And other countries are taking advantage of that. What do you think about the scope of our presence at some of these Rule Setting Meetings . What are your plans for the future . Senator, we need to be there. We need to be active. We need to be capable. We need to be value added. We need to come prepared to engage and work for americas interests in these multilateral discussions. I think you described wto in this article. Sounds like we share that sentiment. I couldnt tell you why we werent there. I dont know if it was an absence of people or the absence of focus. I view those as important to get the International Rule of law thats in accord with our view and not the chinese view in that particular instance. You have concerns and i will do my best to make sure were there and were capable. Appreciate it, that answer. I want to get a little bit of clarification with respect to an answer that you gave Senator Menendez at the outset coming back to that meeting with the president on march 22nd. Senator menendez has asked you
director to separate each and every element of that. Theres just it is a minefield, senator murphy. I want to be i want to be on the far side of the line with making sure that i dont create challenges for the Special Counsels office, for the two legislative committees theyre engaged in this. So with all due respect, i just i think there were things that relate to the Special Counsel anyway by refusing to condemn attacks on the Special Counsel i mean, really over the line attacks that arent shared by republicans here in congress, you are frustrating the work of the Special Counsel because youre associating yourself with some very poisonous political attacks. Senator, i have worked diligently myself and i have put demands on the team that works for me to go out of our way to make sure we were delivering for each of those three investigations. It is difficult. Theyve asked for Complexion Information that was classified. Weve shared information that goes well beyond what has previously been shared. Weve done so with the am of ensuring that the Special Counsel and the senate intelligence, House Intelligence Committee have the information they need to conduct their investigations and you should know well do that today and tomorrow and if im confirmed at the State Department, there as well. In the time i have remaining, coming back to the Authorization Question in syria. You said you Bleach Telieve the president has the authority to strike Syrian Forces. What is the what statutory authorization do you draw on to make, to come to that conclusion . Senator, i believe that the president has that authority. He certainly has it under article two of the constitution. Whats the Limiting Factor, then, with respect to article two powers . If he can strike Syrian Forces with no existing statutory authorization . Senator, there are rings of Law Review Articles written in answer to that very question. It gets its a highly factbased analysis. There are scores of attorneys
strewn throughout the cia, throughout the State Department, throughout the white house. Give me one Limiting Factor. Yes, senator, i would if you go if you make a commitment, right, if you make a commitment that would be traditionally viewed as a class cat case for war, then the constitutions are required. This has been a tussle for the legislatist branch for an awfully long time. You know my views. I think it was senator kaine who said coming from the place you do have deep respect for what it is you all are looking for. Normally a Limiting Factor would be an imminent threat or attack on the u. S. Theres a very definition in the war powers act. Theres statutory definition thats contained there as well. I cant recite it its an attack the war powers refers to an attack on the United States. Theres been no attack on the United States from the Syrian Regime, correct . Senator, thats correct. And theres no imminent
threat of attack on the United States from the Syrian Regime. Im just trying to be very careful. Yes, i think thats correct. At the end of my time, but i dont think were to the bottom of this question yet, thank you. Senator, im trying to youre asking me today to conduct complex legal analysis with legal conclusions and so i do want i know whats important and so im trying to do my best. Im at the same time trying to make sure i dont have some statement i made i understand i parsed the language correctly. To the extent theres not an identifiable constraint on article two power, were out of the business of declaring war. If i could, ill use another 30 seconds of my time. I think that even on this committee, theres wide disagreement over that. I know senator sheehan and myself, i saw public statements over last few days. Both agree that the president has the ability to make surgical strikes. President obama carried on for months activities against libya i disagreed with on policy basis, but he had that authority to do so. Least he claimed he did. So look, i think this is a subject of debate. And i think its proven of our witness to not try to analyze the very details of that on our own committee. We would debate that on both sides of the aisle at length. But i thank you for having this conversation. Well look forward to having the follow up. Thank you, chairman. Director, congratulations for your nomination. Thank you for your service to the nation. Thanks for coming by and visiting with me. Taking the time to discuss the Critical Issues of National Security. And i concur completely with you and the president ial authority to use a Military Force in syria. I wanted to stay with syria for a few moments if i could. Because what weve seen assad has continued to use chemical weapons, killing thousands. We have been following the Senate ForeignRelations Committee hearing for President Trumps nomination for Secretary Of State mike pompeo. We will go back to that hearing in just a moment. We have some Breaking News to bring you. In the last hour, President Trump talked about syria. He said that he is still having meetings about what action the United States might take against the assad regime there. And that a decision will be made fairly soon. Courtney kube joins me now with some Breaking News that the president and his team will certainly be taking into account. Courtney what have we found out . Well, my colleague ken dilanian and i have learned today the u. S. Now has blood and Urine Samples from some of the victims in this attack in syria last weekend and those samples according to u. S. Officials tested positive for chemicals, both chlorine the majority were chlorine but there were also some that tested positive for a nerve agent. Theyre not saying for certain whether that was sarin. But historically the Syrian Regime has used a combination of chlorine and sarin. Theres also other intelligence that has come in now that is pointing to this. U. S. Officials are now fairly confident that, in fact, this was the Syrian Regime that carried out this attack, craig. So one thing to keep in mind is a pattern that weve seen out of the Syrian Regime. When theyre attacking an area, going after an area, they will pound it with mortars, with artillery, for weeks, for months, however long it takes to take back the area. When they get towards the end, when it look like the areas about to fall for the regime, they have historically, you know, in the past they have used chemical weapons to be sort of the last straw that breaks the camels back, that takes out an area. What we have seen now is that in fact that region that area where this chemical weapons attack was carried out over the weekend has now fallen to the regime. That would be consistent with their past behavior. What we now know is there are blood and Urine Samples that have come from victims of this attack over the weekend and they have tested positive for chemical weapons, craig. As you are certainly aware, the syrian the official syrian line is that it wasnt them. We heard from the ambassador to the United Nations earlier today and yesterday. To what degree of certainty are these officials confident that it was, in fact, Bashar Al Assad who was behind these attacks . Well, youll often hear intelligence officials talk about level of confidence in a lowlevel or highlevel. The people i spoke with were not willing to characterize it as one or another. They would not give me the actual analysis. But they are saying now they have increasing evidence that, in fact, it was the Syrian Regime that carried this out. Youll recall last april in 2017 the Sarin Gas Attack that they
responded to by hitting a syrian airfield. There was overhead, there was photos of a crater in the road. After the tomahawk strikes, u. S. Military spoke about how they had evidence of how the chemicals, when they after they were struck, after they struck, how they dissipated into the area. We dont have that kind of specificity at this point. We are hearing more and more now that theres more confidence that, in fact, it was the Syrian Regime that carried out this attack. There have also been some talk that other countries were conducting similar tests on samples. Do we know any more about that . Not from any of the u. S. Allies. We no thknow that opcw, an International Monitoring organization, has been granted the authority to come in and test. One group weve heard from is the russians. They said theyve gone in on the
ground and vehavent found any evidence of chemicals. Now it seems the United States has something that is more tangible. People might be wondering where does the u. S. Get this . Theres not any u. S. Military on the ground operating near this area where this attack occurred last weekend. But they often will get samples from, you know, other u. S. Elements that might be on the ground there. They get them from ngos, from human Rights Groups that in the area. Historically, they have been able to get these kinds of samples that allow them to run forensics after an attack. All right, Breaking News here, again, from courtney kube, our military National Security correspondent there in d. C. Syrian samples testing positive for chemical weapons. That according to at least two sources, two official sources. The question now of course becomes what next. We will continue to follow that story. For now, lets go back to the Confirmation Hearing for mike
pompeo. This of course President Trumps nominee to be Secretary Of State. Historic analysis there is not optimistic. That is, it is a almost a talsman. That there is not enough coercion. There is not enough capacity for kim jongun to make the decision to give up his Nuclear Weapons arsenal. I hope that tailsman is wrong. Thats the effort weve been engaged in. Your point about the sanctions is relevant about a chance to talk to a whole handful of people who were involved in the sixparty talks. In each case america and the world released the sanctions too quickly. We didnt have the verifiable deal we hoped we had had. And in each case the North Koreans walked away from that deal. The intention of the president and administration to not do that. Before we provide rewards we get the outcome. It is a tall order. But i am hopeful President Trump can achieve that through sound diplomacy personally and through the offices of the State Department. The final question with regard to human rights, the rule of law, i appreciate your Opening Statement and the comments about your commitment to human rights around the world. Because if we dont who will. You know, Secretary Of State, again, your commitment to promoting and protecting these principles across the globe are key so i appreciate your comments. Thank you. Senator. Thank you very much. Earlier it was note ed thd that oath, youve taken it several times, to support and defend the constitution. Recently, President Trump has talked about a domestic enemy. Saying that the execution of a Search Warrant by the u. S. Law enforcement authorities on Michael Cohens office constitutes an attack, i quote, an attack on our country in a true sense. Do you agree that is an attack on our country . Senator, i have always believed the rule of law matters. I continue to believe that. Multiple times, individuals have asked me to comment on statements that others have made. Friends of mine have made. Adversaries of mine have made. Those who are coming after me. Today, things that i believe. I believe deeply in the rule of law and will continue to do so. Do you think that the rule of law does enable appropriate warrants . Absolutely. Thank you. Turning to north korea, john bolton said its legitimate for the u. S. To respond to the
current necessity by striking first. Secretary Defense Mattis had a different view. Saying war with north korea would be catastrophic. Do you lean more towards john boltons view or secretary of Defense Mattis view . I lean more closely to the president s view. Which is to continue the pressure campaign. To build a coalition. A Diplomatic Coalition around the world. To put pressure on kim jongun such that we can achieve the United States goals without ever having to put one of our young men and women in harms way. Does the president have the Constitutional Authority to conduct a first strike on north korea without authorization from congress . Senator, again, im not going to comment on a hypothetical with complex legal matters. Well, youve done so before, back a while, when the question was in regard to committing resources in libya. You put out a statement regarding a letter to barack obama informing him the administration had been in violation of the war powers resolution unless authorization from congress is obtain order the military withdraws operations from libya by sunday, june 19th. And then you commented and you said specifically the country that country, libya, does not pose a threat to the United States, nor do we have vital interests there. Did you believe, as you said then, that there is a constitutional limitation on the ability of the president to conduct war without an authorization from congress . Yes. Thank you. In that context not so long ago there is a lot of discussion that in regard to syria, if
president obama put grounds on the troop in syria it would constitute a foundation for impeachment. We had members of the senate, including members of our Armed Services committee, members of the house and ill just quote one of them, representative jones said no president , democratic republican, should have the authority to bypass the constitution or the will of the american people. He said if one of our troops goes to syria and is killed, i will introduce articles of impeachment. Did you share the view it would be in violation of the constitution . Senator, i dont recall if i did or if i made a statement with respect to that at that time. I simply dont recall. Just to clarify, in the case of libya, you did see that there was a line being crossed . Yes, senator, i believed that. The argument at that point was under our nato mutual
defense and nato action, but you still felt that didnt give the foundation for action in libya . Yes, senator, i believed what i think you said described as a letter, not a statement. I believe what i said in that statement. It is an issue of great concern here, the boundaries. Certainly i think some of your earlier caution about president s succeeding their Constitutional Authority are caution wed like to hear in your role as Secretary Of State. Its often the case when people make the journey. Will you not forget the Constitutional Responsibilities . Senator, i promise you, i will take equal consideration in the same way did i that day in 2011. As i have done in