This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/us/politics/senate-intelligence-hearing.html
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Top U.S. Security Officials Testify Amid Furor Over Russian Meddling | Top U.S. Security Officials Testify Amid Furor Over Russian Meddling |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| • Four top national security officials testified on Capitol Hill on Wednesday amid a swirl of developments in the Trump administration. | • Four top national security officials testified on Capitol Hill on Wednesday amid a swirl of developments in the Trump administration. |
| • The officials were pressed repeatedly about whether President Trump had asked any of them to try to curtail the F.B.I. investigation into whether his associates coordinated with the Russian effort to interfere in the election. They mostly sidestepped the questions, visibly frustrating senators. | • The officials were pressed repeatedly about whether President Trump had asked any of them to try to curtail the F.B.I. investigation into whether his associates coordinated with the Russian effort to interfere in the election. They mostly sidestepped the questions, visibly frustrating senators. |
| • The stated topic of the hearing was the law that authorizes the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, the FISA Amendments Act, which is set to expire at the end of 2017. Asked about surveillance, the officials revealed that it had led to the killing of an Islamic State leader last year. | • The stated topic of the hearing was the law that authorizes the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program, the FISA Amendments Act, which is set to expire at the end of 2017. Asked about surveillance, the officials revealed that it had led to the killing of an Islamic State leader last year. |
| Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, declined to comment about a report that Mr. Trump pushed him to try to help end the federal investigation into the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Coats would not answer a question from Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee’s top Democrat, about a report in The Washington Post that the president had requested that he intervene and get James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to ease off on the investigation into Mr. Flynn. | Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence, declined to comment about a report that Mr. Trump pushed him to try to help end the federal investigation into the former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Coats would not answer a question from Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the committee’s top Democrat, about a report in The Washington Post that the president had requested that he intervene and get James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to ease off on the investigation into Mr. Flynn. |
| “I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to address that in a public session,” Mr. Coats said. | “I don’t believe it’s appropriate for me to address that in a public session,” Mr. Coats said. |
| The panel was expected to testify in a closed-door session Wednesday afternoon. | The panel was expected to testify in a closed-door session Wednesday afternoon. |
| The report was further indication that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence that the investigation and the broader inquiry into possible ties between his associates and Russia are “fake news,” he is troubled by the investigations, which have threatened to engulf his presidency. | The report was further indication that despite Mr. Trump’s insistence that the investigation and the broader inquiry into possible ties between his associates and Russia are “fake news,” he is troubled by the investigations, which have threatened to engulf his presidency. |
| Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, also declined to comment on earlier reports that Mr. Trump had asked him to deny possible evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian officials. He said he would not discuss specific interactions with the president. | Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the head of the National Security Agency, also declined to comment on earlier reports that Mr. Trump had asked him to deny possible evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russian officials. He said he would not discuss specific interactions with the president. |
| He insisted that he could not recall being pressured to act inappropriately in his almost three years in the post. “I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” he said. | He insisted that he could not recall being pressured to act inappropriately in his almost three years in the post. “I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” he said. |
| The testimony came a day before Mr. Comey was set to make a high-profile appearance before the same committee. Mr. Trump, who abruptly fired Mr. Comey last month, also personally pressured him to back away from the investigation into Mr. Flynn’s foreign ties, according to memos written by Mr. Comey and described to The New York Times. The move has opened Mr. Trump to accusations of obstruction of justice. | |
| The four top officials testifying on Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee were expected to be asked about their interactions with Mr. Trump amid revelations that he has asked a number of officials and lawmakers about what they could do to minimize the investigations into Russian election interference. | The four top officials testifying on Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee were expected to be asked about their interactions with Mr. Trump amid revelations that he has asked a number of officials and lawmakers about what they could do to minimize the investigations into Russian election interference. |
| The witnesses include Mr. Coats; Admiral Rogers; Andrew McCabe, the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. | The witnesses include Mr. Coats; Admiral Rogers; Andrew McCabe, the acting director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general. |
| The hearing came a day before the same panel was set to hear testimony from Mr. Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired last month amid the Justice Department investigation into Russian election interference. The Senate panel is conducting its own investigation, and its counterpart in the House has its own inquiry. | The hearing came a day before the same panel was set to hear testimony from Mr. Comey, whom Mr. Trump fired last month amid the Justice Department investigation into Russian election interference. The Senate panel is conducting its own investigation, and its counterpart in the House has its own inquiry. |
| The purpose of the hearing was to discuss legislation to extend the FISA Amendments Act, which is otherwise set to expire on New Year’s Eve. The N.S.A. spying program authorized under the law has drawn criticism both from civil libertarians and, more recently, from supporters of Mr. Trump who have expressed alarm about leaks of surveillance about Trump associates’ contacts with Russians. In an Op-Ed article published in The Times on Wednesday, President Trump’s Homeland Security adviser, Thomas P. Bossert, said the Trump administration endorsed a bill to make the law permanent without any of the changes privacy advocates have proposed. Congress should “leave the politics of distraction for another day,” he wrote. | |
| In March, Mr. Trump asked Admiral Rogers and Mr. Coats to dispute the existence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials in meddling in the election. The Washington Post first reported the president’s request. | In March, Mr. Trump asked Admiral Rogers and Mr. Coats to dispute the existence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials in meddling in the election. The Washington Post first reported the president’s request. |
| Mr. Coats declined to comment when senators asked him about the encounter last month at a hearing, saying that because of the sensitive nature of his conversations with Mr. Trump, it would not be “appropriate” for him to do so. | Mr. Coats declined to comment when senators asked him about the encounter last month at a hearing, saying that because of the sensitive nature of his conversations with Mr. Trump, it would not be “appropriate” for him to do so. |
| Admiral Rogers and Mr. Coats were not the only ones the Trump administration asked to publicly rebut the notion that Mr. Trump’s associates may have colluded with Russian officials. White House officials also asked Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, to reach out to news organizations to challenge such stories, The Post reported in February. That month, White House officials also asked Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe, then the F.B.I. deputy director, to publicly deny an article in The Times. | Admiral Rogers and Mr. Coats were not the only ones the Trump administration asked to publicly rebut the notion that Mr. Trump’s associates may have colluded with Russian officials. White House officials also asked Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina, the committee’s Republican chairman, and Representative Devin Nunes of California, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, to reach out to news organizations to challenge such stories, The Post reported in February. That month, White House officials also asked Mr. Comey and Mr. McCabe, then the F.B.I. deputy director, to publicly deny an article in The Times. |
| Senators flashed anger on Wednesday as the Trump administration officials repeatedly refused to answer questions about whether the president had tried to interfere with the Russia investigation. | Senators flashed anger on Wednesday as the Trump administration officials repeatedly refused to answer questions about whether the president had tried to interfere with the Russia investigation. |
| Senator Angus King, an independent of Maine, pressed Mr. McCabe on why he would not comment on conversations he may have had with Mr. Comey about his interactions with Mr. Trump. Mr. McCabe said he could not discuss anything “within the purview” of the Justice Department investigation being run by Robert S. Mueller III, who was appointed special counsel last month. | Senator Angus King, an independent of Maine, pressed Mr. McCabe on why he would not comment on conversations he may have had with Mr. Comey about his interactions with Mr. Trump. Mr. McCabe said he could not discuss anything “within the purview” of the Justice Department investigation being run by Robert S. Mueller III, who was appointed special counsel last month. |
| “Why does the special counsel get preference and not this committee?” Mr. King said, revealing senators’ intensifying concerns over the conflicting needs of the separate congressional and federal investigations into Russian interference. | “Why does the special counsel get preference and not this committee?” Mr. King said, revealing senators’ intensifying concerns over the conflicting needs of the separate congressional and federal investigations into Russian interference. |
| Mr. King then turned his attention to Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers, who refused answer in detail questions about reports that Mr. Trump had asked them to publicly or privately undermine the F.B.I. investigation. | Mr. King then turned his attention to Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers, who refused answer in detail questions about reports that Mr. Trump had asked them to publicly or privately undermine the F.B.I. investigation. |
| Mr. Rogers said he had asked the White House whether it was invoking executive privilege to keep him from discussing possible related conversations with Mr. Trump, but had not gotten a response. Presidents have in the past cited the privilege to try to prevent Congress from seeking information about internal conversations in the executive branch. | Mr. Rogers said he had asked the White House whether it was invoking executive privilege to keep him from discussing possible related conversations with Mr. Trump, but had not gotten a response. Presidents have in the past cited the privilege to try to prevent Congress from seeking information about internal conversations in the executive branch. |
| Mr. Coats struggled to respond when Mr. King turned to him, the senator’s frustrations with the witnesses apparent. | Mr. Coats struggled to respond when Mr. King turned to him, the senator’s frustrations with the witnesses apparent. |
| “You swore that oath to tell us the truth,” Mr. King said, demanding the “legal basis” for Mr. Coats’ decision not to comment. | “You swore that oath to tell us the truth,” Mr. King said, demanding the “legal basis” for Mr. Coats’ decision not to comment. |
| “I’m not sure I have a legal basis,” Mr. Coats said, adding that he would be happy to discuss it further in a closed-door session. | “I’m not sure I have a legal basis,” Mr. Coats said, adding that he would be happy to discuss it further in a closed-door session. |
| In an important development in the surveillance debate, the national intelligence director indicated that the Trump administration would not attempt to quantify the volume of Americans’ communications that are incidentally collected without a warrant under the FISA Amendments Act. That law permits the government to collect, without a warrant, communications of foreigners abroad — even when they are talking with or emailing Americans. | In an important development in the surveillance debate, the national intelligence director indicated that the Trump administration would not attempt to quantify the volume of Americans’ communications that are incidentally collected without a warrant under the FISA Amendments Act. That law permits the government to collect, without a warrant, communications of foreigners abroad — even when they are talking with or emailing Americans. |
| For several years, dating back to the Obama administration, members of Congress have been asking the government to provide an estimate of how often that program incidentally collects Americans’ communications with people abroad. The answer matters because current rules permit analysts — including F.B.I. agents who are working on ordinary criminal cases — to query the repository of messages collected that way by searching for Americans’ names or identifiers, such as their email addresses. Critics have proposed requiring a warrant to perform such a query, which critics call “backdoor searches.” | For several years, dating back to the Obama administration, members of Congress have been asking the government to provide an estimate of how often that program incidentally collects Americans’ communications with people abroad. The answer matters because current rules permit analysts — including F.B.I. agents who are working on ordinary criminal cases — to query the repository of messages collected that way by searching for Americans’ names or identifiers, such as their email addresses. Critics have proposed requiring a warrant to perform such a query, which critics call “backdoor searches.” |
| Mr. Coats said that he had studied the issue and that coming up with an estimate would be difficult. Among other problems, he said, it would require doing intensive investigations of who is using certain email accounts where the nationality of the person is not obvious. That would invade the privacy of people who are not targets of investigations, he said, and divert resources better spent working on counterterrorism and other types of foreign intelligence investigations. | Mr. Coats said that he had studied the issue and that coming up with an estimate would be difficult. Among other problems, he said, it would require doing intensive investigations of who is using certain email accounts where the nationality of the person is not obvious. That would invade the privacy of people who are not targets of investigations, he said, and divert resources better spent working on counterterrorism and other types of foreign intelligence investigations. |
| “Even if we decided the privacy intrusions were justified and if I had unlimited staff to tackle the problem, we still do not believe it is possible to come up with an accurate result,” he said. | “Even if we decided the privacy intrusions were justified and if I had unlimited staff to tackle the problem, we still do not believe it is possible to come up with an accurate result,” he said. |
| Mr. Coats cited two examples of counterterrorism investigations where the FISA Amendments Act warrantless surveillance program had been useful. | Mr. Coats cited two examples of counterterrorism investigations where the FISA Amendments Act warrantless surveillance program had been useful. |
| One was a case the government has been citing for years: the discovery in 2009 that an Afghan-American man in Colorado, Najibullah Zazi, was preparing a bombing attack on the New York City subway system. It was found by officials’ targeting an email account used by a Pakistan-based Qaeda member. | |
| But Mr. Coats also brought up another example, which he said was a “sensitive” disclosure. In March 2016, an American Special Operations raid in Syria killed an Islamic State commander, Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, who also went by the name Haji Imam. | But Mr. Coats also brought up another example, which he said was a “sensitive” disclosure. In March 2016, an American Special Operations raid in Syria killed an Islamic State commander, Abd al-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli, who also went by the name Haji Imam. |
| Mr. Coats said the intelligence that led to that operation, including information about Mr. Qaduli’s location, relied heavily on information gathered by FISA Amendments Act surveillance of one of his associates. After the operation, surveillance under that law also confirmed that he had been killed, he said. | Mr. Coats said the intelligence that led to that operation, including information about Mr. Qaduli’s location, relied heavily on information gathered by FISA Amendments Act surveillance of one of his associates. After the operation, surveillance under that law also confirmed that he had been killed, he said. |
| After Admiral Rogers walked the committee through the procedure for revealing the identities of Americans in intelligence reports derived from N.S.A. surveillance, Mr. Coats said he had commissioned a review of whether those steps are appropriate. | After Admiral Rogers walked the committee through the procedure for revealing the identities of Americans in intelligence reports derived from N.S.A. surveillance, Mr. Coats said he had commissioned a review of whether those steps are appropriate. |
| The procedures require the N.S.A. to cover up American identities. A report might say, for example, that someone in the Russian government who’s under surveillance discussed a conversation with or about “U.S. Person 1,” rather than naming that person. But the rules permit a recipient of the report to request the identity of the American if it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence. | The procedures require the N.S.A. to cover up American identities. A report might say, for example, that someone in the Russian government who’s under surveillance discussed a conversation with or about “U.S. Person 1,” rather than naming that person. But the rules permit a recipient of the report to request the identity of the American if it is necessary to understand foreign intelligence. |
| Such so-called unmaskings have become a political issue because supporters of the Trump administration, including Representative Nunes, the House intelligence chairman, have accused Obama administration officials of improperly requesting the unmasking of Trump campaign associates. The dispute is part of a tug-of-war about the flood of attention on Russian interference in the election and the F.B.I. investigation into possible coordination by Trump associates. Trump supporters say public scrutiny should be diverted instead to leaks about what Obama-era surveillance showed about those activities. | Such so-called unmaskings have become a political issue because supporters of the Trump administration, including Representative Nunes, the House intelligence chairman, have accused Obama administration officials of improperly requesting the unmasking of Trump campaign associates. The dispute is part of a tug-of-war about the flood of attention on Russian interference in the election and the F.B.I. investigation into possible coordination by Trump associates. Trump supporters say public scrutiny should be diverted instead to leaks about what Obama-era surveillance showed about those activities. |
| Admiral Rogers said that a request has to “tangibly apply” to the requester’s job responsibilities and must be made in writing, and that only 20 people at the N.S.A. have the authority to approve it. If so, only the requester receives the information, not everyone who read the original report, he said. | Admiral Rogers said that a request has to “tangibly apply” to the requester’s job responsibilities and must be made in writing, and that only 20 people at the N.S.A. have the authority to approve it. If so, only the requester receives the information, not everyone who read the original report, he said. |
| Mr. Coats then said he wanted “our civil liberties and privacy protection agencies to take a look at this,” including whether those were the right procedures or something should be done differently. | Mr. Coats then said he wanted “our civil liberties and privacy protection agencies to take a look at this,” including whether those were the right procedures or something should be done differently. |
| It was not clear to whom he was referring. The most obvious body to do a review and make any recommendations, the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, is dormant because four of its five board positions are vacant and it lacks a quorum to begin new projects. Mr. Trump has not nominated anyone to fill its vacancies. | It was not clear to whom he was referring. The most obvious body to do a review and make any recommendations, the independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, is dormant because four of its five board positions are vacant and it lacks a quorum to begin new projects. Mr. Trump has not nominated anyone to fill its vacancies. |
| Democrats immediately made clear on Wednesday that they intended to use the surveillance hearing to press the assembled witnesses about the Russia investigation and the Trump administration’s reported attempts to interfere with it. | Democrats immediately made clear on Wednesday that they intended to use the surveillance hearing to press the assembled witnesses about the Russia investigation and the Trump administration’s reported attempts to interfere with it. |
| In his opening statement, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, reminded the witnesses that the intelligence community is supposed to tell it straight and ignore partisan political considerations. He then brought up Mr. Trump’s having said he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Mr. Comey, as well as reports that the president pressed intelligence agency leaders to publicly play down the investigation and to privately push Mr. Comey to pull back on it. | In his opening statement, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, reminded the witnesses that the intelligence community is supposed to tell it straight and ignore partisan political considerations. He then brought up Mr. Trump’s having said he was thinking about the Russia investigation when he fired Mr. Comey, as well as reports that the president pressed intelligence agency leaders to publicly play down the investigation and to privately push Mr. Comey to pull back on it. |
| “If any of this is true, it would be an appalling and improper use of our intelligence professionals — an act that could erode the public’s confidence in our intelligence institutions,” he said. He added, “Any attempt by the White House or even the president himself to exploit this community as a tool for political purposes is deeply, deeply troubling.” | “If any of this is true, it would be an appalling and improper use of our intelligence professionals — an act that could erode the public’s confidence in our intelligence institutions,” he said. He added, “Any attempt by the White House or even the president himself to exploit this community as a tool for political purposes is deeply, deeply troubling.” |