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/2020/05/05/us/politics/john-ratcliffe-intelligence-director-confirmation-hearing.html

The article has changed 31 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Senate Weighs John Ratcliffe as Trump’s Pick to Lead Intelligence Agencies Senate Panel Signals Support for John Ratcliffe as Intelligence Chief
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Senate began on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Representative John Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, to be the director of national intelligence, at its first hearing since the coronavirus pandemic sent its members home a month ago. WASHINGTON — Representative John L. Ratcliffe, President Trump’s pick to lead the nation’s intelligence agencies, sought at his confirmation hearing on Tuesday to push past questions about his qualifications and fierce partisanship, promising senators he would deliver unvarnished facts to a skeptical White House if he is confirmed.
President Trump first proposed installing Mr. Ratcliffe, a loyal supporter, in the job last summer, only to abruptly rescind the plan after lawmakers questioned Mr. Ratcliffe’s lack of experience and partisan record in the House, and news media reports highlighted several instances in which Mr. Ratcliffe appeared to inflate or distort aspects of his résumé. But when pressed by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Ratcliffe, Republican of Texas, resisted taking sides on many of the most contentious intelligence matters that have divided Trump-era Washington and could offend the president, including whether Russia specifically sought to aid the president’s campaign in 2016 and whether Mr. Trump should have fired inspector general for the intelligence agencies.
This time around, Mr. Ratcliffe received a warmer reception, at least from Republican lawmakers who control the Senate. Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, the intelligence committee chairman, said he planned to hold a panel vote on the nomination as soon as he could, suggesting he had confidence in Mr. Ratcliffe. Senators want a permanent director to oversee the 17 agencies that compose the intelligence community as they wrestle with how to make sense of the origins and impact of Covid-19. Pressed repeatedly by Democrats, Mr. Ratcliffe conceded that he disagreed with Mr. Trump that the intelligence agencies had “run amok,” but he declined to further quibble with the president in favor of more general assertions of independence.
Mr. Ratcliffe pledged to be objective, a chief concern among lawmakers who prize keeping politics out of intelligence gathering. “If confirmed as D.N.I., one of the things that I’ve made clear to everyone is that I will deliver the unvarnished truth,” Mr. Ratcliffe said in one exchange with Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and the panel’s key swing vote. “It won’t be shaded for anyone. What anyone wants the intelligence to reflect won’t impact the intelligence that I deliver.”
“You have my commitment to deliver timely, accurate and objective intelligence, and to speak truth to power, be that with Congress or within the administration,” Mr. Ratcliffe said in his opening statement. “Let me be very clear. Regardless of what anyone wants our intelligence to reflect, the intelligence I will provide, if confirmed, will not be impacted or altered as a result of outside influence.” But Republicans, including Ms. Collins, greeted Mr. Ratcliffe’s responses more amicably and appeared poised to push his nomination forward in interest of installing a permanent intelligence chief at a time when the coronavirus pandemic is threatening social, economic and political systems around the world. They were also warmer to Mr. Ratcliffe than they were last summer, when Mr. Trump first put him forward for the job but then backtracked amid bipartisan criticism of his record.
The hearing was unusual, with a measure of social distancing enforced. In a mostly empty room, Mr. Ratcliffe sat on nearly the opposite end from the senators, much farther back than hearing witnesses typically sit. Of those present, many wore masks, including Mr. Burr and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat. Both removed their masks from their faces as they spoke at the start of the hearing, and Mr. Ratcliffe did not wear one. Senator Richard M. Burr, Republican of North Carolina and the committee’s chairman, said after the hearing that he would hold a committee vote next week to advance Mr. Ratcliffe and work with Senate leaders to schedule a final confirmation vote shortly thereafter.
Though few lawmakers normally choose to sit through the entirety of a confirmation hearing, new rules ensured the senators’ chairs in the hearing room did not fill. Senators were given time slots, and no more than six lawmakers were supposed to be in the room at once, a dynamic that could affect the rhythm of the questioning. “There were no questions that he sidestepped today,” Mr. Burr said. “He answered everything and I think he did a very successful job at verifying that he is more than capable of this job and serve in an independent capacity.”
The public vetting played out in almost surreal fashion, as senators back in session for their first hearing in a month took precautions to limit the spread of Covid-19. In a mostly empty room, Mr. Ratcliffe sat on nearly the opposite end from the senators, much farther back than hearing witnesses typically sit. Of those present, many wore masks, including Mr. Burr and Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the panel’s top Democrat, who pulled them down around their necks as they spoke. The public was not allowed inside.
If confirmed, Mr. Ratcliffe will take charge of the intelligence community at a fraught time, with the White House pushing for information about the origin of the coronavirus epidemic and a president who has openly disparaged the agencies since they publicly concluded at the start of 2017 that Russia developed a preference for Mr. Trump’s candidacy as it conducted a widespread operation to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Mr. Ratcliffe won the White House’s attention through his fierce defense of the Mr. Trump and his questioning of elements of the intelligence community, and he later served as a member of the president’s impeachment defense team. But he insisted on Tuesday he relished a chance to shift from partisan warrior to neutral fact collector at the head of the intelligence agencies — a transition that would likely be necessary to win over the agencies themselves.
“I wanted this job because it is apolitical and I have held apolitical positions before,” he said, citing his time as a U.S. attorney for eastern Texas.
Mr. Trump first proposed installing Mr. Ratcliffe in the job last summer, only to abruptly rescind the plan after lawmakers questioned Mr. Ratcliffe’s lack of experience and partisan record in the House, and news media reports highlighted several instances in which Mr. Ratcliffe appeared to inflate or distort aspects of his résumé.
If confirmed, Mr. Ratcliffe would replace the acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, an aggressive Trump defender who has moved to remake the office during his interim assignment while he also continues to serve as ambassador to Germany. He has prompted unease among key Senate Republicans, including Mr. Burr, according to officials involved in the confirmation process.If confirmed, Mr. Ratcliffe would replace the acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, an aggressive Trump defender who has moved to remake the office during his interim assignment while he also continues to serve as ambassador to Germany. He has prompted unease among key Senate Republicans, including Mr. Burr, according to officials involved in the confirmation process.
But Mr. Warner said that however uncomfortable lawmakers are with Mr. Grenell’s leadership, he needed better reasons to confirm Mr. Ratcliffe. “Some have suggested that your main qualification for confirmation to this post is that you are not Ambassador Grenell,” Mr. Warner said in his opening remarks. “But frankly, that is not enough.” But making clear that Democrats were displeased with Mr. Ratcliffe’s nomination, Mr. Warner said that he needed more sufficient reason to vote to confirm him, no matter how uncomfortable lawmakers are with Mr. Grenell. “Some have suggested that your main qualification for confirmation to this post is that you are not Ambassador Grenell,” he said. “But frankly, that is not enough.”
Mr. Warner is among the influential Democrats who have signaled that they see Mr. Ratcliffe as summarily unprepared for a position that has been filled by military veterans and seasoned national security officials. Mr. Ratcliffe spent part of four years as a federal prosecutor in Texas under President George W. Bush and has served in the House since 2015, including one term on its Intelligence Committee.Mr. Warner is among the influential Democrats who have signaled that they see Mr. Ratcliffe as summarily unprepared for a position that has been filled by military veterans and seasoned national security officials. Mr. Ratcliffe spent part of four years as a federal prosecutor in Texas under President George W. Bush and has served in the House since 2015, including one term on its Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Ratcliffe is a relentless defender of the president, but allies say he is hoping to emphasize areas of bipartisan concern. He told senators that he will have two top priorities for the intelligence community if confirmed, the geopolitical impact of the coronavirus pandemic and election security. Mr. Ratcliffe treaded carefully when discussing his views of Russia’s ongoing election interference campaign.
“The immediate focus of the I.C. must be directed toward the geopolitical and economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic, as well as its origins,” he said in his opening remarks. “The American people deserve answers, and, if confirmed, I pledge that the I.C. will remain laser-focused on providing them.” “They have a goal of sowing discord, and they have been successful of sowing discord,” Mr. Ratcliffe said of Russian government officials, but he insisted that their 2016 interference had not altered the outcome of the presidential election. Though his assertion dovetails with Mr. Trump’s insistence that he won the election on his own, it is impossible to say whether Russia’s campaign of sabotage changed any votes.
While lawmakers may try to question him about the Trump administration’s recent claims about intelligence about the virus’s origin, Mr. Ratcliffe will probably try to avoid that discussion, arguing that he is not privy yet to all of the classified material.
Lawmakers pressed Mr. Ratcliffe to allow election security officials stay in their jobs and continue to brief Congress. A report about one such update to the House Intelligence Committee by the administration’s election security czar helped prompt Mr. Trump to replace Joseph Maguire as the acting intelligence chief and eventually nominate Mr. Ratcliffe. Lawmakers have said they are worried the controversy over that briefing will cause the intelligence agencies to limit what they tell Congress.
Mr. Ratcliffe also tried to avoid being pinned down on his views of Russia’s 2016 election interference campaign.
“They have a goal of sowing discord and they have been successful of sowing discord,” Mr. Ratcliffe said of Russian government officials, but he insisted that their 2016 interference had not altered the outcome of the presidential election. Though his assertion dovetails with Mr. Trump’s insistence that he won the election on his own, it is impossible to say whether Russia’s campaign of sabotage changed any votes.
When Mr. Warner pressed Mr. Ratcliffe for his views of the 2017 assessment by the intelligence agencies that concluded that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia developed a preference for Mr. Trump, the nominee demurred, saying he had not seen the underlying intelligence and could not make a determination on his own. Mr. Trump has consistently questioned the finding, but the intelligence committee unanimously endorsed it in a report last month.
John Sipher, a former C.I.A. officer, took issue with Mr. Ratcliffe’s assertion that Russian interference campaign changed no votes. “This is false,” Mr. Sipher wrote on Twitter. “The IC made clear that it does not look into or opine on this issue.”John Sipher, a former C.I.A. officer, took issue with Mr. Ratcliffe’s assertion that Russian interference campaign changed no votes. “This is false,” Mr. Sipher wrote on Twitter. “The IC made clear that it does not look into or opine on this issue.”
Mr. Ratcliffe does plan to take a position on the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Some Republicans are deeply critical of how the law was used to monitor Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, for potential ties to Russia in 2016. Lawmakers pressed Mr. Ratcliffe to allow election security officials stay in their jobs and continue to brief Congress. A report about one such update to the House Intelligence Committee by the administration’s election security czar helped prompt Mr. Trump to replace Joseph Maguire as the acting intelligence chief and eventually nominate Mr. Ratcliffe. Lawmakers have said they are worried the controversy over that briefing will cause the intelligence agencies to limit what they tell Congress.
As one of the most vocal critics of the investigation of the Trump campaign in 2016, Mr. Ratcliffe has been hard on the F.B.I. and its use of FISA-court-approved wiretaps. He has said that Mr. Page was surveilled illegally because the F.B.I. lacked probable cause, an argument he says a report by the Justice Department’s inspector general backs up. When Mr. Warner pressed Mr. Ratcliffe for his views of the intelligence community assessment that Mr. Putin developed a preference for Mr. Trump, the nominee demurred, saying he had not seen the underlying intelligence and could not make a determination on his own. Mr. Trump has consistently questioned the finding, but the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously endorsed it in a report last month.
Mr. Ratcliffe, according to people familiar with his thinking, supports the surveillance program but wants to ensure that the law works as intended and is not abused. “You want to have it both ways: You want to try to portray yourself as a defender of the Constitution, and then you water it down with specifics,” Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said in exasperation after pushing Mr. Ratcliffe for his views on whistle-blower laws.
An overhaul of the law has been approved by the House, but still needs the backing of 60 senators as well as Mr. Trump, who has been critical of government surveillance programs. Mr. Ratcliffe pledged to make gathering information on the origin of the coronavirus a top priority. Senior administration officials have pushed the spy agencies for evidence to support an unproven theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a lab in China, prompting concern among analysts that the officials will distort assessments about the virus as they escalate a campaign to blame China for the pandemic.
As the House was debating and voting on a renewed FISA law, Mr. Ratcliffe abstained from voting once he was nominated to be the intelligence chief. But supporters of the overhaul may see Mr. Ratcliffe as a potential ally in encouraging Mr. Trump to support the new legislation. The intelligence agencies have found no conclusive evidence about the virus’s origin.
Mr. Ratcliffe, apparently anxious to please all the senators, bounced back and forth between appearing to back the Republican or Democratic view of the intelligence around the origin of the outbreak.
Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he had seen evidence pointing to the lab as the source of the virus. Mr. Ratcliffe said he had not. But then Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, took up questioning arguing virus could not have originated in a public market, a conclusion Mr. Ratcliffe also agreed with.
Mr. Cotton pressed Mr. Ratcliffe to agree that the president is allowed to set intelligence priorities, which he did. A moment later, Mr. King said that presidents’ often want intelligence to support their policy goals, which he labeled conclusion shopping.
Mr. Ratcliffe, once more, agreed.
Emily Cochrane contributed reporting.