Trump’s intelligence nominee refuses to reveal the winner of the 2020 election

Jeff Bennett:

Another Trump nominee for high office faced off with senators today. US Attorney Jay Clayton appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee to attend his confirmation hearing as Director of National Intelligence. The job is largely focused on external threats and national security.

But, as Nick Schifrin says, much of today’s hearings have focused instead on the recent past.

Nick Shiffrin:

Today on Capitol Hill, a hearing that was supposed to be about the future of the intelligence community, was dominated by the history of the 2020 election.

Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Georgia):

Who won the 2020 elections?

JAY CLAYTON, DNI Nominee: I wouldn’t do that to you.

Nick Shiffrin:

Jay Clayton is the President’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, an attorney with more than 30 years of experience, the first Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under President Trump, and most recently the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, one of the most prestigious roles in the Department of Justice.

Senator Mark Warner (D-Virginia):

Do you deny that Joe Biden won the 2020 elections?

Jay Clayton:

Senator, I am not an election denier. Joe Biden has been confirmed as President of the United States.

Nick Shiffrin:

However, in response to Democratic senators, Clayton repeatedly refused to use the word won to describe Joe Biden and the 2020 election.

Senator Jon Ossoff:

Who won the 2020 elections?

Jay Clayton:

I answered. I answered.

Senator Jon Ossoff:

Answer it. What is your answer?

Jay Clayton:

I’ve given you my answer.

Senator Jon Ossoff:

What is your answer? You refuse to answer a basic question about who won the presidential election.

Jay Clayton:

No, I think…

Senator Jon Ossoff:

But you’re asking for leadership of the US intelligence community? Isn’t it humiliating not to be able to answer this question, and to have to indulge the president’s delusions?

Donald Trump:

I say it is rigged, just as the election in 2020 was rigged.

Nick Shiffrin:

Since 2020, President Trump has claimed that he won that election. “PBS News Hour” has learned that tomorrow evening he will reveal alleged new details in what he has long claimed without conclusive evidence to be fraud.

Part of the president’s effort to find the fraud ensnared the last Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. She says President Trump ordered her to monitor an FBI raid on an election office in Fulton County, Georgia. By law, the Director of National Intelligence is prohibited from participating in domestic law enforcement or intelligence gathering.

Senator Jon Ossoff:

Did you know that former Director Gabbard testified that her presence in the raid was – I quote – “at the request of the President”?

Jay Clayton:

I’m not aware of that yet.

Nick Shiffrin:

That didn’t sit well with Virginia Democrat and Committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner.

Senator Mark Warner:

And I trust you. I know you, but it is disturbing to think that you were not aware of Director Gabbard’s interference in local election activities in Fulton County.

Jay Clayton:

To be clear, the role of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence lies primarily outside the United States.

Nick Shiffrin:

There are other vital issues related to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, including its size and scope. Recently, acting director Bill Bolt launched a wave of firings, a downsizing led by President Trump and supported by Republican Arkansas Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton.

Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR):

Unfortunately, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has become another bloated agency that stimulates bureaucratic work rather than real intelligence work.

Jay Clayton:

There must be a place for control, a place for conflict resolution. I look at it as a board role. To the extent that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence begins operations or begins to play the roles of some of those other agencies, it will likely withdraw.

Nick Shiffrin:

The Intelligence Committee is expected to vote on Clayton’s nomination early next week. He will need all nine Republican votes if the eight Democrats on the committee oppose his nomination.

To get perspective on today’s hearing, we turn to Fred Fleitz, who has had a 25-year career in the intelligence community. During Trump’s first administration, he was deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff of the National Security Council. He is now vice president of American Security at the American Policy First Institute.

Fred Fleitz, thank you very much. Welcome.

Fred Fleitz, former CIA analyst:

It’s good to be there.

Nick Shiffrin:

Is Jay Clayton the right person for the job?

Fred Fleitz:

I think so. I was very touched by him today. He has emerged as an outstanding leader, an outstanding administrator, and someone who has a very good relationship with Congress and has experience dealing with congressional oversight.

He also spoke about his intelligence experience and his work as a judge dealing with the fight against terrorism and drug trafficking. I think that makes them a good choice and someone who will help carry out the President’s desire to reform and reduce the size of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Nick Shiffrin:

However, let me ask how many times Democratic senators, as well as Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, have asked Clayton about whether Biden – quote – “won” the election in 2020.

Clayton declined to use that word, instead saying Biden is — quote — “certified.” What do you make of it? Is this important?

Fred Fleitz:

I think it’s a shame that Democrats, six years after the 2020 election, still want to make an issue of it. Democrats want to make an issue of who won the election.

In effect, they wasted a hearing that was an opportunity to discuss serious national security issues. I just think they’re trying to use this hearing to create talking points and soundbites for the next election and the midterms.

Nick Shiffrin:

Does it concern you that the last Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, got involved in domestic politics? There’s a lot of evidence that you and I have talked about over the years that foreign adversaries have tried to influence the election.

But the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the intelligence community itself, have always said there is no evidence that any foreign actors tampered with any votes. Do you worry that the Director of National Intelligence is involved in domestic politics?

Fred Fleitz:

Well, there is significant intelligence that several countries, such as China, Iran, and Russia, have tried to influence the results of our elections. Did it make a difference in the outcome? Well, that’s something we can discuss and look at the information.

I believe our intelligence community has a responsibility to ensure that if there are hostile forces trying to influence the results of our elections, especially presidential elections, that they should do so.

Nick Shiffrin:

Okay, let’s zoom out. Let’s zoom out.

Clayton and Arkansas Chairman Cotton talked about the need to reduce the size of the DNI staff, as I mentioned before. Why do you think this is important?

Fred Fleitz:

I like the way Cotton started this discussion. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, he said, is a wasteful and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. He’d like to see it numbered in the teens, if not hundreds.

Currently, there are thousands of bureaucrats working in this bureaucracy. I was with the CIA for 19 years. I don’t really know what this bureaucracy does. When I was on the House Intelligence Committee, I just noticed that they sent in a large number of senior officials, so many of them that, when we had a witness table, we couldn’t accommodate all the Office of the Director of National Intelligence officials and the other intelligence community officials.

Having so many officials, and so many cooks stirring the soup, makes it very difficult to get intelligence quickly to the president when he needs it. We need to have a streamlined and effective American intelligence community.

Instead of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence being a small coordinating office to ensure information is shared between intelligence agencies — which is what the 9/11 Commission wanted — it now produces intelligence. It has a National Intelligence Council. It has case managers who do the same for regional issues and functional issues.

I think Senator Cotton is absolutely right. He has a very good bill on how to shrink the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Nick Shiffrin:

And do you think the president would support Clayton being a strong director of national intelligence, even with the structures downsized, at the very least?

Fred Fleitz:

I think Clayton is going to get similar directives from the President that Bolte got, to basically correct the size of this organization, so that intelligence is lean and average and gets the President what he needs quickly and without political influence.

Nick Shiffrin:

Fred Fleitz, thank you very much.

Fred Fleitz:

It’s good to be here.