At her confirmation hearing on Thursday, a number of Republican senators questioned Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence, harshly about her prior support for intelligence leaker Edward Snowden and her changing opinions on an electronic surveillance program backed by senators whose votes she needs.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which is hosting the hearing and has the first vote on Gabbard’s candidacy, is controlled by Republicans with a slim 9–8 majority. Some of the Republican members asked questions that suggested Gabbard might not win their support.
Gabbard will need the support of every Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee in order to maintain her chances of being confirmed, as Democrats are predicted to reject her. The Senate as a whole could still vote to confirm her if the committee doesn’t support her, but it would need a 60-vote majority, which is a very unlikely situation.
For years, Gabbard, a Democratic member of Congress and commentator, praised Snowden as a courageous whistleblower and advocated for his pardon, portraying him as a former government contractor who spilled a huge amount of secret material. During the session, Gabbard was questioned by both Democratic and Republican senators. She stated that she would not ask for Snowden’s pardon if he were confirmed for the top intelligence position, but she did not specify whether she thinks he is a traitor.
Gabbard did take a different stance toward Snowden than he had previously, claiming that he had broken the law and that he shouldn’t have disclosed so much classified material.
“If confirmed as the director of national intelligence, my responsibility would be to ensure the security of our nation’s secrets, and [I] would not take actions to advocate for any actions related to Snowden,” Gabbard said in response to Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who asked if she would seek a pardon or clemency for Snowden.
Collins inquired as to whether Gabbard would pursue a pardon for Snowden, and Gabbard replied that she would.
Gabbard refused to openly respond when Sen. James Lankford, R-OK, asked her twice if she thought Snowden was a traitor.
“I’m thinking about the future and how we can make sure that this doesn’t happen again,” Gabbard stated.
In 2013, Snowden was working as a National Security Agency contractor when he released a mountain of classified material that revealed specifics of US monitoring activities across the world. Snowden has been charged with espionage after fleeing the country and relocating to Russia.
Republicans also questioned Gabbard in-depth over her long-standing opposition to an electronic surveillance program that permits U.S. intelligence agencies to listen in on foreigners outside the nation without a warrant in order to gather intelligence.
U.S. officials can also go through the data, including information incidentally gathered from Americans communicating with the foreign targets, thanks to the program, which is permitted by section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
In the past, Gabbard had argued that the program violated civil liberties. However, she changed her mind a few weeks ago, stating that she now backed the surveillance powers because her worries had been resolved by changes last year.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, asked Gabbard about her opinions on whether a warrant is necessary to search for Americans who show up in surveillance data that has been gathered and what requirements would be necessary to get one.
Gabbard avoided answering the query.
“That’s not for me to say, Senator,” Gabbard retorted, adding that Congress should make that decision.
Cornyn, however, retorted that she would be responsible for managing the program as DNI.
According to Cornyn, that would be up to you to decide and the Attorney General to consider.
Although Gabbard disagrees with the national security hawks who control the Senate Intelligence Committee, her prior stance on section 702 places her in line with many progressive Democrats in Congress as well as libertarian-minded Republicans. The president’s choice to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has likewise been a vocal critic of the monitoring program.
Gabbard would be in charge of 18 spy organizations with a combined budget of over $100 billion and would have the last say in what intelligence is sent to the president if the Senate confirmed him as director of national intelligence (DNI).
Gabbard has been accused of repeating propaganda from Russia and the former Assad regime in Syria while running for president, serving in Congress, and commentating on Trump’s campaign. He has also questioned U.S. intelligence reports that the Syrian government carried out numerous chemical weapons attacks on its own citizens.
During the hearing, Gabbard denied accusations that she had allied with enemies of the United States, saying it was ridiculous to doubt her allegiance to the United States considering her political and Army career.
In the past, Gabbard has denied claims that she supports authoritarian rulers or works against American interests.
She claims that because she challenges Washington’s national security establishment and opposes U.S. military interventions to overthrow regimes, like as the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, she is being attacked.
Because of her 2017 meeting in Damascus with then-dictator Bashar al-Assad of Syria and her subsequent remarks that appeared to support the regime’s narrative of the country’s civil war, Gabbard has come under heavy fire. However, Gabbard has stated that she was only looking at ways to put an end to the conflict and that any peace agreement would need to be discussed with the Syrian government.
Her supporters also point out that she has had a security clearance for years, which shows that she is reliable when it comes to sensitive material. Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve, has an active top secret security clearance and has never violated the confidentiality regulations pertaining to classified material, according to a spokesman for the former legislator.