“At a moment when the world is watching, when our allies and our adversaries are questioning America’s stability and leadership on the global stage – we cannot afford to confirm a Director of National Intelligence who lacks the qualifications, the judgement, and the credibility to lead.”
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) delivered remarks on the Senate floor blasting Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, and her lack of judgment and qualification for the role.
Watch Schiff’s full remarks HERE. Download remarks HERE.
Key Excerpts:
On Tulsi Gabbard’s disturbing unfitness:
The Director of National Intelligence is the nerve center of our nation’s intelligence network. It is the linchpin between eighteen agencies tasked with detecting and preventing threats to our national security and coordinating our intelligence resources. It’s a job that requires judgment. It requires experience. It requires a high degree of trust. Above all – it requires a deep and unwavering commitment to the truth. And a willingness to stand up to despots. And yet, the nominee before us is stunningly lacking in all of these qualities. Ms. Gabbard’s record in Congress is not one of distinction in intelligence matters.
[…]
She did not wrestle with the complexities of intelligence gathering and analysis process. In fact – in the moments when her voice was heard on matters of foreign policy – it was in ways that should concern all of us. She has echoed, amplified, and at times outright defended the positions of autocrats and despots. When now-deposed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, she cast doubt on the findings of our intelligence agencies. Cast doubt on them. Just like the Russian propaganda outlets did.
On Tulsi Gabbard cozying up to dictators:
Her guide took Ms. Gabbard to meet two Syrian girls, aged just nine and four years old, who had been badly burned in a bombing carried out by the Syrian dictator’s warplanes. The children’s parents had been killed in that attack. These brave, small children told their story to the then Congresswoman.
[…]
By account of the guide who was with her, she looked at the children and said: “How do you know if it was Assad? What if it was ISIS?” I should note that ISIS, of course, has no air force. But of course, that wasn’t really the point – was it? The point is perhaps illustrated best by her guide, who was with her that day, who said of that experience – those days with Ms. Gabbard. He said, “It dawned on me that Tulsi wasn’t misinformed or ignorant…” He said he worried instead that she “had a worldview that was adversarial to the United States.” Adversarial to the United States. Think about that. Adversarial to the United States. And consider whether this is the right person to be Director of National Intelligence.
Where do we draw the line with Donald Trump? What level of unfitness in a nominee, what level of unconstitutionality in an executive action? What level of abject disregard of our judicial system? What national security threat or risk will it take? What action could he commit where we would be joined by our Republican colleagues in saying we’ve had enough? Where is the line?
On the impact of Gabbard’s confirmation on the world stage:
I cannot. I will not support this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they do, because if Ms. Gabbard is confirmed, we will not need the luxury of hindsight.
We already have the luxury of hindsight. The threats to our nation are real. Those who wish us harm are busy plotting against us. There are plots to conduct attacks on U.S. soil. There are intelligence warnings about China’s intentions to replace us influence around the world, and about Russia’s relentless assaults against our friends and allies. And at a moment when the world is watching, when our allies and our adversaries are questioning America’s stability and leadership on the global stage. We cannot afford to confirm a Director of National Intelligence who lacks the qualifications, the judgment and the credit credibility to lead. We cannot.
Read the transcript of his remarks as delivered below:
After Tulsi Gabbard was selected as Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda was overjoyed. They wrote: “The CIA and FBI are trembling.” Sadly, the Russian newspaper is probably right about that. Another Russian state outlet called her a “Comrade.”
On a separate broadcast, top Putin mouthpiece Vladimir Solovyov, after gushing about Kash Patel, said: “And what about our girl? We have our girl there.” Our girl is evidently the Kremlin’s way of referring to Tulsi Gabbard. His guest asked so as to be sure, “Intelligence?” The answer was yes.
RT, yet another Russian outlet that Ms. Gabbard “regularly read and shared articles from”, took to Twitter to defend her. “We’ve got your back, Tulsi.” Yes, they certainly do. In September, it was revealed that RT was acting covertly on behalf of Moscow to spread propaganda in the United States. Not a surprise that RT has Tulsi Gabbard’s back. The question is should we?
The Director of National Intelligence is the nerve center of our nation’s intelligence network. It is the linchpin between eighteen agencies tasked with detecting and preventing threats to our national security and coordinating our intelligence resources. It’s a job that requires judgment. It requires experience. It requires a high degree of trust. Above all – it requires a deep and unwavering commitment to the truth. And a willingness to stand up to despots. And yet, the nominee before us is stunningly lacking in all of these qualities.
Ms. Gabbard’s record in Congress is not one of distinction in intelligence matters. She did not serve on the Intelligence Committee in the House, was not known for advancing meaningful legislation in this space. When she did sign on to legislation, it was to eliminate critically important intelligence programs. Or was to praise those who leaked classified information and did great damage to our nation, like Edward Snowden. She did not wrestle with the complexities of intelligence gathering and analysis process. In fact – in the moments when her voice was heard on matters of foreign policy – it was in ways that should concern all of us. She has echoed, amplified, and at times outright defended the positions of autocrats and despots.
When now deposed Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, she cast doubt on the findings of our intelligence agencies. Cast doubt on them. Just like the Russian propaganda outlets did. This after she engaged in her own form of freelance foreign policy – travelling to Syria to meet with Assad and get the full scoop on his government’s narrative of that murderous crusade. On her return, she positively crowed about how lovely this dictator was. “He wants to be seen as someone who cares for his country…” Well maybe if he wanted to be seen as someone who cares for his own country, he shouldn’t have gassed his own people. “He wants to be seen as someone who would not conduct these kinds of atrocities,” Tulsi Gabbard said. Except that he did. He did commit these kinds of atrocities.
When Vladimir Putin launched his brutal war against our ally Ukraine, she once again parroted Kremlin talking points about so-called “provocations” by NATO. She repeated Russian propaganda claims that the U.S. had set up secret bioweapons labs in Ukraine – and argued that the U.S., not Russia, is responsible for Putin’s nuclear brinksmanship. This is the nominee for our intelligence agencies, not the Kremlin’s, this is our nominee, Tulsi Gabbard. This is who this President seeks to hand over the keys to on our national security. To entrust her with the nation’s most closely held secrets. To be the final voice in the room advising the president on intelligence. To be, in the plain words of the law, “the principal adviser to the president, to the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to the national security”? This, Tulsi Gabbard. This nomination is not just unwise – it is dangerous.
Make no mistake — Ms. Gabbard is entitled to her personal opinions. She can apologize for Assad, or Putin, or any other murderous dictator to her heart’s content. But we’re not considering Ms. Gabbard for some position in which her bizarre fondness for foreign despots is besides the point. She is not the nominee for postmaster general. We’re considering her for the most important job in our intelligence community. And for that – Tulsi Gabbard is a walking five fire alarm. And must be rejected. Must be.
There is a reason the Director of National Intelligence must have the confidence of both the intelligence professionals they oversee and the nonpartisan national security establishment. The job requires accountability. It requires trust. It requires truthfulness.
In 2015, Ms. Gabbard joined a Congressional delegation trip to the Middle East. The kind that so many of us in this chamber have participated in. She visited a Turkish town near the Syrian border, where countless refugees were sheltering. Her guide took Ms. Gabbard to meet two Syrian girls, aged just nine and four years old, who had been badly burned in a bombing carried out by the Syrian dictator’s warplanes. The children’s parents had been killed in that attack. These brave, small children told their story to the then Congresswoman. Now in this situation – I think any of us would have roughly the same response. Some form of sympathy. Some form of empathy. Some attempt to provide comfort to these children who saw their lives, and their families destroyed in front of them.But Ms. Gabbard had a very different response.
By account of the guide who was with her, she looked at the children and said: “How do you know if it was Assad? What if it was ISIS?” I should note that ISIS, of course, has no air force. But of course, that wasn’t really the point – was it? The point is perhaps illustrated best by her guide, who was with her that day, who said of that experience – those days with Ms. Gabbard. He said, “It dawned on me that Tulsi wasn’t misinformed or ignorant…” He said he worried instead that she “had a worldview that was adversarial to the United States.” Adversarial to the United States. Think about that. Adversarial to the United States. And consider whether this is the right person to be Director of National Intelligence.
Where do we draw the line with Donald Trump? What level of unfitness in a nominee, what level of unconstitutionality in an executive action? What level of abject disregard of our judicial system? What national security threat or risk will it take? What action could he commit where we would be joined by our Republican colleagues in saying we’ve had enough? Where is the line?
When is an action too egregious or an appointment too absurd, a risk or threat that is too big? Where is the line? Is it disobeying a lawful court order, which this administration seems to be laying the groundwork to do. Is it confirming a patently unqualified FBI director who wants to close down FBI headquarters and makes music with felons who beat law enforcement? Is it a director of HHS who doesn’t believe in vaccines, or a director of national intelligence who has sought to undermine vital intelligence operations and whom the Russians and others viewed as aligned with them instead of with us. Where is the line? Because for me, that line has been crossed a long, long time ago.
I cannot. I will not support this nomination, and I urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they do, because if Ms. Gabbard is confirmed, we will not need the luxury of hindsight.
We already have the luxury of hindsight. The threats to our nation are real. Those who wish us harm are busy plotting against us. There are plots to conduct attacks on U.S. soil. There are intelligence warnings about China’s intentions to replace us influence around the world, and about Russia’s relentless assaults against our friends and allies. And at a moment when the world is watching, when our allies and our adversaries are questioning America’s stability and leadership on the global stage. We cannot afford to confirm a director of national intelligence who lacks the qualifications, the judgment and the credit credibility to lead. We cannot.
Remember that Russian broadcaster I mentioned earlier, Vladimir Solovyov, here’s some of the rest of that exchange with the guest on his show. “Well,” he said, “with Tulsi Gabbard, it’s not that simple.” The guest replied, “it might not work, because what if it’s not approved?” The Russians are worried that Tulsi Gabbard might not be approved by this body. That should tell us something. People, please, do we need the Kremlin to spell it out for us what they are hoping and if they prayed, would be praying for us to do? Solovyov seemingly answered that question for us live on Russian TV. “Why are you suddenly so doubtful?” He asked his guest. Solovyov seemed nervous about the chances for confirmation of the woman he described as “our girl,” Tulsi Gabbard. Perhaps he fears that Congress has more common sense to confirm someone who prefers Russia’s world view over matters like Ukraine’s sovereignty to our own national security professionals. But do we? Do we possess that basic common sense? For the sake of our country, for the sake of our nation’s most sensitive classified information, and for the sake of the workforce that keeps us safe, I hope and pray that we do. That we possess the common sense to vote down. Tulsi Gabbard, we will soon find out. And I yield back.
###