the trial of a$ap rocky used of assault in an alleged shooting in hollywood in 2021. some big testimony ahead this week. abc's morgan norwood is here with the details. morgan, good morning. >> reporter: good morning to you, gio. a$ap rocky back this week as you pointed out, facing those two felony assault charges. prosecutors say this centers around a video showing him firing a gun, but his defense team says this was just a prop with his career and freedom now on

she's going to have a hearing to be the director of national intelligence this coming week. are you going to support her? >> we'll see how she does. i've known her on the same reserve unit. richard burr, who is a good friend of mine, is going to introduce her. so that goes a long way, but. >> we'll see. it's not a ringing endorsement, huh? we'll see. >> yeah, well, we'll see. is an honest answer. >> we'll see. joining us now, former adviser to george w. bush and john mccain, mark mckinnon, also the creator of paramount's the circus. mark good morning. always wonderful to see you. >> hi, jason. >> do you? very well. the eagles won yesterday. they are going to the super bowl. you may have heard i think this may be the fifth time i've mentioned it in under an hour and a half and under two hours. but let's talk about these confirmation chances. i know this is a conversation you and i have kind of had going the last couple of months. tulsi gabbard, in particular, seems to potentially be in trouble. do you think she is and do you think anybody else is going to face potential probl

trump's pick for director of national intelligence.you have said that she needs to clarify where she stands on 702 r. mrs. gabbard's assurances enough for you, senator? are you now a yes on her? >> yeah, i am, and that was a very important piece for me. >> the first thing i asked robert kennedy jr. was about vaccination inoculations. he came back with he's not. >> anti vaccination. he just is anti. >> he wants to have it science based. and that's what he kept going back to. let's have basic science to make these decisions. in terms of i think he wants a healthy country. >> and i also support pete hegseth. >> if you take a look at the current nominee, compared to who's been in the pentagon the last four years, where they had a woke military, where recruitment went down, morale went down, i think pete is going to be terrific. >> sources close to trump's transition team tell cnn that these nominees have undergone weeks of rigorous preparation for these high stakes hearings on capitol hill. some of them have been holding mock hearings that

, the office of national intelligence? >> jake, this is the one nomination that potentially could go down. we don't know if it could, but that is the the belief on capitol hill that if there is to choose one that potentially would not make it to the finish line. tulsi gabbard might be that candidate and we don't know yet. she could certainly get the votes. she could certainly be confirmed by the united states senate, because there are a lot of republican senators who are noncommittal about backing her for the position. she does have a confirmation hearing coming up that will be absolutely essential, but there are views that she has espoused in the past, whether it's about dealing with russia versus ukraine or her meeting in 2017 with bashar al-assad of syria, that have really caused a lot of concerns among some republican senators. but she has made some concessions. she's flipped on how to deal with the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a key section dealing with warrantless surveillance, that she now is aligning hers

gabbard is, of course, trump's pick to serve as director of national intelligence. in response, ratcliffe promised to keep politics out of decisions involving intel. and meanwhile, next thursday is shaping up to be a busy day for president trump's nominees on capitol hill. trump's picks for director of national intelligence tulsi gabbard, health and human services secretary robert kennedy jr and fbi director kash patel will all have confirmation hearings that day. kennedy's meeting on the 30th will be his second, as he's scheduled to appear before a separate committee on wednesday morning. all three of the picks, though, are expected to undergo grueling questioning from senate democrats, as they are some of trump's most controversial nominees still left to consider. and amid the busyness on capitol hill, president trump is expected to make the first trip of his new term later today. trump is set to visit north carolina after hurricane helene ravaged the western part of the state back in september. he'll then travel to california as wildfires continue to scorch the l

while he was director of national intelligence, director ratcliffe wrote to multiple members of congress saying that he had completed his review of the intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released. and despite the fact that the congress passed a law, director ratcliffe insisted that there was only marginal public interest in declassification. he said this in three letters to me, to acting chair, chairman rubio, and vice chairman warner and to the chair of the house intelligence committee. so to me, madam president, this raises questions about john ratcliffe's commitment to the law. and basically, i have concerns about his truthfulness with the congress. as part of this nomination process, i submitted a written question asking him why he didn't obey the law. he responded that a review had been necessary to determine what could be declassified, and i quote here, this review was not completed until after i left office. madam president, that statement by mr. ratcliffe just wasn't true. mr. ratcliffe wrote three letters to the congress saying the review had been completed.

he served as director of national intelligence for a little bit less than a year, but still, that's importantn himes on the house intelligence committee. but as was pointed out by congressman himes, as well as by some of the senators, there were a couple of instances where during his dni tenureship, he demonstrated what appeared to be, again, partizanship on some of the actions he took, declassifying intelligence and so on. but he certainly, i think, has the credentials that are necessary in order to lead the cia. and he certainly is far, far better choice than others who have been selected by donald trump. i think there's greater concern and very legitimate concern about tulsi gabbard being selected to lead the intelligence community. this is somebody who doesn't have any intelligence, background or experience. she has taken some very questionable and curious actions in terms of her road trip to syria to meet with president assad. her claims, as i pointed out, about bioweapons labs in ukraine that the united states was involved in, she has parroted a lot of putin's talking points in russian

there's trump's pick for director of national intelligence tulsi gabbard. where to begin on her merit. the wall street journal reported last week that in tulsi's meeting with republican senator james lankford, she couldn't clearly articulate what the role of director of national intelligence entails. and when she met with republican senator mike rounds, she seemed confused about a key u.s. national security surveillance power that she would be charged with overseeing. and who could forget trump's choice for fbi director kash patel? like gabbard, he hasn't had a confirmation hearing yet, but he submitted a background questionnaire for senators on the judiciary committee. the new york times notes one of the most intriguing lines in his reference to participating is his reference to participating in the american bar association's judicial intern opportunity program, a diversity initiative. while a student at pace university's law school in 2003. i guess diversity isn't such a dirty word. if your sole and total allegiance is to donald trump. meanwhile, perhaps

of the first executive orders trump signed on inauguration day instructed the director of national intelligence and the cia director to revoke the security clearances of 50 ex intelligence officials. all of those officials had previously signed an open letter back in 2020, cautioning that the allegations about hunter biden and the contents of his laptop bore, quote, all the classic earmarks of a russian information operation. end quote, the list of people whose clearances were revoked included prominent names like the former directors of the cia, leon panetta and john brennan, and the former director of national intelligence james clapper. all three men served in those roles under former president barack obama. but trump also revoked the security clearance of his own former national security adviser, john bolton, with whom he's had an acrimonious relationship for years. on top of that, the president ordered that bolton's secret service detail be pulled, despite the fact that officials have determined that bolton remains under threat from iran. i spoke to ambassador bolton in the last hour. here

he says he's given the director of national intelligence 15 days to report to him as to a plan to make these documents public. firstly, with the regard to the assassination of president kennedy. and secondly, within $45.00 days, he wants to plan as to how to make the contents of the assassination of martin luther king public. so this is going to happen. it's a question of actually called a go about it. and in what form it's going to be made public, but the decision has not been taken. the review has been done. so this is going to go ahead and would it be a? yeah, mike, i'm in a rob account to intuitive move from says he will go on the federal recognition to north carolina. zoomed the tribes. what's behind this move like well, it's so much on sectional, it emerges from the election. it was a very tight election race in north carolina, and at the time of the vin clinton to donald trump alder, sold the support of the b tribe, and actually promised them that he would get them federal recognition. should they support him in that election? well, they did support him in that election, helping

kel new loeffler, thursday includes kash patel fbi director tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligenceing the confirmation process speed up a lot of stalling going on, by the democrats, but maybe president trump will get his cabinet in place by the end of this week or next. >> yes, i look at you, my senator creates murphy state of connecticut for throwing you know a wrench in wheels of this process, it needs to get done let's stop playing games, donald trump won election, you provide obstacles not going to change that. it is time ago to let's go. maria: we are getting started this hour want to take a short break come right back, ice conducting deportation rates in new york city this morning we are on it then president trump urging republicans stay united on border security, and largest tax cut in u.s. history nebraska senator here the confirmation hackers for trump's cabinet pike's we will get either into it you are watching morning live on "fox business" stay with us. ♪ money -- ♪ ♪ straight talking, and -- ♪ ♪ . . [ car engine revving ] do you have a life insurance policy you no long

what should the world expect from a second trump administration, former deputy director of national intelligenceal assistant director of white house messaging under donald trump mr. cliff sims. as interesting as candidate in panama greenland maybe their friends and allies, china, russia, iran that worry most americans, how will trump reset her policies there? >> president trump is a master of a couple of things. one of them establishing credible deterrence but we seen over the last four years is a loss of credible american deterrence for adversaries. that's what he's going to focus on navigate is getting the credible deterrence back. the second thing he's a master of is creating an environment that is conducive to producing a deal that is good for the american people. sometimes it takes bold action to start the process. if you think back to the first term we remember that abraham accord which is outcome and what we don't remember is a process that got us there that started with a really bold move of taking the american embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. a letter allies networking to b

small business administration thursdays hearings cash mattel, tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligencemy question i thought the republicans were in charge them the majority here and it feels like the democrats are running the table on who gets confirmed and when. >> it feels like connecticut senator chris murphy is pulling the strings in the minority in the senate even though point that should be the case in the whole government approach that will be needed to combat china during enemy not an ally. in utica need everything what of individuals in some capacity doing their part with the department to combat china it's not just pete hegseth and is not to scott bessent you need everything one including somebody like cash mattel the fbi, tulsi gabbard you need all these people growing in the same direction and they can't do that unless i get started and the need to get started now we need to stop playing games, this is a real threat that i would argue 99.99% of the american people just learned about within the last 24 hours the new chinese app kerfuffle and we need to respond accordingly an

one pick getting less than favorable reviews is his choice for director of national intelligence, formerocratic representative and woman who lost her glasses and can't find the capitol, tulsi gabbard. the director of national intelligence was a very important job created after 9/11 to lead and coordinate communication between america's spy agencies. so it raises a few eyebrows that tulsi gabbard is known for repeating kremlin talking points, including blaming nato for russia's invasion of ukraine. even worse, when she met with senators to discuss her nomination for dni, gabbard couldn't say what the job actually is, and when republican senator mike rounds asked gabbard how she would handle specific elements of the job, she said she would have to just wait and see when she gets there. yeah! just wing it! this is exciting! she could be our first improv intelligence director. "thank you for coming out tonight, everybody. can we get a suggestion of a country to destabilize and an occupation? seriously, what is my job?" [applause] is a reminder to all of you, the top of tonight's monologue, b

intelligence committee is set to hold a confirmation hearing for tulsi gabbard, the director of national intelligenceservices, as the serves as the head of the intelligence community. a group of over a dozen spy agencies, including the cia and nsa. when asked if he would support gabbard's nomination, senator lindsey graham said he would wait and see how she responds to certain questions. i tend to vote for almost everybody at both parties, but i want to see how the hearing goes. why did you go to syria? what did you do? regarding assad? why do you think edward snowden should be held as a hero? i certainly don't. we'll see how the hearing goes. but in her favor, richard burr is going to introduce her, and he's one of my dearest friends. so we'll see. several members of trump's cabinet are already confirmed. they include marco rubio in the role of secretary of state, pete hegseth as secretary of defense, kristi noem as secretary of homeland security, and john ratcliffe as cia director. still ahead, 50 years of snl. but it is not just about the laughs. how a new documentary is also celebrating saturday

for seven years or so as director of national intelligence. n coats, senator dan coats, he was in the intelligence committee, the senate intelligence committee. these are people with experience, but also with tremendous integrity, people that you knew that were going to carry out their responsibilities, irrespective of how the political winds might be blowing. and they needed to have that objectivity and honesty in order to ensure that the president of united states, as well as policymakers, really understand what the situation is globally. and so tulsi gabbard doesn't have the executive experience. she doesn't have the intelligence background. and she also lacks, in many respects, the common sense because of what she has done in terms of visits to syria and things that she has said, you know, over the past several years, which which, you know, quite rightly raises questions about loyalty to the efforts of the united states in that role. >> so, well, this is why we need a hearing. john brennan, as always, just thank you for your service, sir. w

national intelligence council writing she's got no background in intelligence whatsoever has never manageduch of anything. even more worryingly as i was meant to advise the president protect our nation see customer adversaries. tulsi gabbard has cozied up to two vicious dictators who are america's enemies. there are concerns about her positions with faÇade comments noted, or use of the tools and how she feels about them. are you confident you hide your questions on those issues addressed? >> i've had many occasions to speak with tulsi gabbard as have other mems a committee of senators we got her background check back along the financial papers last week. he probably scheduled a hearing seven days later as the rules of our committee allow it. i can promise you and all americans that tulsi gabbard is going of a full hearing on thursday. just going back the hearing we conduct for john ratcliffe and they conduct different nominees with democrat republican presidents alike. no more, no better, no worse i understand people differences of opinion with transient some republicans disagree she's cas