Transcripts For CSPAN2 After Words John Brennan Undaunted -

About russian interference in 2016 with republicans and democrats still debating of those investigations were handled properly four years ago and if you do the right conclusions about russian actio action. Your book opens with a scene paid for the delegation and after the election to brave trump entertainment there is a deep partisan divide in congress was the inevitable given the politics of the moment or should something have been done differently . I was asked to brave the gang of eight usually is a members of congress the house and senate who are entrusted with the most sensitive secrets and intelligence the us community has so i went to brave the eight of them. There were is a very strong concern in a curious reaction on of six of those individuals was senator feinstein as well as adam schiff and concerned with they were hearing what the russians were doing and speaker of the house also took the information very very seriously also the cia and to look into this matter to find out exactly what they were doing but unfortunately senator mcconnell and the leader of the republicans in the senate as well as the chairman reacted negatively i write senator mcconnell in fact implied the cia was working with the Obama Administration to undermine donald trump and i shot back pretty quickly to say i take great umbrage that the caa would never do anything of the sort on the nunez who simply came part of the Trump Transition Team and was already showing his partisan instincts was not curious at all about it think the information but then to be very concerned what we were learning about russia. You are critical the president or the president elect in the everything that follows you say his demeanor and questions reveal he was uninterested what the russians had done during the election you think he is seeking to know when you are troubled by that was talk about that because what our president supposed to know about the sources of the cia information and how it gets its intelligence . What made you think mr. Trumps relations were not pure . I personally briefed for all of those were interested in learning the information the cia had collected and never heard anyone of them asked me about the specific details and always try to give them a sense of the track record of that Collection System that they would always to ask questions in order with their understanding but with donald trump at trump tower briefing him early january he would continue to deflect and talk about china so he demonstrated no intellectual curiosity what the russians were doing or what we knew. He was more seeking to understand how we knew this. I said we were concerned what he might do with this information if he truly was concerned the Intelligence Community had information on russian interference in contact with the Trump Campaign that could be damaging to him personally. I was worried about what he might do. Host of course now it is four years later and politicians are still trying to find out about your sources focusing on the january 27 Intelligence Community assessment and the conclusions of russia try to influence the vote. The Justice Department appointed a prosecutor to examine the investigation and that process in the book you describe part of reaching that conclusion the now controversial assessment that putin favored trump in the most news part of your book you talk to officials raised questions about the conclusion could you describe about the process of reaching that key conclusion . The cia with counterintelligence on this project cia has the best enlist in the community and then try to undermine the bureaucracy on the democracy so i had select individuals and they came up with the assessment for the question of trying to interfere in the election trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton this was done under the direction approach and to enhance the prospects of donald trump. Now all of those findings were attached to apply these agencies the fbi the nsa and the director of National Intelligence nsa downgrade the level of confidence from high to medium and that is his russian efforts to promote donald trump as the candidate to win the election. Cia analyst were at the height so in that assessment there were two Senior Officers who were aligned is really not much difference in the assessment but there was with that decision so they came to talk to me about it and i listened i wanted to make sure exactly i understood their concerns i told them to determine whether or not it should be high confidence i encourage them to do it again and explain their concerns. I word not overrule the consensus judgment of a cia analyst because to individual officers had a difference of opinion. That would be my interfering in a very arbitrary and unilateral way so ultimately that judgment at that level the caa joined by the fbi and i believe we had integrity of the process to allow the system to recognize the individuals who make this determination were the authors and analyst responsible for this Intelligence Community assessment. Were you disregarding russia experts and fighting with more junior russian experts . What is the dynamic about this quick. So those officers that raise their hands to say that should be lower level of confidence but in a conversation and then to risk all of the intelligence because i was revealing this information for quite some time so my own view the support on is to support. Thats i spent 30 minutes in my office with them to talk them through it so there is no way to disregard it but ultimately it comes down to those that were responsible and whether or not i need to have any judgment or provide Additional Information the topsecret classified version is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do specializes in human intelligence and is the best of that there is Different Levels of confidence or is it more complex than that quick. So to make decisions is the combination of science and art. And they may come away based on their perspective or experience or approach to the subject matter so the nsa analyst and mike rogers at the time and then talk with the analyst and then they made the decision on behalf of an essay to be at that level. I dont know if that was a consensus view. But i know frequently rightly so in the process and drafting that assessment. And thats what happened in this case. We are not talking about a disagreement with fortunes position but that level of certainty behind that. And that those to say it is wrong for those who didnt favor trump. There is unanimity that these were the appropriate judgments that the russians were trying to promote so that distinction and to have high confidence and if you word recall the sessions the Jamaal Khashoggi with the reported cia assessment that the crown prince word is responsible so that is a very significant judgment. And with all of the agencies involved that this is the aim of the russians to promote donald trump in the election. And then to an dispute that they felt the weight was not as great for that one finding as the others. And then look at the extent of the reporting into that finding those responsible from the assessment that they met their standards for high congress. So looking at the origins of the Russian Investigation attorney general barr is looking into this analytic process. So, should he focus on this . Was he asking questions of this very moment . And with that assessment . As you can imagine during that 8inch one eight hour interview and then to ask questions held judgments in the Intelligence Community came about on this assessment and i explained exactly and for the assessment than the principle questioners is a very fair manner there were some concerns and disconcerted and we heard they had moved away from the investigation hoping that john durham and with a very strong reputation to be a professional member and we have to see because he is used his office of the attorney general to continue to allow donald trump to deflect those various charges and concerns. So the media has reported the key russian an informant was extracted and relocated in the early days of trumps term. And that this source was a critical part of the conclusion of the support for trump. I know you cannot talk about sources but well worded ever come to a high confidence conclusion . I agree and in any way to compromise with those are technical collection assistance. And to have this history and then the analyst are exceptionally well trained and that standard is very high. We take a lot into account with those multiple sources and what is the credibility and the track record you can have a lot of sources that may be they are not reliable also single two or three who can access information who has been verified going into the intelligence process to validate those sources and to be in context of reliability. So the fierce defender President Trump has been d classifying a lot of intelligence with the Russian Investigation including some snippets never briefing you gave obama on Hillary Clinton and her plans to criticize trump over his attitude towards russia. And with the russian disinformation i am curious and you can talk about that way it was presented to obama in the summer of 2016 and what do you think of the idea and id classification . Is it helpful . s those that abuse the office of National Intelligence and selectively that he believes and it is clear this was the intention so i limited into terms of what i could say. But when i worked at caa to fulfill my responsibilities about what the russians were up to during this president ial Election Campaign season in which candidate they referred to her wanted to make sure presented information accurately and that was reported in the very selective memo. And if that fabrication of Something Else but that is very much in doubt but even if that was accurate and then to improve the plan there is nothing at all to see in that of us law so and then to associate that phrase about the referral that was made to the fbi with a counterintelligence but there is nothing at all but constitutes a violation of us law. So then Hillary Clinton tries to amplify and then with a connection between the Trump Campaign and russia. This is very serious and by john radcliffes tries to give any shiny object that what they are encountering on a daily basis. Lets step back and im curious of your thoughts and how we got here with the allegations the foreign power and interfering in our democracy or do you think the republicans skepticism over russia and tension are interfering in our ability with a foreign influence . Have to believe the republicans are doing now to defend trump is helping the russians continue their efforts to divide us as a country. It with this partisan battle. Talking about this in the book and from both sides of the aisle so i have seen the democrats pursue partisan agendas and not the truth the way i think they need to. And those that pale in comparison in terms of mr. Trumps continued thighs the republican continued support. So that when i think they are abusing the Office Putting loyalty to the individual ahead of their obligation to the constitution and three. Five plus years i have been appalled that with this team of republicans do and say to misrepresent the facts and i was watching earlier and Lindsey Graham is misrepresenting the facts. And the questions to jim comey. Sometimes they do that with ignorance but sometimes it is willfully and purposely to mislead the american public. You have in the past and one of the sharpest critics of President Trump you have gone quite far in criticism after the helsinki News Conference with Vladimir Putin some have said you have gone too far especially those who have held a nonpartisan post like cia director did they go too far or do you feel its your obligation that at the center of the political debate . Before that as a Us Government official and i worked hard to defend the rights and liberties of american citizenry to express their views openly and freely. And so many take advantage of that opportunity. Its not just a question to have policy differences with President Trump and what they have done with the iranian agreement and paris climate accord, that is fine. Will be speaking out those were just differences. It is exhausting, if it is corruption or abuse of the office of the presidency that just gets to me and i feel responsibility and obligation to call him out for it. Yes, i was hoping when i retired the second time in 2017 i could ride off into the retirement sunset without any controversy or issues. U have known over the years and worked with having a sort of relationship with you but in the book you indicate to a certain extent director haskell has had to keep you at a distance because of your role as a fighter with the president in the political sphere. What is the cost of your political activism and does that stop you offering advice and was that a tradeoff worth making . I know the white house announced they were revoking my clearances. I still have my security clearances because there was no basis whatsoever to revoke them and all directors maintained clearances for the benefit of the government so as you point out whether it is jean haskell or others want to talk to me about my experience when i was director and how i interacted with certain officials or my perspectives on certain issues, they can talk to me to get that information but donald trump issued a directive prohibiting them from discussing or sharing any classified information with me so although i maintain my security clearances, they are prohibited from discussing anything classified with me and so therefore it has certainly inhibited the agency. They havent reached out to me and i try not to put any of my colleagues in harms way by reaching out to them. Im at their disposal if they want to talk to me. I had one meeting with christina haskell and she invited me to the headquarters to thank me for my support for her nomination and that is the last time i ever heard from gina. So, in this book, the cia didnt let you have access to the files as director. How much of a challenge was it to put that together. And there are sometimes in the narrative where a reader would want more detail. How much of that is withheld just because you cant share it or how much is withheld because they wouldnt let you access your notes . Guest i think that its a combination of the two. I have a lifelong obligation to honor my security requirements as far as protecting. Even if i had access to my classified files, i wouldnt have access to the manuscripts to the cia to review it and i did that with this manuscript. There were some areas they would ask me to change things and i agreed with many of them, i disagreed with some. We went back and forth, they relented on some and i relented on some but i had to make sure that it was going to have the classification review. Unfortunately they didnt allow me to have access to my files. All previous directors that have written books fo were granted tt access promptly but again because of Donald Trumps animus towards me, the cia wasnt allowed to do that. I wish i had access to it to remind myself some of the discussions and i wish i was able to review my classified notes. The cia didnt give me access to the unclassified version of my calendar at the official use only level but they had redacted any of my references if a phone call to a foreign official took place. I still think i have some pretty good memory and i try to explain in the book to the best of my recollection what happened at the various meetings and events and i had the opportunity to talk with my former colleagues no longer at the cia so they could help me think through and remember some of these events that took place over the last several decades. Host you mentioned your fights with the democrats during the administration and there isa good portion of the book you talk in detail about your struggle with the Senate Intelligence committee over there report on cia interrogation, torture allegations and you are critical of the Senate Democrats and the media. Is it allegations of torture and spying sometimes this book sounds like a little bit of score settling more than a detached evaluation of how you will for the agency handled that relationship with congressional oversight. What was your purpose when you werare diving into that and tala little bit about that time and your feelings of how the senate and the media handled it. About the events that took place when it embarked on this review of the enhanced Interrogation Program and i was one of the protagonists involved but i do acknowledge in the book i could have handled these congressional relations better but i didnt. Looking back on and there were things i wish i had done differently but what i would say during this time and continue to see is the mischaracterization of what the cia did in the aftermath of 9 11 in terms of the work done by many officers to prevent the attacks. There were mistakes made and they were things that needed to be addressed and individual officers held to account but all of that and the very positive stuff they did seem to be ignored by the Senate Democrats in this report but more fundamentally, the implication and the claim was a allegation. I wanted to but the fact is to the table the computers the senate was using word cia computers and they had an obligation to determine whether it was a vulnerability in the system that allowed the Senate Staffers to access a document that they were not authorized to have and so when our Obama Administration<\/a> to undermine donald trump and i shot back pretty quickly to say i take great umbrage that the caa would never do anything of the sort on the nunez who simply came part of the Trump Transition Team<\/a> and was already showing his partisan instincts was not curious at all about it think the information but then to be very concerned what we were learning about russia. You are critical the president or the president elect in the everything that follows you say his demeanor and questions reveal he was uninterested what the russians had done during the election you think he is seeking to know when you are troubled by that was talk about that because what our president supposed to know about the sources of the cia information and how it gets its intelligence . What made you think mr. Trumps relations were not pure . I personally briefed for all of those were interested in learning the information the cia had collected and never heard anyone of them asked me about the specific details and always try to give them a sense of the track record of that Collection System<\/a> that they would always to ask questions in order with their understanding but with donald trump at trump tower briefing him early january he would continue to deflect and talk about china so he demonstrated no intellectual curiosity what the russians were doing or what we knew. He was more seeking to understand how we knew this. I said we were concerned what he might do with this information if he truly was concerned the Intelligence Community<\/a> had information on russian interference in contact with the Trump Campaign<\/a> that could be damaging to him personally. I was worried about what he might do. Host of course now it is four years later and politicians are still trying to find out about your sources focusing on the january 27 Intelligence Community<\/a> assessment and the conclusions of russia try to influence the vote. The Justice Department<\/a> appointed a prosecutor to examine the investigation and that process in the book you describe part of reaching that conclusion the now controversial assessment that putin favored trump in the most news part of your book you talk to officials raised questions about the conclusion could you describe about the process of reaching that key conclusion . The cia with counterintelligence on this project cia has the best enlist in the community and then try to undermine the bureaucracy on the democracy so i had select individuals and they came up with the assessment for the question of trying to interfere in the election trying to denigrate Hillary Clinton<\/a> this was done under the direction approach and to enhance the prospects of donald trump. Now all of those findings were attached to apply these agencies the fbi the nsa and the director of National Intelligence<\/a> nsa downgrade the level of confidence from high to medium and that is his russian efforts to promote donald trump as the candidate to win the election. Cia analyst were at the height so in that assessment there were two Senior Officers<\/a> who were aligned is really not much difference in the assessment but there was with that decision so they came to talk to me about it and i listened i wanted to make sure exactly i understood their concerns i told them to determine whether or not it should be high confidence i encourage them to do it again and explain their concerns. I word not overrule the consensus judgment of a cia analyst because to individual officers had a difference of opinion. That would be my interfering in a very arbitrary and unilateral way so ultimately that judgment at that level the caa joined by the fbi and i believe we had integrity of the process to allow the system to recognize the individuals who make this determination were the authors and analyst responsible for this Intelligence Community<\/a> assessment. Were you disregarding russia experts and fighting with more junior russian experts . What is the dynamic about this quick. So those officers that raise their hands to say that should be lower level of confidence but in a conversation and then to risk all of the intelligence because i was revealing this information for quite some time so my own view the support on is to support. Thats i spent 30 minutes in my office with them to talk them through it so there is no way to disregard it but ultimately it comes down to those that were responsible and whether or not i need to have any judgment or provide Additional Information<\/a> the topsecret classified version is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do is directors of central and teeten intelligence agencies should do specializes in human intelligence and is the best of that there is Different Levels<\/a> of confidence or is it more complex than that quick. So to make decisions is the combination of science and art. And they may come away based on their perspective or experience or approach to the subject matter so the nsa analyst and mike rogers at the time and then talk with the analyst and then they made the decision on behalf of an essay to be at that level. I dont know if that was a consensus view. But i know frequently rightly so in the process and drafting that assessment. And thats what happened in this case. We are not talking about a disagreement with fortunes position but that level of certainty behind that. And that those to say it is wrong for those who didnt favor trump. There is unanimity that these were the appropriate judgments that the russians were trying to promote so that distinction and to have high confidence and if you word recall the sessions the Jamaal Khashoggi<\/a> with the reported cia assessment that the crown prince word is responsible so that is a very significant judgment. And with all of the agencies involved that this is the aim of the russians to promote donald trump in the election. And then to an dispute that they felt the weight was not as great for that one finding as the others. And then look at the extent of the reporting into that finding those responsible from the assessment that they met their standards for high congress. So looking at the origins of the Russian Investigation<\/a> attorney general barr is looking into this analytic process. So, should he focus on this . Was he asking questions of this very moment . And with that assessment . As you can imagine during that 8inch one eight hour interview and then to ask questions held judgments in the Intelligence Community<\/a> came about on this assessment and i explained exactly and for the assessment than the principle questioners is a very fair manner there were some concerns and disconcerted and we heard they had moved away from the investigation hoping that john durham and with a very strong reputation to be a professional member and we have to see because he is used his office of the attorney general to continue to allow donald trump to deflect those various charges and concerns. So the media has reported the key russian an informant was extracted and relocated in the early days of trumps term. And that this source was a critical part of the conclusion of the support for trump. I know you cannot talk about sources but well worded ever come to a high confidence conclusion . I agree and in any way to compromise with those are technical collection assistance. And to have this history and then the analyst are exceptionally well trained and that standard is very high. We take a lot into account with those multiple sources and what is the credibility and the track record you can have a lot of sources that may be they are not reliable also single two or three who can access information who has been verified going into the intelligence process to validate those sources and to be in context of reliability. So the fierce defender President Trump<\/a> has been d classifying a lot of intelligence with the Russian Investigation<\/a> including some snippets never briefing you gave obama on Hillary Clinton<\/a> and her plans to criticize trump over his attitude towards russia. And with the russian disinformation i am curious and you can talk about that way it was presented to obama in the summer of 2016 and what do you think of the idea and id classification . Is it helpful . s those that abuse the office of National Intelligence<\/a> and selectively that he believes and it is clear this was the intention so i limited into terms of what i could say. But when i worked at caa to fulfill my responsibilities about what the russians were up to during this president ial Election Campaign<\/a> season in which candidate they referred to her wanted to make sure presented information accurately and that was reported in the very selective memo. And if that fabrication of Something Else<\/a> but that is very much in doubt but even if that was accurate and then to improve the plan there is nothing at all to see in that of us law so and then to associate that phrase about the referral that was made to the fbi with a counterintelligence but there is nothing at all but constitutes a violation of us law. So then Hillary Clinton<\/a> tries to amplify and then with a connection between the Trump Campaign<\/a> and russia. This is very serious and by john radcliffes tries to give any shiny object that what they are encountering on a daily basis. Lets step back and im curious of your thoughts and how we got here with the allegations the foreign power and interfering in our democracy or do you think the republicans skepticism over russia and tension are interfering in our ability with a foreign influence . Have to believe the republicans are doing now to defend trump is helping the russians continue their efforts to divide us as a country. It with this partisan battle. Talking about this in the book and from both sides of the aisle so i have seen the democrats pursue partisan agendas and not the truth the way i think they need to. And those that pale in comparison in terms of mr. Trumps continued thighs the republican continued support. So that when i think they are abusing the Office Putting<\/a> loyalty to the individual ahead of their obligation to the constitution and three. Five plus years i have been appalled that with this team of republicans do and say to misrepresent the facts and i was watching earlier and Lindsey Graham<\/a> is misrepresenting the facts. And the questions to jim comey. Sometimes they do that with ignorance but sometimes it is willfully and purposely to mislead the american public. You have in the past and one of the sharpest critics of President Trump<\/a> you have gone quite far in criticism after the helsinki News Conference<\/a> with Vladimir Putin<\/a> some have said you have gone too far especially those who have held a nonpartisan post like cia director did they go too far or do you feel its your obligation that at the center of the political debate . Before that as a Us Government<\/a> official and i worked hard to defend the rights and liberties of american citizenry to express their views openly and freely. And so many take advantage of that opportunity. Its not just a question to have policy differences with President Trump<\/a> and what they have done with the iranian agreement and paris climate accord, that is fine. Will be speaking out those were just differences. It is exhausting, if it is corruption or abuse of the office of the presidency that just gets to me and i feel responsibility and obligation to call him out for it. Yes, i was hoping when i retired the second time in 2017 i could ride off into the retirement sunset without any controversy or issues. U have known over the years and worked with having a sort of relationship with you but in the book you indicate to a certain extent director haskell has had to keep you at a distance because of your role as a fighter with the president in the political sphere. What is the cost of your political activism and does that stop you offering advice and was that a tradeoff worth making . I know the white house announced they were revoking my clearances. I still have my security clearances because there was no basis whatsoever to revoke them and all directors maintained clearances for the benefit of the government so as you point out whether it is jean haskell or others want to talk to me about my experience when i was director and how i interacted with certain officials or my perspectives on certain issues, they can talk to me to get that information but donald trump issued a directive prohibiting them from discussing or sharing any classified information with me so although i maintain my security clearances, they are prohibited from discussing anything classified with me and so therefore it has certainly inhibited the agency. They havent reached out to me and i try not to put any of my colleagues in harms way by reaching out to them. Im at their disposal if they want to talk to me. I had one meeting with christina haskell and she invited me to the headquarters to thank me for my support for her nomination and that is the last time i ever heard from gina. So, in this book, the cia didnt let you have access to the files as director. How much of a challenge was it to put that together. And there are sometimes in the narrative where a reader would want more detail. How much of that is withheld just because you cant share it or how much is withheld because they wouldnt let you access your notes . Guest i think that its a combination of the two. I have a lifelong obligation to honor my security requirements as far as protecting. Even if i had access to my classified files, i wouldnt have access to the manuscripts to the cia to review it and i did that with this manuscript. There were some areas they would ask me to change things and i agreed with many of them, i disagreed with some. We went back and forth, they relented on some and i relented on some but i had to make sure that it was going to have the classification review. Unfortunately they didnt allow me to have access to my files. All previous directors that have written books fo were granted tt access promptly but again because of Donald Trumps<\/a> animus towards me, the cia wasnt allowed to do that. I wish i had access to it to remind myself some of the discussions and i wish i was able to review my classified notes. The cia didnt give me access to the unclassified version of my calendar at the official use only level but they had redacted any of my references if a phone call to a foreign official took place. I still think i have some pretty good memory and i try to explain in the book to the best of my recollection what happened at the various meetings and events and i had the opportunity to talk with my former colleagues no longer at the cia so they could help me think through and remember some of these events that took place over the last several decades. Host you mentioned your fights with the democrats during the administration and there isa good portion of the book you talk in detail about your struggle with the Senate Intelligence<\/a> committee over there report on cia interrogation, torture allegations and you are critical of the Senate Democrats<\/a> and the media. Is it allegations of torture and spying sometimes this book sounds like a little bit of score settling more than a detached evaluation of how you will for the agency handled that relationship with congressional oversight. What was your purpose when you werare diving into that and tala little bit about that time and your feelings of how the senate and the media handled it. About the events that took place when it embarked on this review of the enhanced Interrogation Program<\/a> and i was one of the protagonists involved but i do acknowledge in the book i could have handled these congressional relations better but i didnt. Looking back on and there were things i wish i had done differently but what i would say during this time and continue to see is the mischaracterization of what the cia did in the aftermath of 9 11 in terms of the work done by many officers to prevent the attacks. There were mistakes made and they were things that needed to be addressed and individual officers held to account but all of that and the very positive stuff they did seem to be ignored by the Senate Democrats<\/a> in this report but more fundamentally, the implication and the claim was a allegation. I wanted to but the fact is to the table the computers the senate was using word cia computers and they had an obligation to determine whether it was a vulnerability in the system that allowed the Senate Staffers<\/a> to access a document that they were not authorized to have and so when our Security Specialists<\/a> were trying to understand how the document got to the computers they were using, there was the mistake made a couple of internal messages the staffers were sending to one another were accessed by cia officers. That was wrong and i apologized to Diane Feinstein<\/a> and the Inspector General<\/a> who were the leaders of the committee at the time. There was something the cia did wrong. Did we spy on them, no, did we have an obligation to carry out the security review, absolutely. I wanted to do it as a joint review with the Senate Committee<\/a>, but because of i believe the senate concerns that what they did wrong might be exposed and that the you. I go into some detail in the chapter because i think it is a complicated issue a lot of Americans Still<\/a> have this impression the cia is lying but i wanted to give other details about the nature of the issue and its various complexities explaining what the cia did and why they did it and number three, how we were able to try to address the shortcomings and to be upfront and honest with the Senate Committee<\/a> which again is why i apologized. The senate never did an investigation to what they did wrong and i believe they did do things wrong but, so in this memoir again i like to think its more to ensure that i present what i believe is an accurate and honest depiction of what happened during that period of time. Host not to spend too much time on it, but this idea that the sort of forensic tests the cia did to see if this report that the Senate Staffers<\/a> were not supposed to have under your agreement, you dont think that was wrong to do that analysis on these computers used, only that it went too far and looked at the messages, but the actual investigation that you did to find that the document was on the system wasnt in proper you dont think . The security and it specialist responsible for the integrity of the system decided to repair to it as a unique binary code, nothing that reveals the content focused on this side of the network firewall. They did that forensic search and it did reveal a unique binary code which to them indicated that it was on that side and they brought it to my attention at that point and thats when we decided to try to understand without any type of intrusion to the content or the substance of what the committee was doing and so one could argue that shouldnt have happened. I believe they were operating in good faith and went to Great Lengths<\/a> not to have any access to the communications. There was one misstep that was made but Everything Else<\/a> based on the review that was done on the accountability board that included former senator evan by who was a member previously decided they didnt act at all in bad faith and were carrying out their security obligations to the best of their ability. Were you surprised they made a movie out of this . And i take it from the book we were not much of a fan of it. They said in the book that it was known at the time the lead investigator noted that he was interested in making a movie on it so there were some agendas at play here. There were many, many in the movie that mischaracterized the cia actions and activities. There is a scene where at night they go into the rooms of the databases and steal things and that couldnt be further from the truth so once again an effort to mask the wrongdoing by the Senate Staffers<\/a>. One last question on this before i go to other topics and you dont like the term torture you were comfortable with enhanced interrogation techniques before. You raised questions about it. Why was it a mistake and do you think we would ever get into the situation agaithis situation age cia Going Forward<\/a> where they would be involved with interrogations and we would have a president that would order the use of torture . I testified under oath i would never authorize the cia to engage in such a program again. I do think that it was a mistake and they were ill prepared to do Something Like<\/a> this. Never had a program like that before but in the aftermath of 9 11, the cia was asked to do everything it could to prevent the reoccurrence. So the reason i say the program wasnt torture is because that program was authorized by the president of the United States<\/a> who was duly authorized to direct the cia to carry out corporate activities. This program also was deemed to be lawful by the highest advisory body in the branch which is the office of Legal Counsel<\/a> and the department of justice. They were also briefed to the committees of jurisdiction in the senate and the house and so everything the cia inquired for it to go forward in this program had determination that it was legal and congressional notification took place so the cia carried out the program. Any cia officers that operate outside of the boundaries of that approved and authorized program violated their responsibilities and exceeded what they were authorized to do and many were held to account. But if they operated within the confines of what was authorized to now say in the aftermath of this review in the 2020 hindsight that the cia was engaged in torture by u. S. Law, i think that is applying a Legal Standard<\/a> for something that was different in the aftermath of 9 11. Now ive had my personal views about the program and i believe the department of justice rules that were written were very illfounded and were not solid legal arguments. I am not a lawyer though. The officials at the time had a dilemma. Were they going to say we cannot do this, again in the heat of this battle or were they going to carry out the programs to the best of their ability and unfortunately they fell short under those programs that were poorly managed and were not carried out to the letter and spirit of the covert action authorization. So, your career at the cia and one of my favorite parts is when you described sort of joining the cia and those initial sort of polygraphs and those initial days you do get a sense of the excitement of the cloak and dagger organization and there is a kind of funny scene of you getting a polygraph in the beginning of your cia career and having to admit that you disclosed in the vote. Can you talk a little bit about that and maybe speak a little more broadly to if you think they are effective and important and just the cost of doing business. Its an important tool the cia uses to determine if somebody is being truthful, and applicant to the cia or somebody the cia has contact with overseas and has recruited or us well aaswell as to determine ify is actively reporting foreign intelligence. So when i applied to the cia i was in texas at the time going to graduate school and i came up here to washington, d. C. For psychological tests and stuff like that as well as a polygraph test and so when i sat down with them i had to walk through some of my previous issues like experimentation with drugs and whatever else. But then when he asked me a question about whether or not i ever belonged to an organization with the overthrew to the u. S. Government i was prepared to say absolutely not but maybe it was my catholic guilt that kicked in. The first time i had to go down to vote which was 1976, at that time i was very much a devout nonpartisan and already upset at some of the partisan sympathizers lysol on both sides of the aisle i didnt know who i was going to vote for so i decided to go down the list and sell the candidates for the party. When they asked me the question whether i supported an organization for the overthrow of the u. S. Government, i thought of that 1976 vote and explained to the political river that i voted and was a protest vote that i didnt even know much about other than his name and the polygraph work only asked me was there any other support i provided to the communist party and i said no, that was just a one off event. And as you will read in the book, i was very anxious about how he was going to react to this and i thought my little application would be tossed. But he said its your absolute right to vote for whomever you wish in a u. S. Election and it will not be held against you on your application. At that moment, any of the qualms i might have had about adjoining the cia with all of the reports about the activities overseas and what was alleged to have of her, by having them tell me that the cia respects and honors the rights of american citizens to cast their vote as they see fit, speak out as they see fit, it made me even more interested in being part of the cia. So ive taken many polygraphs but that one was the most. Host in your career, youve both been the briefer of the delivering the president s daily briefs and also sat next to the president s while they received that brief. In the trump administration, this has been a very strong delivery for the intelligence committee. Talk a little bit about the president s daily briefs and its importance and how you saw the different president s handle it and what the intelligence briefer prioritizes when breathing a president. 1994 and 1995 i was the briefer of the president s daily briefs and senior officials. It gave me insight into the importance of that intelligence support. A president is involved in so many Different Things<\/a> and has so many strings of information and things coming into him so i needed to make sure that during those briefings i would be able to ensure that the president , whether it was the committee was concerned about, what were those issues that might require president ial attention but also what were the longerterm Strategic Issues<\/a> that had the potential and in the subsequent years when i had the opportunity to brief george w. Bush and barack obama, all of those had this tremendous interest in the thirst for indignation and intelligence that the committee was able to provide them. There would be a lot of back and forth and a lot of questions. President clinton is somebody who had tremendous recall and could absorb information very quickly. He was a gracious leader and engaged with me and others, but he was just always on intake. George w. Bush read religiously but also enjoyed and asked for the interactions with analysts or operations officers or intelligence experts. He really enjoyed the back and forth and learned a lot through those exchanges. Barack obama, again someone was able to process information very quickly and readily. He also had a unique ability to see relationships, second, third, fourth effects in terms of how one issue, one quarte cor one analysis or one recommendation per policy might in fact affect our interest, National Security<\/a> interest in other areas or other parts of the world with other issues. So, i found that the cia and intelligence briefer really needed to understand how best to provide intelligence to the president so that they are able to gain the insight they need to carry out the responsibility. Ive been very disheartened by the things i hear that trump doesnt take the briefings with theres a lot of times i went down to the white house where the intelligence i was delivering wasnt that well received because it was countered to the policy references or relations of the president and senior officer. But its the responsibility of the intelligence briefer or the director of National Intelligence<\/a> or director of the cia to ensure that they hear this information, irrespective of whether it comports with what they want to hear. Host we only have a couple minutes left. And unfortunately, having to leave a bunch of questions on the cutting room floor, let me ask you to conclude a little bit about how you think the agency is doing right now with this president who is resistant to some intelligence or is gina haskell doing a good job at the cia and doing the best they can in the usual situations to deliver intelligence to the white house on china or russia or whatever else of a challenge. Whether it is gina haskell or a new cia officer, its clear we have somebody in the white house, donald trump, who has disregarded the importance of the Intelligence Mission<\/a> and the work and sacrifice of the cia officers across the board. Id like to think that my colleagues are continuing to do the great work that they have done since the cia began back in the 1940s to ensure they are working every day to keep their fellow citizens safe. I think it is incumbent upon them to do this, again, irrespective of whether donald d trump paid attention to the work but at the same time im sure that its very demoralizing that the person that should be paying the close attention to the intelligence that they provide is ignoring it so the cia and others i know will be very resilient. When donald trump is a former president , that they will be able to respond very quickly and effectively and efficiently to the demands im sure the next president of the United States<\/a> will make. I am concerned and worried and at the same time i have the strength and conviction in the business and professionalism of the rankandfile and Law Enforcement<\/a> community that even if the leaders are not doing what they need to do, professionals in these organizations will continue to carry out the responsibilities with their obligations to the constitution. Director, thank you so much for your time today and for discussing your new book. And best wishes to you. Guest thank you. I really enjoyed the discussion. This program is available as a podcast. All after words programs can be viewed on the website at booktv. Org. Good evening and welcome. Im the event director at the bookstore. We are pleased","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia801707.us.archive.org\/2\/items\/CSPAN2_20201012_040100_After_Words_John_Brennan_Undaunted_-_My_Fight_Against_Americas_Enemies...\/CSPAN2_20201012_040100_After_Words_John_Brennan_Undaunted_-_My_Fight_Against_Americas_Enemies....thumbs\/CSPAN2_20201012_040100_After_Words_John_Brennan_Undaunted_-_My_Fight_Against_Americas_Enemies..._000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}