The Benny Show - Benny Johnson - 🚨Kash and Tulsi LIVE Right Now as BOMBS found at Tesla Dealer, New Lib Hoax DEBUNKED as DC in PANIC

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 25, 2025 - The Benny Show - Benny Johnson

03:20:51

🚨Kash and Tulsi LIVE Right Now as BOMBS found at Tesla Dealer, New Lib Hoax DEBUNKED as DC in PANIC

Participants

Main voices

alina habba

14:27

benny johnson

52:53

john ratcliffe

15:11

kash patel

05:49

mark warner

16:54

tom cotton

12:36

tulsi gabbard

25:10

Appearances

jack reed

02:58

james lankford

03:11

jon ossof

03:52

madeleine rivera

01:02

mark kelly

03:09

michael bennet

04:47

pete hegseth

01:02

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
madeleine rivera ▲ ● ▼		Guys, good morning.
		Lawmakers at the threats assessment hearing today are expected to talk about Iran, Russia's aggression, and the growing influence of China.
		Those expected to testify include Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and FBI Director Kash Patel.
		This is the first chance for intelligence officials to talk about what the government is doing to counter threats.
		It's also the first time that Gabbard and Radcliffe will be appearing before lawmakers after news broke that some Trump administration officials accidentally sent the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, plans about the military strikes in Yemen.
		Goldberg says Gabbard and Radcliffe, or presumably someone masquerading to be them, were part of that group chat.
		Democrats are already demanding investigations.
		This comes as House Speaker Mike Johnson looks into how to hold what he calls...
		Activist judges accountable.
		Johnson is throwing cold water on impeachment for the judges, but he is meeting with members of the House Judiciary Committee today to talk about other potential options.
unidentified		Sorry about the knife.
unidentified		I don't want to talk about that.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		What's up?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		What's your morning routine like?
unidentified		Look at us.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		10am sharp!
		We are live!
		Some people thought, oh wait, you just set the chat early for an hour before the show.
		No, baby!
		We got Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard.
		Live, along with the CIA director, before the Senate for the first time this morning.
		So we thought we'd just let her rip front row seat to the golden era.
		We've got to live up to our name, and we've got to let it freaking ride this morning.
		And so we're going to do that with the Cash Fatale hearing that is, I think, going to be live very soon.
		We have a lot to talk about this morning.
		We also have Alina Habba on the show, so we're going to have a rowdy morning this morning.
		We're going to lock in and listen to the testimony.
		Here's what we've heard from Cash's team, that this is going to be an hour of public testimony about security threats against conservatives, against our nation, the swatting threats, the Tesla threats, and also the leaking of war plans from the Pentagon.
		What's that all about?
		We're going to cover it right now.
		What we also want to hear is...
		about what they're going to do against left-wing, psychotic terrorists who wish to kill all of us here inside of the country.
		Remember, the president swears on a Bible to say he's going to protect America from enemies domestic as well as foreign.
		I think we have a much bigger problem right now with domestic enemies than foreign enemies.
		So we're going to chat about it.
		We're going to watch live together Kash Patel's first hearing before the Senate.
		He's going to be flanked again by Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence, and a number of other high-ranking military officials, including, but not limited to, CIA Director John Ratcliffe.
		So let's freaking go this morning.
		Good morning to you.
		I have a piping hot cup of coffee right here.
		We're going to sip it.
		We're going to rip it!
		It's going to be a lot of fun.
		That was a great meme, Jerry.
		I really like that.
		That was a fantastic meme.
		Let's put that one up on X. Today is March 25th, 2025, and this is the glorious year of our Lord.
		We've already previewed what we're going to cover today, live, when they take the dais at and inside of the Senate.
		And ladies and gentlemen, lots of news from the White House.
		Alina Habba will be joining us to detail all of the newly appointed district attorney for the state of New Jersey.
		So what's that about?
		We're going to ask her.
		A lot of crimes in New Jersey.
		Boy, oh boy.
		A lot of operations in New Jersey that Alina Habba could dig into.
		So we're going to get into all of it today on the program.
		It's going to be a rowdy show.
		Probably going to be a longer show.
		So settle into the chat and let's freaking go here.
		My name is Benny Johnson and this is The Benny Show.
		You probably are someone who has seen...
		The abject and total devastation of the Biden economy, it hasn't been pleasant.
		We're seeing the demons exorcised out of that economy right now.
		American financing can help you with your little exorcism here.
		You know it's bad when my wife, when Kate, I always nurse Kate, you know it's bad when Kate comes home and like slaps the grocery bill at the end of the counter and is like, you want to know what it cost me?
		Go to Publix.
		Publix is the big grocery store around here in Florida.
		I don't know if you know Publix.
		Do you like Publix?
		I love Publix.
		I love Publix.
		Publix is awesome.
		But she like slaps it down.
		I'm like, the price of eggs are what?
		Now?
		This was a couple of weeks ago.
		But throughout the last couple of years, that's been my wife.
		It's probably been your wife too.
		It's been a tough ride.
	A lot of people in debt.
	A lot of people getting into debt.
	It's time for you to get out of debt.
	Life did get more expensive.
	The most...
	Most extreme acceleration in inflation in American history.
	So make sure that you're getting out of any debt that may have accrued and doing it right now.
	Call American Financing today and start feeling the relief at 888-528-1219.
	American Financing can help you unlock the equity in your home.
	You can save up to $800 every single month.
	A simple no-obligation call can change everything.
	That's AmericanFinancing.net slash Benny call today.
	All right, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we have various members of the committee getting set right now.
	I want to detail what may be coming out of this Senate Intel Committee for us before we listen to the first hour and then we have a big show to do.
	But we thought, you know what?
	Why not?
	Why not cover the first hour?
	Here with our friend Cash.
	Give him as much...
	Oh, and there they are walking in.
	Hey, let's have a look.
	Let's have a look at that one.
	Okay.
	And there they are.
	It looks like we got...
	And that's definitely Tulsi, all right?
	Tulsi wearing her F.U. Hillary Clinton white suit.
	This is the white suit that Tulsi always wears when she's sending a message.
	The F.U. to the Clintons.
	There's no audio yet.
	There's nobody that's been seated.
	So there's Tulsi's team.
	There's Cash.
unidentified		See, Cash rolling up!
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		The photographer's clicking, and then you have John Ratcliffe there with the CIA.
		They can't be too popular of a man inside of that building with the release of the JFK documents, and hopefully COVID documents, and hopefully Epstein documents.
		A lot of questions, I'm sure.
		Got a little audio?
unidentified		Okay.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Room tone and click clacking from the photographers.
		Here we go.
		So we got the big boys seated there.
		You're going to have some military brass that flank them with the NSC gabbling in.
		It's going to be a friend of the show, Tom Cotton, in charge.
		This is going to be fun and should be very rowdy.
		We like Tom Cotton.
		Tom Cotton debunked the latest hoax this morning.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to the Senate Intelligence Committee annual worldwide threats hearing.
		I'd like to begin by welcoming our esteemed panel of witnesses, the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, the CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, the FBI Director, Kash Patel, the Director of the National Security Agency and Commander of U.S. Cyber Command, General Tim Hawk, and the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse.
		Thank you all for your appearance.
		Thank you for your leadership.
		I also want to recognize the hard work and dedication of the thousands of men and women in our intelligence community whom you're here to represent today.
		Their successes are seldom celebrated.
		Their accomplishments are often unseen.
		But our nation is grateful to each one for the vital work they do to keep our nation safe, prosperous, and free.
		allows for the American people to receive an unvarnished and unbiased account of the real and present dangers that our nation faces.
		As we will hear from our witnesses, many of the threats we face are truly existential.
		Communist China is actively working to replace the United States as the world's To shape a world favorable to its interests and hostile to ours.
		These methods include the biggest peacetime military buildup in history.
		Rapidly expanding its nuclear forces, providing critical assistance to help Russia withstand U.S. sanctions, obscuring its role in accelerating the spread of COVID-19 beyond Wuhan, turning a blind eye to Chinese companies that enable the production of fentanyl flooding into the United States and putting space weapons on orbit, among other tactics.
		Iran, despite setbacks inflicted on its so-called access of resistance by Israel over the last year, still aims to destroy what it calls the little Satan, the state of Israel, and what it calls the great Satan, the United States.
		It continues to arm Yemeni rebels to attack global shipping, though these outlaws have suffered terrible losses over the last two weeks.
		Thanks to decisive action by President Trump and our brave troops.
		I commend the President, Mike Waltz, Pete Hexeth, and his entire national security team for these actions.
		Iran also continues its decades-long effort to develop surrogate networks inside the United States to threaten U.S. citizens.
		Furthermore, Iran's nuclear program continues apace.
		It's actively developing multiple space launch vehicles, which are little more than flimsy cover for an intercontinental ballistic missile program that could hit the United States in a matter of years.
		But all this will soon come to an end.
		The Supreme Leader of Iran now faces a stark choice, thanks to President Trump.
		The Supreme Leader can fully dismantle his nuclear program.
		Finally, today's report also acknowledges that illicit drug production endangers the health and safety of millions of Americans.
		For the first time, the annual threat assessment lists foreign illicit drug actors as the very first threat to our country.
		As the report highlights, Mexican-based cartels using precursors Given these threats,
		we have to ask, are our intelligence agencies well postured against these threats?
		I'm afraid the answer is no, at least not yet.
		As the world became more dangerous in recent years, our intelligence agencies got more politicized, more bureaucratic, and more focused on promulgating opinions rather than gathering facts.
		As a result of these misplaced priorities, we've been caught off guard and left in the dark too often.
		I know that all of you agree that the core mission of the intelligence community is to steal our adversaries' secrets and convey them.
		At the same time, it's not the role of intelligence agencies to make policy to justify presidential action or to operate like other federal agencies.
		After years of drift, the intelligence community must recommit to its core mission of collecting clandestine intelligence from adversaries whose main objective is to destroy our nation and our way of life.
		The reason is not that our intelligence community lacks dedicated patriots who show up to work every day to protect the American people.
		On the contrary, it has an abundance of them.
		The reasons are a misuse of resources, bureaucratic bloat, a default to play it safe, and a past administration that prioritized social engineering over espionage.
		Coupled with recent failures, the finding in today's Worldwide Threat Report should be a wake-up call.
		To all of us to get our house in order.
		The status quo is proving inadequate to provide the President and Congress with the intelligence needed to protect the American people.
		As more storms gather, America's intelligence capabilities require urgent reform and revitalization.
		As the chairman of this committee, I look forward to working with each of you to strengthen America's intelligence edge and refocus our intelligence community on its core mission, stealing secrets.
		The American people deserve nothing less.
		We've assembled an impressive team to get this done, and I look forward to hearing your comments.
		Now I recognize the Vice Chairman for opening remarks.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, everybody.
		I want to thank all the witnesses for being here.
		I've got to say, I've been on the committee now for 14 years, and this year's assessment is...
		Clearly one of the most complicated and challenging in my tenure on the committee.
		I want to get into that in a moment, but I want to first of all address the recent story that is broken in the news.
		Yesterday, we stunningly learned that senior members of this administration, and according to reports, two of our witnesses here today were members of a group chat.
		That discussed highly sensitive and likely classified information that supposedly even included weapons packages, targets, and timing, and included the name of an active CIA agent.
		Putting aside for a moment that classified information should never be discussed over an unclassified system.
		It's also just mind-boggling to me That all these senior folks were on this line and nobody bothered to even check Security Hygiene 101.
		Who are all the names?
		Who are they?
		Well, it apparently included a journalist.
		And no matter how much the Secretary of Defense or others want to disparage him, this journalist had at least the ethics to not report, I think, everything he heard.
		The question I raise is like, you know...
		Everybody on this committee gets briefed on security protocols.
		We're told you don't make calls outside of SCISS of this kind of classified nature.
		We don't know what I'm going to ask.
		Obviously, Director Gabbard is the executive in charge of all, keeping our secrets safe.
		Are these government devices?
		Are the personal devices?
		Have devices been collected to make sure there's no malware?
		There's plenty of declassified information that shows that our adversaries, China and Russia, are trying to break into encrypted systems like Signal.
		I can just say this, if this was the case of a military officer or an intelligence officer and they had this kind of behavior, they would be fired.
		I think this is one more example of the kind of slumpy, careless, incompetent behavior, particularly towards classified information, that this is not a one-off or a first-time error.
		Let me take a couple minutes and review some of the other reckless choices that this administration has made regarding our national security.
		We all recall it seems like it wasn't that long ago.
		Less than two months ago.
		In the first two weeks, the administration canceled all U.S. foreign assistance.
		Now, some may say, how bad can that be?
		It's foreign assistance.
		Well, U.S. foreign assistance paid for the units in Ukraine to provide air defense to civilian cities being attacked by Russia.
		Foreign assistance paid for guarding camps in Syria where ISIS fighters are detained.
		Foreign assistance paid for programs abroad that ensure that diseases like Ebola don't come home.
		And until recently, it paid for the construction of a railway in Africa that would have helped given the United States much-needed access to critical minerals in Congo.
		Now that project, China's gonna try to finance it.
		As well, in the first two weeks, Director Patel, the administration fired Several of our most experienced FBI agents, including the head of the Criminal Investigative Division, the head of the Intelligence Division, the head of the Counterterrorism Division, the heads of the New York, Washington, and Miami Field Office,
		all individuals who were distinctly and directly responsible for helping to keep America safe.
		The irony in a little bit was that currently The recently dismissed head of the Counterterrorism Division was involved in disrupting the ISIS attacks planned for Oklahoma City and Philadelphia and helped lead the effort to bring to justice the key planner of the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan to kill 13 U.S. servicemen and 150 civilians.
		That very Abbey Gate effort was actually praised by the president in his State of the Union address.
		Yet the administration's response to these agents, I believe, good works and years of service was to force these folks out.
		It's hard to imagine how that makes our country safer.
		Nor can I understand how Americans are made more secure by firing more than 300 staff at the National Nuclear Security Administration, including those responsible for overseeing the security and safety of the nuclear stockpile.
		Or by ousting 130 employees at CISA, the agency directly responsible for trying to take on China's salt typhoon attack.
		Again, after salt typhoon, I would have thought folks on that group chat might have thought twice.
		Or how we made safer by sacking 1,000 employees at the CDC and NIH, or actually directly working on trying to keep our country safe from disease.
		By pushing out hundreds.
		of intelligence officers.
		The amazing thing is our intelligence officers, they're not interchangeable like a Twitter coder.
		These intelligence officers, our country makes 20 to 40 thousand dollars of an investment just in getting a security clearance.
		Literally goes into six figures when you take the training involved.
		Can anyone tell how firing probationary Individuals without any consideration for merit or expertise is an efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
		And just to make clear that yesterday's story in the Atlantic was not this rookie one-off, it's a pattern.
		I want to acknowledge Director Radcliffe was not here in his position when this took place.
		But again, earlier in the administration, when a non-classified network was used, thereby exposing literally hundreds of CIA officers' identities.
		Those folks can't go into the field now.
		How does that make our government more efficient?
		You know, again, this pattern of an amazing cavalier attitude towards classified information is reckless, sloppy, and silly.
		And perhaps what troubles me most is the way the administration has decided that we can take on all our problems by ourselves.
		I agree that we've got to put America's priorities first.
		But America first cannot mean America alone.
		The intelligence we gather to keep Americans safe depends on a lot of allies around the world who have access to sources we don't have.
		That's sharing of information.
		It saves lives, and it's not hypothetical.
		We all remember it because it was declassified last year when Austria worked with our community to make sure to expose a plot against Taylor Swift in Vienna.
	That could have killed literally hundreds of individuals.
	However, these relationships are not built in stone.
	They're not dictated by law.
	Things like the Five Eyes are based on trust.
	Built on decades.
	But so often that trust is now breaking literally overnight.
	Yet suddenly, for no reason that I can understand, the United States is starting to act like our adversaries or our friends.
	Voting in the UN with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea.
	That's a rogues gallery if you've ever heard of them.
	Treating our allies like adversaries.
	Whether it's threats to take over Greenland.
	We're over the Panama Canal, destructive trade war with Canada, or literally threatening to kick Canada out of the five eyes.
	I feel our credibility is being enormously undermined with our allies, who I believe, and I think most of us on this committee, regardless of party beliefs, makes our country safer and stronger.
	But how can our allies ever trust us as the kind of partner we used to be?
	When we, without consultation or notice, for example, stop sharing information to Ukraine in its war for survival against Russia?
	Or how can our allies not only not trust our government, but potentially not our businesses, with such arbitrary political decisions?
	Let me give you a few examples.
	You know, as a result of a lot of work from this committee and others, In Congress, we made sure America's commercial space industry is second to none.
	From space to launch to commercial sensing and communications, the United States has taken a record lead.
	Yet overnight, this administration called into question the reliability of American commercial tech industry when Maxar and other commercial space companies were directed to stop sharing intelligence with Ukraine.
	I've got to tell you, I've been a business guy.
	I can't say longer than being an elected official, but pretty close.
	That shockwave across all of commercial space, and frankly not just commercial space, I've heard it from some of our hyperscalers in the tech community, has sent an enormous chill.
	Who's going to hire an American commercial space company, government or foreign business, with the ability to have that taken down so arbitrarily?
	And it's not just in the case of commercial space.
	We've seen that Canada...
	Germany, Portugal have all been saying they're rethinking buying F-35s.
	I've heard from Microsoft and Google directly and Amazon that they're having questions about whether they can still sell their services.
	We've also seen foreign adversaries and friends take advantage of this rift in our national security areas and our scientists.
	Germany has already put out ads.
	Trying to attract some of our best scientists who've been riffed.
	And the Chinese intelligence agencies are posting on social media sites in the hopes of luring individuals with that national security clearance who've been pushed out, perhaps arbitrarily, to come into their service.
	So no, the signal fiasco is not a one-off.
	It is unfortunately a pattern we're seeing too often repeated.
	I fear that we feel the erosion of trust from our workplace, from our companies, and from our allies and partners can't be put back in the bottle overnight.
	Make no mistake, these actions make America less safe.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Before I turn to the witnesses' hearing, I want to welcome everyone.
		In our large audience today, I also want to note that we will not tolerate any disruptions of the witnesses' testimony or senators' questions and the witnesses' answers.
		You'll note that we have a large contingent of Capitol Police in the room.
		Any disruptions, either opposed or in favor to the witnesses, will result in prompt removal from the hearing room.
		And my encouragement to the U.S. Attorney to throw the book at the person disrupting.
		No offense, but we all came to hear the witnesses, no one else in the room.
		Director Gabbard, I understand you'll make a statement for the panel of witnesses.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, members of the committee.
		Thanks for the opportunity for us to be here to present you the Intelligence Community's 2025 Annual Threat Assessment.
		I'm joined here this morning by my colleagues from the CIA, DIA, FBI, and NSA.
		Our testimony offers the collective assessment of the 18 U.S. intelligence elements making up the U.S. intel community and draws on intelligence collection and information available to the IC from open source and private sector and the expertise of our analysts.
		This report evaluates what the IC assesses most threatens our people and our nation's ability to live in a peaceful, free, secure, and prosperous society.
		As you know, we face an increasingly complex threat environment that is threatening us here at home and our interests abroad.
		I'll begin by focusing on what most immediately and directly threatens the United States and the well-being of the American people.
		Non-state criminal groups and terrorists putting American lives and livelihood at risk.
		Then I'll focus on the key nation states who have the capability to threaten the interests of the United States.
		In this complex environment, non-state and state actors are able to exploit or take advantage of the effects of each other's activities.
		Conventional and asymmetrical capabilities even the traditionally weakest of actors are able to acquire from available advanced technologies creates an even more complex and serious threat landscape.
		First, I'll highlight the threats presented by several non-state actors.
		Cartels, gangs and other transnational criminal organizations in our part of the world are engaging in a wide array of illicit activity, from narcotics trafficking to money laundering to smuggling of illegal immigrants and human trafficking, which endanger the health, welfare and safety of everyday Americans.
		Based on the latest reporting available for a year-long period ending October 2024, cartels were largely responsible for the deaths of more than 54,000 U.S. citizens.
		Mexico-based transnational criminal organizations, or TCOs, are the main suppliers of illicit fentanyl to the U.S. market and are adapting to enforcement and regulatory pressures by using multiple sources and methods to procure precursor chemicals and equipment, primarily from China and India, many of which are dual-use chemicals used in legitimate industries.
		Independent fentanyl producers are also increasingly fragmenting the drug trade in Mexico.
		The availability of precursor chemicals and ease of making illicit fentanyl have enabled independent actors to increase illicit fentanyl production and smuggling operations in Mexico.
		Cartels are profiting from human trafficking and have likely facilitated more than 2 million illegal immigrants encountered by law enforcement at the U.S. southwest border in 2024 alone, straining our vital resources and putting the American people at risk.
		Criminal groups drive much of the unrest and lawlessness in the Western Hemisphere.
		They also engage in extortion, weapons and human smuggling and other illicit and dangerous revenue-seeking operations, including kidnappings for ransom, forced labor, and sex trafficking.
		These and other human traffickers exploit vulnerable individuals and groups by promising well-paying jobs while confiscating their identification documents.
		They operate in the shadows, exploiting lawlessness in various areas and using coercion and intimidation to control their victims.
		While these key drivers of migrants are expected to persist, heightened U.S. border security enforcement and deportations under the Trump administration are proving to serve as a deterrent for migrants seeking to illegally cross U.S. borders.
		U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions along the southwest border in January 2025 dropped 85 percent from the same period in 2024.
		Transnational Islamist extremists such as ISIS and al-Qaeda and affiliated jihadi groups continue to pursue, enable, or inspire attacks against the United States and our citizens abroad and within the homeland to advance their ultimate objective of establishing a global Islamist caliphate.
		This includes heightened efforts to spread their ideology to recruit and radicalize individuals in the U.S. and the West.
		While the New Year's Day attacker in New Orleans had no known direct contact with ISIS terrorists, he was influenced and radicalized by ISIS ideological propaganda, as one example.
		Al Qaeda and its affiliates continue to call for attacks against the United States as they conduct attacks overseas.
		These jihadist groups have shown their ability to adapt and evolve, including using new technologies and tactics to spread their ideology and recruit new followers.
		A range of non-state cyber criminals are also targeting our economic interests, critical infrastructure, and advanced commercial capability for extortion, other coercive pursuits, and financial gain.
		These actors use a variety of tactics, including phishing, ransomware, and denial-of-service attacks, to disrupt our systems and steal sensitive and lucrative information using available technologies and U.S. cyber vulnerabilities.
		Ransomware actors last year, for example, attacked the largest payment processor for U.S. healthcare institutions, and another set of criminal actors conducted cyber attacks against U.S. water utilities.
		Some of these non-state cyber actors also operate as proxies for or emulate similar activities carried out by major state actors.
		While these non-state cyber actors often seek financial and intellectual property gains, they also carry out cyber operations for espionage purposes targeting our critical infrastructure.
		Turning to key state actors, the IC sees China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea engaging in activities that could challenge U.S. capabilities and interests, especially related to our security and economy.
		These actors are in some cases working together in different areas to target U.S. interests and to protect themselves from U.S. sanctions.
		At this point, the IC assesses that China is our most capable strategic competitor.
		Under the leadership of President Xi Jinping, the People's Republic of China seeks to position itself as a leading power on the world stage, economically, technologically, and militarily.
		Beijing is driven in part by belief that Washington is pursuing a broad effort to contain China's rise and undermine CCP rule.
		China's most serious domestic challenge is probably China's slowing economy and potential instability if socioeconomic grievances lead to large-scale unrest.
		Growing economic tensions with the United States and other countries could also weigh on China's plans for economic growth and domestic job creation.
		China's military is fielding advanced capabilities, including hypersonic weapons, stealth aircraft, advanced submarines, While it would like to develop and maintain positive ties with the United States and the Trump administration to advance its interests and avoid conflict,
		China is building its military capability in part to gain advantage in the event of a military conflict with the United States around the issue of China's efforts toward unification with the Republic of China, or Taiwan.
		China's military is also expanding its presence in the Asia-Pacific region with a focus on disputed territorial claims in both the East China and South China Seas.
		Beijing is advancing its cyber capabilities for sophisticated operations aimed at stealing sensitive U.S. government and private sector information and pre-positioning additional asymmetric attack options that may be deployed in a conflict.
		China's cyber activities have been linked to multiple high-profile breaches, including last year's massive compromise of U.S. telecom infrastructure, commonly referred to as salt typhoon.
		Beijing currently dominates global markets and strategically important supply chains, for example, with the mining and processing of several critical minerals.
		In December, China imposed an export ban to the United States on gallium, germanium, and antimony, all of which are important to the production of semiconductors and our defense technologies.
		This was in direct response to U.S. export controls on chips designed to broadly limit PRC access to advanced chips and chipmaking equipment.
		China also aims to compete in other critical global industries, including AI, legacy semiconductor chip production, In 2023,
		for example, China had five first-in-class domestic drug approvals and three FDA approvals.
		Turning to Russia.
		Russia's nuclear and conventional military capabilities, along with its demonstrated economic and military resilience, make it a formidable competitor.
		Moscow has more nuclear weapons than any other nation that could inflict catastrophic damage on the United States and the world in the event of a major war that Russian leaders feared put them and their regime at serious risk.
		In late 2024, Russia announced updates to its public nuclear doctrine, expanding the conditions under which Russia would consider using nuclear weapons.
		Russia is building a more modern and survivable nuclear force designed to circumvent U.S. missile defense through reliable retaliatory strike potential.
		Russia intends to deter the U.S. by holding both the U.S. homeland at risk and by having the capabilities to threaten nuclear war in a conflict.
		Russia has developed advanced cyber capabilities and has attempted to pre-position access to U.S. critical infrastructure for asymmetric options and make it a persistent cyber threat.
		Russia's cyber activities have been linked to multiple high-profile breaches, including the 2023 hack of Microsoft.
		Russia is also fielding new capabilities and anti-satellite weapons meant to degrade U.S. and allied space infrastructure.
		Among Russia's most concerning developments is a new satellite intended to carry a nuclear weapon as an anti-satellite weapon, violating longstanding international law against such activity and putting the U.S. and global economy at risk.
		Iran continues to seek expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict.
		Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region.
		Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024.
	Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.
	So, The IC continues to monitor closely if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program.
	In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades-long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public, likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus.
	Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.
	Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming, and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorists and militant actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance.
	Although weakened, this collection of actors still presents a wide range of threats, including to Israel's population, U.S. forces deployed in Iraq and Syria, and to U.S. and international military and commercial shipping and transit.
	North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is pursuing stronger strategic and conventional capabilities that can target U.S. forces and allies in the region, as well as the U.S. homeland.
	To bolster North Korea's leverage and stature, defend its regime, and achieve at least tacit recognition as a nuclear weapons power.
	Kim's recently cemented strategic partnership with Russia supports these goals by providing him greater financial, military, and diplomatic support, reduced reliance on China, and providing North Korean forces and weapons systems authentic war fighting experience.
	Kim views his strategic weapons advances since 2019, its deepening ties with Russia, and North Korea's economic durability is strengthening his negotiating position against Washington's demands for denuclearization and lessening his need for sanctions relief.
	North Korea is probably prepared to conduct another nuclear test on short notice and continues to flight test its ICBMs to demonstrate their increasing capabilities as leverage in future negotiations.
	Since 2022, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have grown closer.
	Removing the accelerant of the war in Ukraine is unlikely to revert these bilateral relationships to a pre-war 2021 baseline, leaving room for new strategic priorities and world events to create new incentives or challenges to their currently high levels of cooperation.
	Russia has been a catalyst for much of this expanded cooperation, driven heavily by the support it has needed for its war effort against Ukraine, including protection from U.S. and Western sanctions.
	In addition to its exchange of military and other resource capabilities with North Korea, Russia has relied more heavily on China's financial and defense industry backing and also has increased combined military exercises with China to signal shared fortitude against the United States In
	conclusion, the threats that we see to U.S. national security are both complex and multifaceted and put the lives As the heads of the American People's Intelligence Community, we will continue to provide the President, Congress, and our warfighters with timely, unbiased, relevant intelligence to keep the United States secure, free, prosperous, and at peace.
	To the American people specifically, our intelligence community exists to serve you and to ensure your safety, security, and freedom.
	Thank you.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Director Gabbard.
		As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the annual threat assessment, for the first time, lists cartels and traffickers as the very first threat.
		Director Patel, I'm pleased to say that the FBI's Little Rock Field Office has been doing its part in addressing this threat.
		The field office, along with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies have arrested nearly 300 immigrants in my state in 2025 so far.
		Could you provide some color about the nature of the threat these illegal immigrants have posed, not just to Arkansas, but our nation, perhaps including some of the details of the horrific offenses they've committed against the American people?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
unidentified		The witness will suspend.
		The greatest threat involves security and just build on the whole world belt.
		Stop funding Israel!
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		So that protester was a code pink lunatic saying the greatest threat to world peace is funding Israel.
		I will observe, for the benefit of the audience here on television, that Code Pink is funded by Communist China as well, which simply illustrates...
		speak up now if you want to be removed as well whoever's saying that If anyone else would like to join them, speak now, please, so we don't have any more disruptions.
		As I was saying, the fact that communist China funds Code Pink, which interrupts a hearing like this about Israel, simply illustrate Director Gabbard's point that China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other American adversaries are working in concert to a greater degree than they ever have before.
		Director Patel, back to my question.
		Could you give us some color about the threat that illegal migrants have posed, not only to my state, which has resulted in nearly 300 arrests in 2025, but also to the nation at large?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the committee.
		I appreciate the time to address you all, specifically to Arkansas, Senator.
		The priorities that the FBI, which I identified during my confirmation hearing and since, is attacking violent crime along with national security.
		And every single state in this country is a border state.
		Arkansas is no exception.
		Allow me to highlight the work of the men and women in the FBI and state and local law enforcement in the Since February 5th alone, we've had 220 illegal immigrants arrested on charges varying from violent offenses, weapons offenses, narcotics offenses, and serious violent felonies.
		253 separate individuals have been charged related to those offenses.
		And here's something I want the American people to hear about narcotics, encountering narcotics.
		Thousands of pounds of narcotics were seized in these three weeks in the state of Arkansas.
		Thousands worth tens of millions of dollars.
		Everything from fentanyl to meth to cocaine to heroin to marijuana and more.
		And also including manufactured drugs.
		The FBI does have the biggest footprint in Arkansas, but we could not achieve this mission without our state and local law enforcement partners, which has been one of the priorities since I took the helm at the FBI.
		They provide the greatest ground-level intelligence to conduct these operations in Arkansas and every single state across the Union.
		Since February 5th, we've assisted with the arrest of hundreds of criminals and illegals throughout your state, and that was just a three-week operation.
		Prior to that, Senator, there was a bust of 17. Federal indictments relating to a meth lab in the state of Arkansas in the southwest corner of your state.
		All of those individuals are now facing prosecution for hundreds of pounds of illegal opioids, guns, and other illicit material.
		So we will continue to do that work.
		We will work seven days a week, 365 days a year, not just in your state, Mr. Chairman, but in every state.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Director Patel.
		As Director Gabbard highlighted from the annual threat report, Director Ratcliffe, Many, if not most, of the chemical precursors for deadly fentanyl produced by Mexican drug cartels originates in China.
		China, of course, is a techno-totalitarian police state.
		They have technology to monitor their own people that Soviet Russia could have only imagined.
		Is there any reason, Director Ratcliffe, To believe that China could not monitor and crack down on this flow of chemical precursors to Mexico if it chose to do so?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator, for the question.
		No, there's nothing that prevents China, the People's Republic of China, from cracking down on fentanyl precursors.
		As you well know, Senator, one of the reasons that they don't is that there are more than 600 PRC-related companies that produce those precursor chemicals in an industry that generates $1.5 trillion.
		That is one of the reasons that we see that Chinese efforts to affect the sentinel precursors are really limited in nature and intermittent in nature and not a dedicated effort to enforce their own laws and regulations to crack down on this.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Director Ratcliffe.
		I have many more questions I could ask.
		But I'm going to try to lead by example and stay within the five-minute limit.
		For the benefit of senators, I remind everyone there is a vote scheduled at noon.
		I hope to finish the open portion of this hearing before that vote closes, after which time we'll move to the closed portion.
		The vice chairman.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I'll be happy to take your extra 13 seconds.
		But I'm going to go back to what I addressed at the outset.
		I mean, this was not only sloppy, not only violated all procedures, Information had gotten out.
		American lives could have been lost.
		The Houthis had this information and could reposition their defensive systems.
		So I want to get a little more information about this.
		Director Gabbard, did you participate in the group chat with Secretary of Defense and other Trump senior officials discussing the Yemen war plans?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I don't want to get into the specifics.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Ma 'am, were you on?
		You're not going to be willing to address it.
		Are you denying?
		Matt, will you answer my question, ma 'am?
		You are not TG on this group chat.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I'm not going to get into the specifics.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		So you refuse to acknowledge whether you are on this group chat.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I'm not going to get into the specifics.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Why are you going to get into the specifics?
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Is it because it's all classified?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Because this is currently under review by the National Security Council.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Because it's all classified?
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		If it's not classified, share the text now.
unidentified		As the White House previously stated— Is it classified or non-classified information on this text?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I can confirm.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Director Radcliffe, were you on the group chat?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I was on a signal messaging group.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		So you were the John Ratcliffe on that chat?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I was.
unidentified		Thank you.
unidentified		Thank you.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Can I provide some context, Senator, to that?
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Yes, but I've got a series of questions.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		But I think it's important because at the outset, you made a couple of comments about signal messaging using encrypted apps so that we're clear.
		One of the first things that happened when I was confirmed as CIA director was signal was loaded onto my computer at...
		The CIA, as it is for most CIA officers, one of the things that I was briefed on very early, Senator, was by the CIA records management folks about the use of signal as a permissible work use.
		It is.
		That is a practice that preceded the current administration to the Biden administration.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		I've got a series of questions.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		If you're making the statement, the signal is a secure channel.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No, can I answer that?
		It is permissible to use to communicate and coordinate for work purposes provided.
		That any decisions that are made are also recorded through formal channels.
		So those were procedures that were implemented.
		My staff implemented those processes, followed those processes, complied with those processes, and finally, just please, so my communications, to be clear, in a signal message group were entirely permissible.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Well, we will make that determination because if it's not classified, share the text with the committee.
		You know, let me go on.
		Director Gabbard, you are the security executive and set access guidelines for classified information.
		Did you contact the defense secretary or others after This specific military planning was put out and say, hey, we should be doing this in a SCIF.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		There was no classified material that was shared in that signal.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		So then if there was no classified material, share it with the committee.
		You can't have it both ways.
		These are important jobs.
		This is our national security.
		Bobbing and weaving and trying to, you know...
		Filibuster your answer.
		So please answer the question.
		If this was a, Director Gabbard, if this was a rank-and-file intelligence officer who did this kind of careless behavior, what would you do with them?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I'll reiterate that there was no classified material that was shared in that.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		And if there's no classified materials, share.
		And then if there's no classified materials, then you can't even answer the question.
		Whether you're on the chat.
		This is strangely familiar, and I think my colleagues will remember when you couldn't answer the question, is Edward Snowden a traitor?
		Now I have serious doubts about your...
unidentified		Anyway.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Director Gabbard, I'm going to give you this.
		Tweeted just 11 days ago, and I'm quoting you.
		Any unauthorized release of classified information is a violation of the law and will be treated as such.
		So if this information is classified, what are you going to do?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, two points here.
		First of all, there's a difference between inadvertent release versus malicious leaks of classified information.
		The second point is...
		There was no classified information that was on the information.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Director Patel, my time's about out, and I'm going to use my 12 seconds after the chairman came.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Director Patel, has the FBI launched any investigation of this?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I was just briefed about it late last night this morning.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		I don't have an update.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		I would like to get an answer by the end of the day.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		At this point in the ordinary course of affairs, I would recognize Senator Collins.
		She asked me to express to you that she is under the weather this morning.
		She regrets her absence, but anticipates submitting written questions, to which I would request your prompt replies for the senator.
		Senator Cornyn.
unidentified		Director Gabbard, I applaud President Trump's efforts to try to bring an end to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
		I want to read a statement out of the annual threat assessment and just confirm that you agree with this.
		It says Russia views its ongoing war with Ukraine as a proxy conflict with the West and its objective to restore Russian strength and security in its near abroad against perceived U.S. and Western encroachment has increased the risks of Unintended escalation between Russia and NATO.
		Do you agree with that statement?
		And that is in the annual threat assessment, correct?
		Correct.
		I'd like to refer to an AP story.
		Assocated Press, dated March 21st, 2025.
		The title of the article is, Western officials say Russia is behind a campaign of sabotage across Europe.
		This AP map shows it.
		Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that's being made part of the record.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Without objection.
unidentified		The document that AP compiled, and I presume this is through open sources, Documented 59 incidents, including cyber attacks, spreading propaganda, plotting killings, or committing acts of vandalism, arson, sabotage, or espionage.
unidentified		Is that consistent with your understanding and impression of what Russia's currently engaged in in Europe?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I haven't seen that specific article, but I can confirm that We assess Russia's attempts to conduct such sabotage activities in Europe.
unidentified		Thank you.
		One of the things that I'm most concerned about following some of the discussions between Russia and Ukraine and the United States and our other allies, Obviously, as I said, peace between Ukraine and Russia is the desirable end state.
		I think you'd have to be something, you'd have to be crazy to say otherwise.
		But I also want to talk a little bit about the unexpected or maybe unintended consequences of European insecurity.
		I know the incoming Chancellor of Germany has talked about the possibility that Germany might share its nuclear weapons with Ukraine.
		And suggested that the UK would be part of that.
		I know that Poland has talked about acquiring nuclear weapons and perhaps other European countries to make up for what they view as a receding of the American umbrella of protection.
		General Krauss, what would be the result of the proliferation of nuclear?
		Weapon-armed countries in Europe if, in fact, that would occur as a result of the perception of European insecurity.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, thank you for the question.
		One of the things that the intelligence community works very hard on is to understand who has nuclear weapons throughout the planet.
		And as discussed in the opening statements, both by the chair and by Director Gabbard, the proliferation and the increase in the types and the lethality of nuclear weapons is one of the things that we have to track and we as a nation are going to have to face.
		It has changed dramatically in the last five years and will continue.
		To change over the next five years.
		The addition of additional countries which have their own deterrence policies and will act in a nuclear dialogue.
		Or the presence of those weapons, the security of those weapons, the movement and the threat of use of those weapons complicates the environment by which all of us will operate and will complicate all of the decisions by which all future conflict and the political decisions that we support are the decision makers.
unidentified		It makes the world a more dangerous place, does it not?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, yes, it does.
unidentified		And just by way of history, Ukraine used to have the third largest arsenal.
		of nuclear weapons on the planet, but as a result of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and the United Kingdom, the Budapest memorandum documented a commitment by Russia and the United States to protect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for them giving up their nuclear weapons.
		Did I correctly summarize the content of the Budapest memorandum back in 1994?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Senator, you did.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		And Ukraine willingly gave up its weapons for the protection of others.
unidentified		Thank you very much.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Wyden.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		And obviously, my colleagues and I feel very strongly about the war planning meeting over unclassified phones.
		Obviously reckless, obviously dangerous.
		Both the mishandling of classified information and the deliberate destruction of federal records are potential crimes that ought to be investigated immediately.
		And I want to make clear that I'm of the view that there ought to be resignation, starting with the National Security Advisor and the Secretary of Defense.
		Director Radcliffe and Director Gabbard, have you participated in any other group chats with senior Trump administration officials in which classified information was shared using phones that weren't cleared for such information?
		Question for the two of you.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, thank you for the question.
		I haven't...
		Your question was, have I participated in any other group chats sharing classified information?
		To be clear, I haven't participated in any signal group messaging that relates to any classified information at all.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Director Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I have the same answer.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I have not participated in any signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information.
unidentified		Yeah, and I just think it's important to follow through here.
unidentified		Would the two of you cooperate with an audit to confirm that that is the case?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I have no objection.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I'll certainly comply with any follow-up that the National Security Council would deem appropriate.
		But again, to be clear, the use of signal message and encryption applications is permissible and was in this case used permissibly.
		At least to my understanding and in a lawful manner.
unidentified		The seriousness of this is so clear.
		That's why I want to have an audit, and both of you gave me an answer indicating that you would be open to that, and I appreciate it.
		Director Patel, you weren't in this particular group chat, but have you participated in any chats on unclassified phones with other administration officials relating to national security?
		And if so, on what other topics?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you for your question, Senator, and not that I can recall.
unidentified		Okay.
		Question I have for you, Director Gabbard, involves this question of Elon Musk wasn't going to see the military's China war plans because he said he, quote, has business in China and he would be susceptible perhaps to that.
		That was his comment.
		So as DNI, you're responsible for security clearance policies across the government.
		Under your watch, How are you going to go about carrying out this obligation because I think it obviously is a very significant one in terms of American national security.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
		As you know, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence provides oversight over these different 18 intelligence elements.
		Leaders within those elements are empowered with that responsibility to uphold the trust that the American people have placed in them.
		In this example that you cited, both Secretary Hegseth as well as President Trump completely denied the assertion that Elon Musk was going to receive any kind of classified war plan brief pertaining to China or any other country.
unidentified		The president has the prerogative to get clearances is really the area that I want to touch on because you're formally responsible for security clearance policies, and that's why I'm asking about it.
unidentified		So can a president decide who gets the clearance?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		So what about your role?
unidentified		You're formally responsible for security clearance policies.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		That is also true.
unidentified		So how do we resolve it?
unidentified		The president just gets his way.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		The elected president and commander-in-chief has the authority to provide a security clearance to those who he deems necessary.
unidentified		Ms. Chairman, and to the ranking member, I think we have to have a further discussion on this and figure out what the ground rules, you know, are.
		I think it's clear.
		What the director says, I just think we need more clarity because I think you have the formal responsibility for security clearances, and now we've heard that this somehow is going to be the president's project, and I think we ought to have further discussions.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Senator Langford.
james lankford ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Chairman, thank you.
		Thank you to all of you and your service to the country.
		It matters.
		There are a lot of citizens of our country right now that have Much greater security in their life because of the work that you do and the people that are working around you.
		So I just want to say I appreciate that for the folks in Oklahoma.
		They would definitely want me to be able to say thank you for your service.
		Let me ask a couple of questions on this.
		Director Gabbert, let me start with you on this.
		Iran has been listed as one of the top sponsors of terrorism for a very long time.
		They are the primary armors of Hezbollah, of Hamas, of the Houthis.
		They're arming the Russians to be able to kill Ukrainians.
		They continue to be able to destabilize the region.
		And just in the recent days, when many nations in the Gulf region have talked about how to provide greater stability, Iranian leadership stepped out and made very clear statements they want a one-state solution for Israel, and it's to drive out all Jews.
		So this continues to be an issue not just for the region, but for Americans in particular.
		So my question is on this, is the sanctions and the effect of sanctions, what we know about the Iranian response.
		Under the Biden administration, those sanctions will turn down, where, quite frankly, Iran has been able to sell $90 billion in oil on the global market to be able to rearm itself and all the others around the region.
		Now sanctions are now going back on to Iran again.
		What do we know about the effect of those sanctions?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator, for the question.
		These sanctions have just begun to be reinstated, so the full effects have not yet borne fruit.
		But the message that the president has sent with his maximum pressure campaign is certainly heard.
		As the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, President Trump recently sent a letter to the leader of Iran expressing his interest in direct talks in order to try to de-escalate and to prevent war, prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon, but also stated that there
		Okay, thank you.
james lankford ▲ ● ▼		Director Patel, during the last administration in the very open border policy that they had.
		We had some years, including 2022 and 2023, where there were 70,000 individuals that were released into the country that were identified as special interest aliens.
		This is something this committee and the Homeland Security Committee tried over and over again to get details on.
		The Biden administration was unwilling to be able to share any of the details in the special interest aliens.
		It led to a great amount of frustration.
		The comment came often back to us is that FBI is going to track all these individuals and to be able to identify them, even though...
		It was 70,000 a year that were coming into the country.
		You just walked into this position and trying to get your feet on the ground in so many different issues that are outstanding on that.
		I raised to you the issue of individuals that are currently illegally present in the country going through a process but are listed as special interest aliens.
		By definition, from the administration, those are individuals that we don't know their level of risk, but they're considered a national security risk.
		But we don't know anything else about them from there.
		So how are you trying to get on top of the number of people that are criminal aliens in the country, but also these special interest aliens that come from terrorist areas?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
		I appreciate your question.
		As far as the FBI is concerned, you hit on it.
		Criminal.
		So we are focused across our interagency partners at DHS, ICE, CBP, CIS, and elsewhere to identify through our information-sharing networks that we have stood up with state and local law enforcement to provide us the details on any criminal evidence relating to any of the individuals you highlighted.
		And if there's a nexus there, a case will be opened by the line agents.
		Who predicated lawful and factual basis to do so, and we will further refer that matter to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
		We are reviewing all of these cases anew, and we will report back to you, Senator, with some fidelity on the outcome of that process.
james lankford ▲ ● ▼		Okay, thank you.
		Are you getting good feedback from social media technology companies and cooperation from them on illegal activities that are promoted on their site?
		All the different sites have rules and standards for what can and can't be done on that.
		But, for instance, in the border areas, many of the sites are allowing child trafficking or they're allowing basically the hiring of Americans to come be drivers and such, and they know this is being circumvented.
		Are they working with you on that to be able to take illegal content off their sites?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
		We have engaged directly at the top levels of all the private sector software communities and social media companies, and they have been very helpful because they have known, they have been told that this is a priority for me at the FBI to work with them because they have so much information to share back with us.
		Now, that's, of course, just on the public systems.
		We're not talking about the dark net.
james lankford ▲ ● ▼		Thank you.
james lankford ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Heinrich.
unidentified		Thank you, Chairman.
		Director Ratcliffe, I want to start with you.
		Who determined that the content of this discussion on Signal was not classified?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I guess I'm not.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, for example, I can speak to my personal knowledge.
unidentified		There was no classified agent mentioned.
		As part of this story, normally that would be classified information.
		So I guess what I'm asking is, did you just determine it was not classified, or was there any declassification after the fact?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		So to be clear, so everyone understands the process, as we talked about, signal is a permissible use.
unidentified		I understand that.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		The CIA has been approved by the White House for senior officials.
unidentified		And appropriate for many conversations.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		And recommended by CISA for high-level officials who would be targeted by foreign adversaries to use end-to-end encrypted apps whenever possible, like Signal.
		In this case, what the National Security Advisor did was to request Through a signal message that there be coordination.
		So you mentioned the name of a CIA active officer, correct?
unidentified		I mentioned the name.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		You didn't mention the name.
unidentified		I mentioned the existence of that.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		And in the article, the implication was that somehow that was improper.
		That was not the case.
		So a CIA officer was not operating undercover.
		So the request for coordination was for a staff member to coordinate on the high side.
		So I communicated the name of a CIA officer not operating undercover, completely appropriate, who does openly and routinely coordinate.
		with the White House as a member of my staff.
		So the intimation there that there was something inappropriate was clearly inappropriate.
unidentified		Did it occur to you that, given the sensitive nature of this discussion, that it could just move to the high side?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		So that was clearly, Senator, I think the intent was that this was initially set up.
		By the National Security Advisor with the instruction that send a point of contact and then you will be provided with information further on the high side for high side communication.
		So I think it reflects that the National Security Advisor intended this to be as it should have been.
		A mechanism for coordinating between senior-level officials, but not a substitute for using high-side or classified communications for anything that would be classified.
		And I think that that is exactly what did happen.
unidentified		So I'm curious, did this conversation at some point include information on weapons packages, targets, or timing?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Not that I'm aware of.
unidentified		Director Gabbard.
unidentified		Same question.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Same answer and defer to the Department of Defense on that question.
unidentified		Well, those are two different answers, but you're saying that was not part of the conversation.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		That's my knowledge.
unidentified		Precise operational issues were not part of this conversation.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
unidentified		Okay.
		I want to ask you, Director Gabbard, something on a very different track here, which is I very much agree with the conclusion of the ATA that foreign illicit drug actors are a major threat in the United States, and many of you have spoken to this today.
		Is the IC wrong in its omission of Canada as a source of illicit fentanyl in the ATA?
		I was surprised given some of the rhetoric that there is no mention of Canada in the ATA.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, the focus in my opening and the ATA was really to focus on the most extreme threats in that area.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		And our assessment is that the most extreme threat related to fentanyl continues to come from and through Mexico.
unidentified		So, the president has stated that the fentanyl coming through Canada is massive.
		And actually said it was an unusual and extraordinary threat.
		And that was the language that was used to justify putting tariffs on Canada.
		I'm just trying to reconcile those two issues.
		Is it an unusual and extraordinary threat?
		Or is it a minor threat that doesn't even merit mention in the annual threat assessment?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I don't have the numbers related to Canada in front of me at this time.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I'd like to get back to you on the specifics of that answer.
unidentified		It's less than 1% of the fentanyl that we are able to interdict.
		But if you have different information, I would very much welcome that.
		Senator Budd.
		Thank you all for being here.
		Director Gabbard, prior to your role here, we had a big storm in western North Carolina, and you were among those first from outside our state to show up.
		So thank you for your work there.
		Thank you for your ongoing work there and that of your family as well.
		It was good to see them out in western North Carolina last week, so thank you.
		Director Hawk, so what do we need to do in regards to Volt Typhoon?
		There's a lot of pre-positioning.
		That went on there.
		So where are we with that?
		And what do we need to do in regards to our power companies, whether it's generation or distribution, Duke Energy in my home state, or even the rural electric co-ops?
		What do we need?
		What have we learned?
		And what can I tell them?
		Senator.
		Ninety-nine percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is controlled by private companies.
		So that really drives us to talk about how do we partner with industry and with the commercial sector, in this case, power sector.
		Vault Typhoon began when industry came to the intelligence community and said, we're seeing anomalous activity.
		Can you help us gain context?
		And we were able to bring context to that to be able to understand what the threat was and then to ultimately be able to identify who was behind that threat.
		Since that time, we've continued to work very closely with industry to be able to...
		What are the right ways for us to be able to pursue these threats within networks to enable the interagency, to enable our partners and industry to be able to pursue them?
		That's the approach we have to take.
		It is a collaboration between the government and industry to be able to eradicate these threats, and we have continued to pursue them together since our first identification and notification that we did related to this particular threat.
		Thank you.
		What have you done on the offensive side here in regards to, I think there were three, Salt Typhoon, Vault Typhoon, and even Flax Typhoon.
		Maybe there were others, but those are the three that are none.
		Senator, I've been given really clear guidance in terms of what area defense expects, in terms of our aggressive approach to be able to restore deterrence, and I look forward to talking with you about that in a closed year.
		Look forward to that.
		Directors Gabbard and Ratcliffe and Patel, thank you all again for being here.
		So as you're all keenly aware, Section 702 of FISA is an extremely useful authority to help keep our nation safe.
		I also know that we need to rebuild American people's trust and confidence that such authorities are not being misused by the intelligence community to unlawfully target Americans.
		So, since taking over your respective agencies, can you tell me and tell the American people how effective the recent changes have been in protecting privacy and civil liberties of each and every Americans?
		And then, if you will, comment on how useful the authority is in generating intelligence that actually protects the homeland.
		We'll start with you, Director Gabbard.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, Section 702, which authorizes the foreign collection of non-U.S.
		persons outside of the United States, continues to be one of our most effective collection tools to ensure our national security.
		There are a number of reforms that the Senate passed, that Congress passed last year, that have proven to strengthen the protections of Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
		In the short time that I've been in the seat, I've seen a few examples of that directly, most recently through the FISA court calling in an amici to come in and weigh in on a dispute regarding provisions that would further protect Americans'Fourth Amendment rights.
		I'll be visiting our friends at the NSA next week and doing a quote-unquote ride-along to observe directly how those reforms that Congress passed are being implemented to protect Americans'civil liberties and look forward to reporting back after I've had that opportunity.
		Thank you, Director Patel.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
		With my background in FISA and 702, I just want to clearly delineate between FISA Title I-3 and 702 collection.
		We need to both ardently defend its use, but also ardently support reforms that allow the American public to entrust that those charged with those capabilities are not violating the Fourth Amendment or any other violation.
		Speaking to Title I and Title III, when it comes to U.S. persons, I have already included an amendment.
		In terms of FBI language to make sure that when a U.S. person is targeted that the FBI specifically is responsible for culling through all exculpatory information that is reasonably known and satisfying that burden and stating it in the application.
		When it comes to 702, Senator, some of the biggest enterprise efforts we have had to thwart national security risk Would not have occurred if 702 collection had gone dark.
		And the FBI continues to use that information to protect the homeland.
		We've had multiple takedowns in the last six months based on 702 and interagency collection processes.
		But we just need to ensure the American public, and I'm working with my team, that even in the 702 sphere, American citizens' information is protected.
unidentified		Thank you all.
unidentified		I look forward to the discussion in the closed session.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator King.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Director Gabbard, I didn't intend to get into the Jeffrey Goldberg story, but something you said has sort of puzzled me.
		According to open source reporting at 1144 on the morning of March 15th, Secretary Hedsef put into this group text a detailed operation plan, including targets, the weapons we were going to be using, attack sequences, and timing.
		And yet you've testified that nothing in that chain was classified.
		Wouldn't that be classified?
		What if that had been made public that morning before the attack took place?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I can attest to the fact that there were no classified or intelligence equities that were included in that chat group at any time.
unidentified		So the attack sequencing and timing and weapons and targets you don't consider should have been classified?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I defer to the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Council on that question.
unidentified		Well, you're the head of the intelligence community, and you're supposed to know about classifications.
		So your testimony very clearly today is that nothing was in that set of texts that were classified.
		I'll follow up on Senator Wyden's question.
		If that's the case, please release that whole text stream so that the public can have a view of what actually transpired on this discussion.
		It's hard for me to believe that targets...
		And timing and weapons would not have been classified.
		Well, let me move on.
		You approved this report, this annual report, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
		Is this submitted to the White House routinely in anticipation of its public release?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what you mean by submitted routinely.
unidentified		Well, was this report submitted to the White House before its release today?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		It was submitted to them once it was completed.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I think probably around the same time it was sent to all of you.
unidentified		I want to move on.
		One note that surprised me.
		I've been on this committee now for, this is my 13th year.
		Every single one of these reports that we have had has mentioned global climate change as a significant national security threat, except this one.
		Has something happened?
		Has global climate change been solved?
		Why is that not in this report?
		And who made the decision that it should not be in the report when it's been in every one of the 11 prior reports?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I can't speak to the decisions made previously, but this annual threat assessment has been focused very directly on the threats that we deem most critical to the United States and our national security.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Obviously, we're aware of occurrences within the environment and how they may impact operations, but we're focused on the direct threats to Americans' safety, well-being, and security.
unidentified		How about how they will impact mass migration, famine, dislocation, political violence, which is the finding, by the way, of the 2019 annual threat assessment under the first Trump administration?
unidentified		You don't consider that a significant national security threat?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		For the intelligence community, being aware of the environment that we're operating in is a given.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		What I focused this annual threat assessment on and the IC focused this threat assessment on are the most extreme and critical direct threats to our national security.
unidentified		Let me ask a direct question.
		Who decided climate change should be left out of this report after it's been in the prior 11?
		Where was that decision made?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I gave direction to our team at ODNI to focus on the most extreme and critical national security threats that we face.
unidentified		Did your direction include no comments on climate change?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, as I said, I focused on the most extreme and direct national security threats that we face.
unidentified		Did you instruct that there be no finding in terms of climate change in this report?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall giving that instruction.
unidentified		Final questions in a few short seconds that I have left.
		You all concede, and it's in the report repeatedly, about the cyber danger from China, from Russia, from Iran.
		Why, then, is the administration deconstructing CISA?
		130 people fired.
		General Hawk talked about the importance of public-private cooperation.
		That section of CISA seems to have been disestablished.
		What possible policy reason is there for undermining CISA's relationship to the states with regard to elections and to the private sector with regard to cybersecurity when the cybersecurity threat is only growing?
		Anybody want to tackle that?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I won't speak for all of my colleagues here, but I don't believe any of us have any insight into those specific staffing decisions that have been made.
unidentified		Well, let me ask you this question.
		The report has found explicitly growing cyber threats, including two elections, from Russia, China, Iran.
		Do you believe that it's in the national interest to diminish our capacity to deal with those cyber issues?
		Yes or no?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		President Trump is focused on effects and making sure that the people that we have and the resources that we have are focused on our national security.
		He and his team recognize that more people doesn't necessarily always mean better effects.
		Those are some of the things that are driving the changes that we're seeing across the administration, is getting all of our agencies back and focused on their core mission.
unidentified		General Hawk, do you agree that— Sarah King, your time is expired.
unidentified		Thank you.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Rounds.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		First of all, thank you to all of you for your service to our country.
		With regard to the issues surrounding Signal, I'm going to address it, but I'm going to address it in the closed session so that we can get more in-depth into that issue.
		In the meantime, I want to direct my first question to Director Ratcliffe.
		As the debate continues in Washington regarding Spectrum, What can you share in this unclassified setting regarding the critical nature of spectrum to national security interests generally?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for the question, Senator.
		I know this is an issue of great interest to the Senate and the potential auction of commercial space on spectrum.
		Those, as you correctly point out, the discussions about spectrum, I will start out by saying there are national security implications from such an auction to take place to both the DOD and the IC.
		I think the discussions that we need to have in a classified setting, I can relate to you that the direction from early meetings that we've had is that The discussion about where that might take place would not affect specifically CIA or IC equities.
		And I hope that's the case where the discussion goes.
		But I think we need to be concerned that a public auction at bans at certain levels would have an impact on our ability to deliver an accurate intelligence picture.
unidentified		In other words, there are parts of the spectrum which simply cannot be shared with the commercial.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
unidentified		All right.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		And we can talk about the specific reasons about why, in a classified setting, that would cause a diminishment of our ability to deliver a good threat picture to the Commander-in-Chief.
unidentified		And in some cases, life or death consequences.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Director Patel, first of all, I just want to thank you.
		For what you are doing, and I know that there's a number of items that in your previous life you did that simply can't be discussed, but nonetheless, we've appreciated what you have done for your country already.
		Today, I just wanted to talk to you about, we've seen a series of public news reports about ISIS threats within the United States, and there have been several successful interdictions, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, New York.
		Although the question remains as to the total number of ISIS operatives who were able to breach porous borders in the months and years before policy changes in this January, January of 2025, to what extent is the FBI tracking operatives who remain in the United States today, and what is the FBI doing?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
		I appreciate your question and your comments.
		So, the priorities at the FBI since I took over have been violent crime and national security, and this speaks directly to national security.
		The direction for the FBI is to track down any individuals with any terrorist ties whatsoever, whether it be ISIS or another foreign terrorist organization, and now to include the new designations of the cartels down south and elsewhere.
		So, the FBI Is utilizing our Joint Terrorism Task Force, which are situated in all 55 field offices.
		But the key to success there is our partnership with state and local law enforcement, who have the ground-level intelligence in some of these operatives.
		And as you've highlighted, we've already shut down numerous threats, and we've identified publicly where permissible these threats and individuals and where they're coming from.
		And I think the FBI is doing a very good job right now in collecting this information through our interagency process.
		and we will continue to thwart every bad actor affiliated with a terrorist organization or otherwise.
unidentified		Thank you.
		And Director Hawk, first of all, look, you've talked a little bit already about Salt Typhoon, but what I want to really get into is the things that are moving right now that you haven't had a chance to address, and in particular, Cybercom.
		I've got 40 seconds left.
		Talk to us a little bit about how critical 2.0 is in terms of countering the cyber activity that's going on through nefarious actors.
		Senator, what we were asked to do by Congress was to look at what's the force generation model for the Department of Defense to be able to generate cyber forces.
		Based off of that request, I produced the recommendation for the Secretary Thank you.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Bennett.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		Thank you very much for holding this hearing.
		Thank you for being here.
		Director Ratcliffe, it sounds to me like your testimony today and the DNI's testimony is that there was nothing wrong at all with the signal thread that you were on, that it didn't include any targeting information or battle sequence.
		That is your testimony.
		That's your testimony.
		And I'm a little staggered that that is your view, Director Radcliffe.
		Does the CIA have any rules about handling of classified information?
		Yes or no?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Director Radcliffe.
		Do you agree?
		Secretary of Defense Pete Hexeth said this morning when asked by members of the press, What had happened?
		He said this morning in Hawaii that Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeff Goldberg is a, quote, deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of providing hoaxes time and time again.
		Do you share that evaluation, the Secretary of Defense's evaluation of Jeff Goldberg as a journalist?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I didn't see those comments.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know Jeff Goldberg.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		So, do you share that view of the Secretary of Defense?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I don't have a view.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Assuming that he has that view, I'm curious about whether—you are the CIA director, okay?
		This has happened.
		We know it's happened.
		Did Jeff Goldberg somehow—did he create a hoax that allowed him to become part of this signal thread?
		Please answer the question.
		Don't insult the intelligence of the American people.
		Did he invite himself to the signal thread?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know how he was invited, but clearly he was added.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Clearly it was.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Finish your sentence, please.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Clearly, he was added to the signal group.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Your question is— You don't know that the president's national security advisor invited him to join the signal threat?
		Everybody in America knows that.
		Does the CIA director not know that?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I've seen conflicting reports about who added.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Do you think it's perfectly appropriate that there was a reporter added, especially one that the...
		That the Secretary of Defense says is deceitful, highly discredited, a so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes over and over again.
		Is your testimony that it was appropriate that he was added to this signal thread?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No, of course not.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Why did you not call him?
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Hold on, Senator.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		You're mischaracterizing my testimony.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		You answered the question.
		Let me ask you.
		When he was added to the thread, you're the CIA director.
		Why didn't you call out that he was present on the signal thread?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know if you use signal messaging app.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		I do.
		I do.
		Not for classified information, not for targeting, not for anything remote.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Neither do I, Senator.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's what your testimony is today.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		It absolutely is not, Senator.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Were you not listening at the beginning when I said that I was using it?
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		As permitted, it is permissible to use— I agree that's your testimony.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		I agree that's your testimony.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		You asked me if I use it, and I said not for targeting, not for classified information.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		And I said I don't either.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		I also know Jeff Goldberg.
		I don't use it to communicate with him, but you thought it was appropriate.
		By the way, I think he's one of the more outstanding journalists in America.
		But I'm shocked to find him on a thread that he's reading in the parking lot of a grocery store in Washington, D.C. And your testimony as the director of the CIA is that it's totally appropriate.
		Is it appropriate?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No, that is not what I— When did I say it was— When did I use the word appropriate?
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Well— Go ahead, please.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I didn't.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Everybody in America, there's nothing to see here is what your testimony is.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No, I never said that.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		This is just a normal day at the CIA where we chat about this kind of stuff over Signal.
		In fact, it's so normal that the last administration left it here for us.
		That's your testimony.
		Today.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		That's your testimony, Senator.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		No, that's not my testimony.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		That's what you said.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I didn't say any of those things that you just related, Senator.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		I heard you say it.
		We'll let the American people decide.
		Let me ask you one final point.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I'm out of time.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, are you going to give me a chance to— Is it appropriate?
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Did you know that the president's Middle East advisor was in Moscow on this thread while you were, as director of the CIA, participating in this— In this thread, were you aware of that?
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		Are you aware of that today?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I'm not aware of that today.
michael bennet ▲ ● ▼		This swappiness, this incompetence, this disrespect for our intelligence agencies and the personnel who work for them is entirely unacceptable.
		It's an embarrassment.
		Senator, you need to do better.
		You need to do better.
		Thank you.
		I'm being gaveled by the...
		Chairman and I apologize for going over my time.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Young.
unidentified		Thank you all for being here.
		I'll be asking some follow-up questions, clarifications about this signal episode in a closed setting and try and work with all of you to bring clarity to that situation.
		It appears to me there's some unanswered questions.
		It'll take some time, I think, to get there.
		A more dispassionate setting.
		Director Gabbard, I'm going to begin today asking you some questions about emerging technologies.
		It's been a real point of emphasis, I know, of our broader national security community for a period of time.
		We know that PRC is making generational investments in certain emerging tech, AI, biotech, and other areas of technology to reduce their vulnerability against any supply chain disruptions and to lead the world in some areas.
		As the IC assesses, the PRC is seeking to, quote, become a global S&T superpower, surpass the United States, promote self-reliance.
		And achieve further economic, political, and military gain.
		So, Director Gabber, can you describe the actions China is taking to operationalize that IC assessment in ways that directly target the security and prosperity of everyday Americans?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, what we...
		What I know is that they are trying to use these capabilities as a means to continue to exploit vulnerabilities within our own critical infrastructure.
		Cyber technology.
		Critical infrastructure is a key area of concern, given what we know has already been exploited.
		These asymmetric attacks that have been placed within our critical infrastructure that are of serious concern, given how they could be exploited, especially during a time of conflict.
		We know that they are experiencing a boom in their generative AI capability and are competing very heavily against our own AI capabilities.
		Obviously, AI can and will be used across a multitude of every sector of our society, both here as we are in our own country, and we expect China to be able to continue to do the same there.
unidentified		So, two key areas of vulnerability to the United States, conceivably.
		Susceptibility to cyberattacks and China's leveraging of AI towards misinformation increasingly into the physical realm.
		They can pose threats to us as well.
		As a follow-up, Director Ratcliffe...
		You know, we've had Huawei, we've had TikTok.
		What do you believe will be the next point of technological friction and competition between the U.S. and China?
		What should members of Congress be looking for?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I think I can answer this question more fully in the classified setting.
		What I would say is it relates...
		To the issue of emerging technologies and matters of quantum computing and quantum sensing and our ability to stay ahead of China on the technological curve with respect to those issues, I'd be happy to get into that in further detail in a classified setting.
unidentified		Excellent.
		We'll dive into that.
		Director Haw, General, how do you see biotech playing into this broader competition?
		I think it's an area that, from our perspective, has increasingly been a priority as we want to understand the approach that China has taken and also to ensure that as we think about the president's priorities in terms of both economic and technology security, we are certainly, as a community, following DNI's guidance, that we are increasingly putting our resources to be able to ensure that we understand where China is investing in those resources and how that will impact our economy.
		Thank you, General.
		Director Gabbert, not a lot of time left on this end, but I do have a little crypto interest I wanted to communicate to you.
		Can you share with this committee how we're positioned to disrupt foreign cyber efforts to steal cryptocurrency, such as the North Koreans have successfully done?
		If others would like to pull this thread and weigh in on this question very briefly, that would be great.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, we're obviously aware of North Korea's...
		Revenue generating by stealing cryptocurrency has had a significant effect on North Korea's capabilities.
		I defer to our technical experts on the actions that are being taken.
unidentified		Senator, I think this would be a great topic when we go to closed session.
		It's going to be a busy closed session.
		Yes.
		Director Patel?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		I agree with the general.
unidentified		In closed session, I can provide some details.
		It's what you get when you visit with a bunch of spies.
		All right, Chairman.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Senator Kelly.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
		I'm going to come back to the topic of the day here, the signal chain, as reported by The Atlantic.
		Ms. Gabbard and Mr. Radcliffe, you each testified that there was no information operational.
		In nature, no classified information.
		So I want to ask each of you just a series of just respond yes or no.
		I'll start with Ms. Gabbard.
		In the signal chain that we have been talking about, was there any mention of a target in Yemen?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't remember mention of specific targets.
unidentified		Any generic target?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I believe there was discussion around targets in general.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ratcliffe?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I think that's consistent with my recollection.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Again, I don't have access to that.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Was there any mention, Ms. Gabbard, of a weapon or weapons system?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall specific weapons systems being named.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		I'm not talking about specific, any.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Weapon or weapon system?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall specific names of systems or weapons being used or named within the...
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Well, I'm not asking whether...
		I don't want you to tell me what the specific weapon was, but any weapon at all.
		Mr. Ratcliffe, same question.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		How about anything about timing?
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall specific timing.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I won't get into the detail of the conversation, but obviously there was a significant amount of planning and internal discussions that had occurred prior to and outside of this signal chat.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ratcliffe, you're nodding your head.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Any mention of any military unit whatsoever?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ratcliffe, not that I recall.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Not that I recall.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		So, I understand that DOD policy prohibits discussion of even what is called Controlled Unclassified Information, or CUI, on unsecured devices.
unidentified		Are both of you aware of that DOD policy?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I haven't read that policy.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I'm not familiar with the DOD policy, but I would say that the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for DOD in deciding what would be classified information.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Ms. Gabbard, does the intelligence community have a policy that prohibits discussion of controlled, unclassified information?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		It does.
unidentified		Okay.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Controlled, unclassified information, according to DOD.
		Includes information that has not been approved for public release.
		Would you, of what's been disclosed publicly of the signal chain, would either of you feel that that would be approved for public release?
		Ms. Gabbard.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		The discussion that took place in that Signal chat group was a conversation reflecting national security leaders and the vice president around the president's objectives.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		So yes or no, would you approve that for public release?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I don't feel I can answer that question here.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Because of the nature of this hearing?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Because of the nature of a...
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Private discussion that took place between individual leaders in our government.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		It would make sense that you would not approve it for public release, wouldn't it?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		There are other factors that would go into that consideration.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ratcliffe, yes or no?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I wouldn't approve the release of classified information.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Again, as I've said...
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		I'm not talking about classified information, Mr. Ratcliffe.
		I'm talking about information that has not been approved for public release.
		That is information that is considered controlled, unclassified information.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		The principles that would have been on that would have been individuals capable of approving that for public release.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		I've got 20 seconds.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		The deliberation as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country, would you consider that classified information, Ms. Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		The information was not classified.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		I'm not talking about this.
		I'm just talking about deliberation from principles as to whether or not we should launch a strike on another country.
		Would you consider that classified information?
		I'm not talking about what happened this week.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		There are other factors that would go into determining that classification.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Ratcliffe?
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		The deliberation between principles in our national security apparatus about whether or not to strike another country, would you consider that to be classified information?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Pre-decisional strike deliberation should be conducted through classified channels.
unidentified		Thank you.
mark kelly ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		If I may, I just want to return, Mr. Ratcliffe, to your answer there in part, Senator Kelly.
		It's been raised.
		At several occasions now in this hearing about whether classified information was discussed in this chat.
		And you mentioned about the Secretary of Defense being what you called, I think, the original classification authority.
unidentified		Correct.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		I think it's important for the public to understand that although you and Director Gabbard are original classification authorities on many matters, you're not that for all matters that might be classified in the government.
		Is that right?
		That's correct.
		If the Secretary of State has classified sensitive diplomatic details, that's his authority.
		If the Secretary of Energy has sensitive classified information about our national laboratories, that's his authority.
		And the two of you can't speak to other departments who have their own original classification authority, in which, of course, as Director Gabber said, ultimately rests with one person, the President of the United States.
		Is that correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		That's correct.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		I just wanted to clarify that.
		It looks like the vice chairman wants to weigh in as well.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Just very briefly.
		I mean, I think it strains the audience and the watching public's credibility.
		If we're talking about timing packages, that somehow this would be okay to put out.
		Or just, frankly, senior American officials trashing Europe.
		I've been around this for a while.
		This is not information you generally put out.
		And the notion there's not even acknowledgement of, hey, gosh, we screwed up, is stunning to me.
		And the idea somehow, well, none of this was classified, but we can't talk about it here.
		You can't have it both ways.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		I think the witness's point is they can't speak for every official in the government who has original classification authority.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		I'm not trying to litigate that.
		I'm trying to litigate on the face unless, as Senator Bennett said, this reporter is somehow making this all up.
		And I think the White House has acknowledged that the text chain that he submitted was authentic.
		It strains my mind to think—it strains my mind if the shoe had been on the other foot, what my colleagues would be saying.
		And again, we're going to get to the bottom of it.
		I appreciate your comments, but you guys have both testified under law.
		There's nothing classified in that information.
		There's nothing, in a sense, I've not heard either one of you say, gosh, we screwed up.
		So we'll find out.
		This is too important to our national security.
		And again, I know we've got more members to close.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		They testified, is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that there's no intelligence community classified information.
		Is that correct?
		That's correct.
		Is that correct, Director Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Chairman.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Well, again.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		That's not correct.
unidentified		She said repeatedly there's nothing classified.
mark warner ▲ ● ▼		Period.
		You can't have a book.
		And again, we'll see.
		I cannot believe this is not going to come out.
		And if it's not classified, again, we'd ask you to make it, give it to the public today.
		I'm sure some, one of your aides back there probably got it.
		On paper, if you've got it here, it's not classified.
		Stand by your position.
		Or is this just one more example of a careless approach to how we keep our secrets in this administration?
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		With apologies to Senator Moran.
unidentified		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.
		I want to explore a little bit about Ukraine, and I'll direct this to Director Ratcliffe or Director Cruz.
		The ATA assesses that, quote, the grinding war of attrition in Ukraine.
		Will lead to a gradual but steady erosion of Kyiv's positions on the battlefield.
		Are Ukrainian forces at any significant risk of collapse this year?
		Go ahead.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Before I turn it over to Director Ratcliffe, I think both sides are working through the equipment that they need, the industrial base they need to support that, and the personnel that are required to man all of that equipment and man the front lines.
		And as we see the battle space in the various portions, whether it's in Kursk, whether it's in any of the four oblasts, we see areas where...
		Kyiv will struggle to prevent the slow attritional grind.
		We do not see an imminent collapse in any of the line of control battle spaces at this point.
unidentified		And then vice versa.
		That answers my question, unless you want to add something, Director.
		Whatever advantages in manpower and material they have, can Russia maintain its operational tempo?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I think our assessment from a military perspective is that Russia has the ability to sustain its campaign longer than Kyiv would.
unidentified		Timeline hits.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		We do not have an assessment of, but I believe that if this were to go on for more than the remainder of this year, both sides would have a significant challenge maintaining their defense industrial base as well as their operational ops tempo.
unidentified		Longer than this year?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		That is correct, and they will each have difficulty at various points throughout the spring, summer, and fall as well.
unidentified		Thank you.
		Director Ratcliffe, ATA, says continuing the Russia-Ukraine war perpetuates strategic risks to the United States of unintended escalation to large-scale war and heightened insecurity among NATO allies.
		What are the strategic risks to the United States if Russia were to achieve its maximalist objectives via peace agreement?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Achieve via peace agreement?
unidentified		Yes.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I think that clearly the negotiations that are going on reflect that President Trump is seeking a cessation of the war on terms that will end the war permanently from an intelligence community standpoint and specifically with regard to CIA assets.
		We've taken steps to support that, the president's goal of an enduring peace.
		To General Cruz's comments, I agree with his assessment and generally the public assessment that Russia has the battlefield advantage is grinding forward slowly.
		I want to comment on that, however, to say that with regard to the Ukrainian resistance, the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military have been underestimated for a period of several years now.
		And ultimately, I'm convinced from my reflections in observing from an intelligence standpoint that they will fight with their bare hands if they have to, if they don't have.
		have terms that are acceptable to an enduring peace.
		Obviously to the point of maximalist goals, President Trump has communicated that he is aware of the dangers.
		I think that the peace talks that are taking place would reflect, if successful, and they are making progress, that both sides would not get everything that they want.
		No one's maximalist goals would be achieved.
unidentified		Thank you both.
		In the short time I have, I'm going to skip a question that I intended to ask, but ask the director of the FBI.
		Director, I chair the subcommittee that appropriates money for the Department of Justice, including the FBI.
		It has been our practice that the FBI director, as well as the attorney general, appear before our committee each year.
		And I would want to make certain that you do not foresee any challenges that I will have in your presence when you come to speak, when we invite you to come speak about your budget.
		I think when we visited in the office, you made yourself often available, pleased to talk to Congress.
		We're getting ready for the appropriations process to begin.
		The budget that the president intends to submit is seemingly months away.
		Weeks away, long weeks away.
		And we may ask you to come testify about your priorities now or sooner than that.
		Is that a challenge for you that I'd be aware of?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		From the FBI, no, as long as the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are good with it.
unidentified		Thank you.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
		Director Radcliffe, you have repeatedly made the point that there was no classified information contained in any of these discussions that were reported in the Atlantic Monthly.
		Is that correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No, that's not correct.
		So, Senator, what I've related is that any Information that was related from my perspective or that I observed from the intelligence perspective was not classified information.
		With respect to the assertions and the allegations that there was...
		Strike packages or targeting information or things that relate to DOD.
		As I've pointed out, the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority for determining whether something's classified or not.
		And as I've understood from media reports, the Secretary of Defense has said the information was not classified.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Are you aware that the Secretary of Defense declassified this information prior to the discussion?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I'm not.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Director Gabbard, same question.
		You've indicated, at least the impression I got, was that there was no classified information discussed.
		Is that correct?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, my answer is the same as the director of the CIA's.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		So, the question has to be posed to Secretary Hegseth whether he declassified the information and at what point he did declassify it.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Do you agree?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Yes, I defer questions to the Secretary of Defense.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Director Patel, are you conducting an investigation of these discussions and activities?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Senator.
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		As I informed the Vice Chairman on the same question, I found out about this late last night, early this morning, so I don't have an update for you on that.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Well, thank you.
		When you get an update, we'd appreciate it very much.
		Yes, sir.
		Director Gabbitt, were you overseas during any parts of these discussions?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Yes, Senator, I was.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Were you using your private phone or public phone for the signal discussions?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I won't speak to this because it's under review by the National Security Council.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Once that review is complete, I'm sure we'll share the results with the committee.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		What is under review?
		It's a very simple question.
		Your private phone or officially issued phone.
		What could be under review?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		National Security Council is reviewing all aspects of how this came to be, how the journalist was inadvertently added to the group chat, and what occurred within that chat across the board.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		But so you are not going to disclose anything about whether you use the phone.
unidentified		Um.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Correct to Radcliffe, there's been indication that the CIA has.
		Warned recently retired personnel about the vulnerabilities of Signal and other encrypted messaging applications.
		If that's the case, why were you discussing these issues on Signal?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Senator, Signal use, as I've said repeatedly, is permissible for work purposes.
		I've never said that...
		End-to-end encryption apps like Signal are a substitute for classified systems, and I was not discussing classified information in this setting.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		But as you've indicated previously, Perhaps the Secretary of Defense was discussing classified information, and only he can be held accountable in terms of whether it was classified or declassified when he spoke.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Is that accurate?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Well, I didn't say it that way.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I said the Secretary of Defense is the original classification authority, and my understanding is that his comments are that any information that he shared was not classified.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		But you have no way to verify that?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Again, this is a very troubling example and a great lapse in our intelligence and our discussion.
		One further point.
		If you are not aware of any classified information on the discussions back and forth, would it be appropriate for the author to release the entire text of what he heard or transcribed?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I think the author has released, my understanding, essentially almost all of the information as it's been related to me.
		I don't know what calculation the author made with regard to what information would be released or not.
		But again, I can again confirm that with respect to the communications that were related, as to me, there was no classified information.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Article quote the message contained information that might be interpreted as related to actual and current intelligence operations and the author did not disclose that information.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		So the question would be if he disclosed everything he heard in your view that wouldn't be classified information.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I know the context of what that is and I think the author said might be.
		Interpreted as related to intelligence information.
		It was not classified information.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		So it goes back to my point.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		If he released all this information he did not release, he could do so without any liability at the federal level.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I think you're asking for a legal answer that I'm not able to give you, but...
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Patel, can you opine?
		You're a lawyer and you're the director of the FBI.
		Would he face any legal...
		A liability if he released the information?
kash patel ▲ ● ▼		Because of the questions you and the vice chairman have put to me, I'm not going to prejudge the situation, and that legal call is ultimately for the Department of Justice.
unidentified		Thank you.
jack reed ▲ ● ▼		Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Senator Ossoff.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for joining us and for your service.
		Just to make sure I understand some of the basics here.
		So, Director Ratcliffe, you were a member of the Houthi PC small group signal chain, correct?
		I was, yeah, and so were the vice president, the secretaries of state and defense, the national security advisor.
		And Ms. Gabbard, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I believe so.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't have a list of who was invited to be on.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		And so was national political reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you do.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know Jeffrey Goldberg, and I've already testified.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know whether or how he was added.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, he was a member of the signal chain, and the discussion included the vice president's private opinion on the wisdom of proposed U.S. strikes in Yemen, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Vance, quote, I think we are making a mistake.
		I am not sure the president is aware of how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now.
		There was a strong argument for delaying this a month.
		You don't recall?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		You don't recall seeing that?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		It included the private opinions of the Secretary of Defense on the timing of strikes in Yemen, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Director Radcliffe, surely you prepared for this hearing today.
		You were part of a group of principals, senior echelons of the U.S. government, in now a widely publicized breach of sensitive information.
		You don't recall whether the Vice President opined on the wisdom of the strikes?
		That's your testimony today under oath?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		In that setting, I don't recall.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Here's what Secretary Hegseff said.
		Quote, waiting a few weeks or months does not fundamentally change the calculus.
		Two immediate risks on waiting.
		One, this leaks and we look indecisive.
		Two, Israel takes an action first or Gaza ceasefire falls apart and we don't get to start this on our own terms.
		Your testimony is you don't recall the Secretary of Defense sending that message or reading it?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I recall there being an exchange.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't recall the specifics as you're reading it.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's put it this way, Director Reckliff.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		A discussion by senior U.S. officials on the timing and risks of a proposed military campaign and disagreements between the president and the vice president about U.S. plans and intentions would be of obvious interest to foreign intelligence services, would it not?
unidentified		Yes.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		And they were discussing the timing of sending U.S. air crews into enemy airspace where they faced an air defense threat, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I'm going to, Senator, defer to the other principles that you're referring to about what the meaning and the context of what they were on.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		They're talking about the timing of U.S. airstrikes, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		And therefore, the timing of sending U.S. air crews into hostile airspace, correct?
unidentified		Yes.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		And therefore, the time period during which enemy air defenses could target U.S. air crews flying in enemy airspace, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		I don't know that.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		You do know that.
		Let me ask this question, General Hawk.
		You lead America's Signals Intelligence Collection.
		Would the private deliberation of foreign senior officials Senator, it's our job to do indications and warning for both the plans and intentions of adversary leaders and for military commanders.
		And would not information about the timing of airstrikes allow a military?
		To preposition or cue air defense systems to shoot down enemy aircraft?
unidentified		I think, Senator, from our perspective, any advance warning is something that we certainly are trying to protect.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		Director Radcliffe, this was a huge mistake, correct?
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		No.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		A national...
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Hold on.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		No, no, you hold on.
		No, no, Director Radcliffe.
		I asked you a yes or no question, and now you'll hold on.
		A national political reporter was made privy to sensitive information about imminent military operations against a foreign terrorist organization.
		And that wasn't a huge mistake?
		That wasn't a huge mistake?
unidentified		They characterized it as a mistake.
jon ossof ▲ ● ▼		This is utterly unprofessional.
		There's been no apology.
		There has been no recognition of the gravity of this error.
		And by the way, we will get the full transcript of this chain, and your testimony will be measured carefully against its content.
		Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		All right, ladies and gentlemen, here we go.
		Okay.
		Jeez.
		Oh, man, it's another sigh-up!
		Ooh, we thought we were over this for at least a season, but, you know, it is spring, and so here we go.
		Another Russiagate level up against the Trump administration, and now we get a chance to talk about all of it with somebody who is well-known for defending President Trump against hoaxes.
		We're going to dive a little deeper.
		We've been covering this hearing.
		I think this hearing is absolutely fascinating.
		And they're about to go to the top secret session.
		And so we can't budge into there.
		Unfortunately, Tulsi Gabbard's been on the program.
		Cash has been on the program.
		Ratcliffe, about a year and a half ago, has been on the program.
		We are wishing to...
		Get to the truth about what actually happened here, but I gotta tell you, my bullshit radar detector is screaming red right now.
		We'll rip into all of that in just a moment.
		However, let's go directly to the White House, to somebody who's made a ton of news at the White House and has made, again...
		A professional career off of exposing hoaxes against President Trump, the great Alina Habba, who's the counselor to the president, newly just appointed as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey.
		joining us live now.
unidentified		you you you Thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Alina, that was a mouthful.
		I gotta tell you, you got a longer title every single day.
		It's really something.
		And I missed something in your title, which is Happy Birthday!
unidentified		It's Alina Hama's birthday!
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		It's my birthday!
		I'm back in the fake Biden Oval on my birthday just for you, Benny.
		You know, this is where we had that show, and I was like, "Film it!
		I can't believe I'm in here!" Well, I'm back at it again.
		I will miss the fake Oval while I'm in New Jersey, but I'm honored.
		What a birthday gift.
		What a birthday gift from the President.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Any milk of magnesia or any wheelchairs?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Did they clean up?
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		No, I think the wheelchairs they put back in the medic unit at the EOB.
		And we now have a president that doesn't need all of that assistance.
		So this is solely for press and things of that nature.
		And now he actually uses his real Oval Office.
		It's tremendous.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		That's right.
		Just a note on this, because we weren't exactly sure where you were last time.
		And then you filmed that video and that went thermonuclear viral.
		It's been seen by an alien.
		Yeah.
		You have a penchant for this.
		Like, why?
		Since you're going to move on to this big position, but I've got to ask, why?
		Since you're there inside of the fake Oval Office, why would they do this to Joe Biden?
		What's your assessment?
		It seems like an act in humiliation.
		It seems like an act to simply disgrace the office.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		He needed assistance, honestly.
		I think that he needed assistance.
		This is, you can manage, I wish I could turn the film around, but I'll explain to you what I'm sitting in.
		There are screens, there's lighting, there are, if I wanted or needed a teleprompter, which I do not, because I also have my mental faculties, but...
		It is a stage.
		It is a true stage.
		And I'm sitting in it thinking, you know, as a president, other than to do a TV show, in which case, you know, maybe you want to change the lighting or whatever, you know, how these go, the fact that They had to put him in this scenario that is controlled, where I have a camera in front of me where there is not free press in this room right now, where it's right across from the White House, just so everybody understands.
		I literally walk across the street and it's on the ground floor, so he didn't have to walk up any steps.
		To get into the fake oval.
		And it's controlled space.
		It's truly a movie set, right?
		And you're sitting here going, why would a president need to always have this kind of control and this kind of narrative?
		And the reality is it's because...
		I don't think he had any control over his own mind, in my opinion.
		I don't think that he had control over the Oval.
		I think that he was a puppet.
		And we've seen that with a ton of things.
		We've seen that with the auto signature.
		We've seen that when you see Jill Biden sitting in.
		Jill should not be sitting in the cabinet meetings.
		We don't see Melania sitting in cabinet meetings running the show.
		She is a FLOTUS.
		She is amazing and doing her own thing.
		Jill was truly running it, along with, in my opinion and guess, probably some former presidents and administrators.
		But this is weird.
		It's just weird.
		It's not weird for me to come in here and do a show with you.
		It's weird that the president was constantly coming in and out of this place where they actually can change.
		If you see in that video, on the left and the right, there's screens.
		So they can make it look like he's out.
		He's actually not in a studio, but that there's windows.
		And they would put fake windows up that would look like there was, you know, trees in the background and things like that.
		There are no trees.
		I am in the ground floor of a building right across from the White House.
		It's crazy.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		It's an entire fake world that they've built around Joe Biden.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Staged.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Just staged.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So we just did two hours of a hearing inside of the Senate.
		Intel hearing.
		Cash was there.
		Tulsa was there.
		Ratcliffe was there.
		And you knew, pretty shocking timing, Alina, that there's this Atlantic piece.
		It is really just made for TV.
		And this was what every Democrat wanted to talk about, and obviously this is what so many people are talking about.
		The official White House opinion on this, President Trump says he has full confidence, and Mike Waltz and Carolyn Levitt has been out with details about what was going on, saying there was zero classification inside of these Signal chats.
		You know, how did this journalist get added?
		This guy is an obvious hoaxer who's a real scumbag.
		We don't like Jeff Goldberg.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I don't even have his number.
		I talk to journalists all the time.
		I don't have his number.
		I've never spoken to him as far as I can recall.
		If I have, he didn't make much of an impression on me.
		But I don't know.
		And because there's currently a hearing, I'm not going to speak to that.
		I'm going to let them address it.
		I will say that...
		You know, we have heard testimony for your listeners that have been watching that said that there is an appropriate method used for some communications.
		This is an approved way.
		I don't know how he got added or what happened there, but I work with Mike Waltz.
		I work with the individuals that were on that group every day.
		We also heard from Ratcliffe that this was not.
		They try and spin things and say, oh, there was a CIA agent named.
		Well, he's not an undercover agent.
		And actually the name was so that they could refer to Highside, which is our system to have top secret communications outside of those.
		So it's just, I'm going to defer to the testimony, but I'll say this is a lot to do about nothing.
		And at the same time, the narratives and their excitement to have this whole...
		Orchestrated.
		Oh, my God.
		Like, you know, nothing leaked before we saw that this was something that happened.
		They're going to answer those questions.
		Unlike the last administration, they're not avoiding answering questions.
		They're sitting in front of these individuals.
		They're going to get berated and do what they do best and make a TV series about the White House.
		But, you know.
		Things happen, and we'll see what they say.
		I'm not really concerned about it, to be honest.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		Again, you're sitting here in the fake Oval Office.
		The DOJ said that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent and incapacitated and couldn't stand trial, and nobody cared.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Well, nobody cared.
		Nobody cared.
		Real problems.
		We didn't have a sitting president.
		We had somebody who was mentally not doing well.
		I mean, that's being polite, frankly.
		His mental decline was evident.
		people hid it from the American people, and he was running our great nation.
		But you want to make a signal chat about, with high-level officials, a massive signal I mean, there are leaks, by the way, all the time.
		That is part of the world that we live in.
		I just see this as another showman's thing by the Democrat Party, who, by the way, needed something to have because they've been losing tremendously.
		I mean, their best bet right now is AOC.
		That's where their team has gone.
		So, you know, I'm not surprised that they're taking this to another level.
		That's what they like to do.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		AOC, and I mean, don't miss the rising star, Alina, Jasmine Crockett.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Crockett.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Oh, Crockett.
		What is she doing?
		Did you see, Benny, that she said, they asked her what she was working on.
		In your job, what are you working on currently to advance your constituents, to advance the American people?
		What are you actively working on?
		And her response was, nothing.
		I don't actually, I know it's not political for me to say this, but...
		I'm not working on anything other than stopping and trying to be a pain in the neck and doing TV shows, which are really, frankly, ruining her brand, if she had one.
		And then that's what you literally said.
		You're not doing anything.
		But trying to stop and be a curmudgeon and a pain in the neck, and it's insane.
		I mean, the things I'm seeing are insane.
		I mean, was she the one dancing down the halls?
		Was that her, the They Not Like Us thing?
		That was her.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Lovely.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Lovely.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		That's what we want to see from our people.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So she's danced into my feed over the last couple of 12 hours by one threatening Elon Musk saying she wants him to be taken out for her birthday present.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I hope she tries that.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I hope she tries that in the state of New Jersey next week.
unidentified		Try that.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go there.
		I mean, are you going to allow Tesla dealerships to be burned to the ground and for people who are purchasing these products to be...
		It does seem like a massive civil rights violation, right?
		Like, wouldn't this target?
		This is clearly targeting, and it's bigoted.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		It's terrible.
		What Elon has sacrificed to be here, I consider him a friend, and I'm disappointed in the American people.
		Their behavior is inappropriate and, frankly, illegal if you're going to start spray painting and defacing.
		Targeting Teslas.
		It's ironic to me that the left-wing media used to say, you know, we're ruining the environment.
		We should all be driving electric cars.
		Everyone's buying a Tesla.
		And now the man is cleaning up the economic issues and fraud here in this country and taking money out of those same people, those same politicians' pockets because they were funneling them through.
		You know, different angles and different avenues that he's exposed.
		And now all of a sudden, Tesla bad man, Tesla bad, Elon bad, Elon bad.
		They don't even know what they stand for.
		So I don't know whether they're all going to start buying G-wagons with all the money they made and gas guzzling now and flying private.
		Like, you know, they're just talk out of both sides of their mouth.
		What do these people stand for?
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So will you be prosecuting not just the...
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		I actually agree with that firmly.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I think that you have to look at, look, you always follow the money.
		If what I've read is true, and obviously Pam Bondi is leading the charge on this, first and foremost, we have to get rid of serious crime.
		New Jersey, unfortunately, has serious crime.
		Secondly, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to look at what's happening in Patterson.
		With that mayor, what's happening with police officers taking their American flags off and wearing Palestinian flags?
		Not happening.
		Then we're going to look at...
		Who's funding this?
		Of course.
		And this is a bigger issue.
		This is an issue in our entire country.
		But for the state of New Jersey, I plan to completely follow Pam's lead, follow the president's lead in terms of getting rid of fraud, waste, corruption, and crime.
		And it's such an honor, truly.
		I was kind of blindsided by it.
		I love it here at the White House, but I'm excited for this opportunity.
		And nobody understands.
		How much we have to fight and get the legal system back in check and get America to feel like the DOJ is there for them, not for their own political gain.
		And that's my mission, is really just to work hand-in-hand with Pam and the FBI, Cash, and the president, and make sure New Jersey's strong.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		You mentioned Patterson.
		We had this article ready.
		This is something that we've covered a lot on the program.
		This is such an egregious violation of the rights of the people of New Jersey, where the mayor of Patterson, the head of the city council, collude in order to remove mail-in ballots from people's mailboxes, fill them out themselves.
		themselves and then vote for those people.
		And it is to hundreds, if not thousands of individuals that are under indictment right now.
		This is just one of many, many cases of voter fraud in New Jersey, a state where the last gubernatorial race was decided by just like a handful of votes and a state that has a large contingency of people that hate the direction of the state itself and are like good, obviously like strong patriots.
		It's a patriotic state.
		How are you going to confront this?
		I mean, what are you going to do to these individuals who are so openly committing Well, see, here's the blessing about where I came from.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I came from seeing the president's witch hunt on the Hush Money case, seeing the president's witch hunt on the quote-unquote fraud Letitia James case, then being part of a campaign where our focus at the RNC was to truly make sure voter integrity in this country is preserved so that we don't become a third-world country.
		And I will tell you anything in my jurisdiction, If you are planning on behaving in any way other than law-abiding, I'm coming for you.
		I will not have it.
		America needs to start.
		New Jersey is an incredibly populated state.
		It's a heavily populated state.
		And I'm going to try and set a serious example, the same example that, frankly, Pam and Cash and the president have been setting here.
		And if you screw around with the law...
		If you screw around with our justice system, if you mess around with the Constitution, with our normal due process, with our normal voting, with our elections, that is a crime that we will not turn a blind eye on.
		And I plan on prosecuting those individuals very heavily and very quickly.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Excellent.
		This is something that obviously is a massive problem in the state of New Jersey.
		I think a state that could, you know, I think...
		A state that deserves a lot better than it's currently.
unidentified		They do.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		They do.
		It's my home.
		And it's been neglected, I think, in a lot of ways.
		I think that poor leadership has definitely been a problem.
		I think there's a lot of political corruption in our state.
		And I'm going to get to the bottom of it.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, good.
		Okay.
		So people who commit voter fraud are going to jail in the state of New Jersey.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you will be going to jail.
		If you commit any crime in this state, you will be going to jail.
		You will fully be prosecuted, and I will be supporting our men in blue for doing their job.
		They will have my full support always to get out there and get violent criminals, get all criminals off the streets.
		There's no one that cares more about it than me.
		My children are being raised in that state, and I'm happy to go home and help my people out.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Or you're going to hurt the brand of the state of New Jersey, Alina.
		The Sopranos, right?
		Like, you know, Godfather.
		You clean that state up, you're really going to hurt the brand.
		What's HBO going to make a series on if you clean the state up?
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		They can make a series about how I'm going to make New Jersey great again.
unidentified		There you go.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a beautiful state.
		It really is.
		But there's some dark spots that need to be fixed.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So let's talk about that.
		You talked about your children, raising them in New Jersey.
		It's wonderful to be close to home.
		I couldn't imagine doing the show away from my children.
		This is something that you've made a lot of news about recently and it is now, according to Breitbart, the FBI...
		Furiously going through on a frenzied mission to redact the Epstein files ahead of release.
		Can you please give us a update here?
		You did this last time.
		You previewed this actually last time and said you know that there is work being done right now and that everything that we've heard is accurate.
		Just a really quick update.
		And then what you will do as a prosecutor if one of these individuals resides in New Jersey.
unidentified		They better watch out.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I have zero tolerance.
		Look, here's number one, and I keep saying this.
		We cannot be careless.
		This is not a reckless administration.
		We are looking at everything very...
		Very carefully.
		We have to, have to, have to, number one, make sure that we preserve witnesses who unfortunately are victims.
		A lot of these people are victims.
		Make sure their identities and their protection.
		And you have to get a lot of things in place.
		If you have a witness in a case, on a murder case, we sometimes put them in witness protection.
		We sometimes make sure that we have to take care of the poor victims that have been through so much already.
		That's number one.
		So that's the first priority.
		And then we look at the Underlying issues, now you have to make sure also we bring valid cases.
		You cannot bring frivolous lawsuits.
		If anybody knows anything about frivolous lawsuits, it's me and Pam and the DOJ that we currently have.
		We will not do that.
		But those people that are criminals, those people that were crossing state lines and trafficking.
		Those girls or having sex with minors will be prosecuted.
		There is just no pornography, all of that.
		As you know, human trafficking was a main focus of mine while I was here, and I plan on still helping with that cause.
		I have some executive orders in the pipeline to help the...
		You know, Homeland Security and HHS and all those departments get the things that they need to really go after them.
		And actually, my request of the president, which he was all on board with, is to make sure that the penalty is much harder for anybody who is violating any crime of moral turpitude.
		And that is the worst crime.
		Those are terrible to me.
		I mean, the taking of a child's life in a way, robbing them of their...
		Childhood and raping somebody like that is just disgusting.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		It'd be absolutely wonderful to see you in this position.
		We're so thrilled for you.
		We're so excited about it.
		And as a parting question, we just have to, since you name dropped it, our producers grabbed it.
		Here's the dancing clip, Jasmine Crockett.
		She's making a ton of news right now, calling the governor of Texas, her state, Governor Hot Wheels.
		He's been, this is Greg Abbott, he's wheelchair bound.
		This is blowing up right now.
		Just getting your comment on this.
		If you're talking about morality and raising the standards in this country, that seems like an unbelievably offensive thing to do.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		I just, I mean, how's she not embarrassed?
		That's so embarrassing.
		I don't know.
		That's just really embarrassing.
		You're not at your home with your kids.
		And listen, I'm on social media.
		You know, I do things on social media.
		I'm a social media presence, but I most certainly, when I came to the White House, didn't start.
		You know, dancing down the halls and filming it.
		I mean, you have to have some decorum.
		You have to have some respect for your office.
		Now, everybody's entitled to their private life, and sometimes social media merges the two.
		But that is in your office.
		This is not a joke.
		You are being paid by American people, and you are instead orchestrating a dance-off with your team to Kendrick Lamar.
		I mean, I don't understand what was going on there, what was part of her thought process.
		But again, this is somebody that went on national television.
		I think it was last night or yesterday, and said, I am not pushing forward anything new.
		I'm just here to prevent things and be a disruptor.
		But you're also evidently here to do dance-offs in Congress or where the hell she was.
		I mean, it's embarrassing.
		I would be embarrassed for her.
		I feel embarrassed for her, truly.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		And call her Governor Hot Wheels, even though he's been paralyzed.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		That's the most disgusting thing, by the way.
		I mean, you're hitting somebody who is hurt and then you, she has no moral compass.
		I cannot, I have nothing to say about her that is good.
		And the fact that I'm trying to restrict myself Shame on you.
		Shame on you.
		You're disgusting.
		You should be ashamed of your behavior.
		And the way that you are just demeaning somebody who is handicapped, shame on you.
		Shame on you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's hope she doesn't do it in your state, as you said.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Oh no, I hope she...
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Come on in!
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Congratulations.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		No, she's a disgrace.
alina habba ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Congratulations, Alina.
		Please follow along.
		Obviously, 600,000 Americans already do.
		The great Alina Habba heading back to clean up her home state.
		Godspeed.
		Our prayers are with you.
unidentified		Thank you.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		you you you Well, ladies and gentlemen, you just never know.
		Right?
		You just never know what's going to happen.
		Those intel briefings are spicy, but we weren't planning on the, shall we say, flamethrower testimony where there's a lot of yelling, screaming, and arguments about what we believe to be the newest hoax.
		It's very, very strange, this operation.
		We're going to talk about it in detail, ladies and gentlemen.
		You must have.
		In your business, HR.
		And this kind of like ties into what we're talking about here.
		You have to have rules, all right?
		And we're going to not withhold our criticism about where we think that rules should have been implemented or where they may have been broken.
		We have our own assessment of this situation with the leaked signal chats, and we're going to talk about it.
		But you've got to have rules in your company, especially if it's a fast-growing company.
		Like our company, if you're an entrepreneur, nobody's really...
		It starts off as an expert in HR.
		They need HR as they grow.
		That's why we're proud to be partnering with Bamboo HR.
		This is something that we're really glad to have as this brand is hiring like crazy.
		And as we are able to branch out into some very exciting opportunities.
		Bamboo HR is a powerful tool.
		That is a flexible all-in-one HR solution for your growing business.
		Stop spending countless hours on payroll and time tracking, benefits, performance management.
		With Bamboo HR, those hours are shaved down to minutes.
		Bamboo HR is also robust hiring and onboarding tools that will streamline the process, creating better first days for new hires.
		Very important.
		34,000 companies trust Bamboo HR, and they make it super easy.
		Easy to use, easy to learn, easy to implement, and easy to love.
		Take a couple minutes and check out the free demo.
		And how nimble and affordable it can be.
		HR is hard, but Bamboo HR is easy.
		I can't recommend Bamboo HR enough!
		Check it out for yourself.
		Free demo at BambooHR.com slash free demo.
		That's BambooHR.com slash free demo.
		Ladies and gentlemen, it's a wild time.
		It's a very, very interesting time.
		What happened yesterday after the program was I open up our, you know, you open up X. And you're like, oh great, the newest hoax just dropped against Trump.
		And that's the way that I approached this article.
		The Trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans.
		This is from The Atlantic.
		This is written by somebody named Jeffrey Goldberg.
		Jeffrey Goldberg is personally responsible for fomenting some of the largest hoaxes, not just against President Trump, but against our nation destroying what was a Very upright, righteous, and bright future for this country by miring us into forever wars, 20-year-long wars that have cost us trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of American lives.
		And so much American treasure, Jeffrey Goldberg, for instance, was one of the individuals who pushed with reckless abandon, with wild-eyed blood-soaked abandon, the weapons of mass destruction hoax.
		In Iraq, got us into wars in Iraq, pushed hoaxes like that Osama bin Laden was communicating with Saddam Hussein all day.
		These were lies.
		Jeffrey Goldberg was a part of them and was key to ensuring that so many young American men died in the deserts so that their blood could increase the Halliburton stock for Dick Cheney, just a couple of points.
		We loathe Jeffrey Goldberg.
		Jeffrey Goldberg also pushed the very fine people hoax with President Trump after he spoke to Charlottesville.
		He also pushed the 51 Intel experts hoax.
		Jeffrey Goldberg has never seen a war he doesn't like.
		He's a neocon's neocon.
		He's a liar and a fraudster.
		And he's also somebody who wrote one of the largest debunks hoaxes in the history of President Trump and his political life, which is the suckers and losers hoax.
		I'm just trying to set the stage here for where this information comes from.
		The suckers and losers hoax was allegedly President Trump, who's so beloved by our military.
		And you see President Trump and all these military, like nobody has cared more for our service members than President Trump.
		Allegedly, Trump flew over a cemetery, a military cemetery, and says, they're all suckers and losers.
		I hate them.
		Those people who died for our country.
		Got it?
		Yeah, got it?
		This guy is who wrote that.
		So consider the source here, because that's going to play a huge role in how I approach this.
		Because these individuals, and here's a photo of Jeffrey Goldberg here, these individuals have lost all credibility.
	They're repugnant.
	They're proven liars.
	They'll do anything to stop Trump.
	They...
	Love war and the fomenting of forever war.
	They hate that President Trump is a president of peace.
	They are financially incentivized to bring us more war.
	They are neocons.
	They are evil.
	All right.
	So that's the setup here.
	Now, what actually happened?
	For that, let's go ahead into the article, shall we?
	The article itself establishes that there is...
	Jump over here.
	Please add my screen.
	Thank you.
	Established that on March 11th, Mike Waltz, who is the National Security Advisor, somebody who's been on this program, somebody that we don't know super well, but seemed to be doing great work at the White House.
	Mike Waltz added Jeffrey Goldberg on Signal.
	If you're not familiar with Signal, it's a messaging app.
	It's like Telegram or your iPhone messaging app.
	It's an encrypted messaging app.
	As we just heard from the testimony from CIA Director Ratcliffe, these are apps that were pre-installed on government phones, secure government phones, that were given to the administration.
	And as I have been educated by multiple sources inside the Intel community, the Signal app is something that was created by the Intel community, actually, for this set purpose.
	It gets more nefarious and more creepy.
	This is something that is an app that was, according to my sources, designed by the CIA, created by the CIA, in order to have backdoors so that they can monitor chat, or so that they could have an encrypted app that they could use in their communications.
	Again, as Ratcliffe and Tulsi just verified, these are apps that are preloaded onto government phones that are handed to people with security clearances.
	Okay, so that's what Signal is.
	Let's get into what actually happened here.
	Mike Waltz.
	I'm reading to you directly from the article.
	So here are the allegations.
	Because this was my question.
	This is the question.
	The most important question.
	Who added this scumbag?
	So this guy, Jeffrey Goldberg's clearly a regime propagandist.
	Who added him?
	Because now we have two conflicting stories here.
	And I'm on Signal.
	I communicate with people on Signal.
	I never say anything that I wouldn't want published on the front of the New York Times, okay?
	But who would add the architect of the Iraq war?
	The architect of so many hoaxes against Donald Trump.
	Who would even have this guy's contact in their effing phone?
	Here's how it works on Signal.
	You have to have the contact in your phone.
	To add someone, you must first have their number.
	Don't even put regime propagandist numbers in your cellular device.
	So Signal scrapes your contacts and then connects you, if you wish, on Signal with people who have, you've saved their telephone number.
	So it connects you on the encrypted app.
	Somebody clearly had Jeffrey Goldberg's telephone number.
	That's step number one.
	That's the problem.
	Okay?
	We're going to take this at face value and talk through it.
	So, don't have propagandists for the deep state saved in your telephone.
	Don't talk with them.
	You don't have to respond for comment.
	You know how many times we're hit up a day by the Washington Post, the New York Times, for comment?
	Like, our show and our program, what we're building here, has caught a lot of attention.
	It's blowing up.
	God bless you.
	Shout out to the chat.
	We love you.
	Do you know how many times a day we get outreach from corporate media to comment on this or that or that drama or this drama?
	And you know what we say to all of them?
	F off!
	We don't trust your intentions.
	We know your intentions are evil.
	And so we don't communicate with you.
	I don't save their numbers in my phone.
	I see no upside to this other than my name's been printed in this publication that my great-grandfather used to read.
	I don't need that validation.
	So rid your devices of these people's numbers if you are to assume that this was an honest mistake.
	Let's read the article and I'll let you decide.
	Because now Mike Waltz is saying something entirely different than what the article portends.
	Here we go.
	This is the writer Jeffrey Goldberg writing here.
	I received a connection.
	Connected request on Signal from a user identified as Michael Waltz.
	Signal has an open source and corrupting messaging service popular with journalists and others who seek more privacy than other text messaging services are capable of delivering.
	I assume that the Michael Waltz in question was President Donald Trump's National Security Advisor.
	I did not assume, however, that the request came from the actual Michael Waltz.
	I've met him in the past, although I didn't find it particularly strange that he might be reaching out to me.
	I did think that it was somewhat unusual given the Trump administration's contentious relationship with journalists and Trump's...
	Periodic fixation with me specifically.
	It immediately crossed my mind that somebody would be masquerading as Waltz in order to somehow entrap me.
	This is not at all uncommon these days for nefarious actors.
	True.
	That's the way that we approach these things.
	All right?
	Here we go.
	On to the actual crux of the article.
	I accepted the connection.
	This is the key here.
	All right?
	We're going to break this all down as to what actually happened.
	I accepted the connection request, hoping that this was the actual National Security Advisor and that he wanted to chat about Ukraine or Iran or something of an important matter.
	Two days later, at Thursday, 4.28 p.m., I received a notice that I will be included in a Signal Chat group called the Houthi PC Small Group.
	The message of the group was from Michael Waltz.
	It read as followed.
	Team establishing a principals group for coordination with the Houthis, particularly over the next 72 hours.
	My deputy Alex Wong will be pulling together a Tiger team of deputies, and so on and so forth.
	The message continues.
	Please provide the best point of contact for your staff.
	Okay.
	So Jeffrey Goldberg says, Michael Waltz added me to this chat.
	Why the F would you do that?
	Let me just tell you, this is suicide.
	Career suicide to do this.
	It's not like you mistakenly added a journalist and that journalist was Michael Schellenberger or Tucker Carlson.
	It's not even like you accidentally added somebody who was like, I don't know, like a Democrat elected member of Congress, which there are reasonable ones.
	You're adding a enemy of the state.
	You're adding the known propagandist.
	Who has regularly and often fomented the worst Trump hoaxes.
	I mean, listen.
	You're adding the worst person you could ever add to this chat.
	If you were running heaven, if you're St. Peter, you're letting in Satan.
	I don't know how else to explain it.
	If you're running the hen house, you're letting the fox in.
	Whatever happened here was the most catastrophic, cataclysmic F-up in the history of people doing intel work.
	There's no other way to spin it.
	And I'm sorry, I'm not going to, like, say that it's not.
	It was a bad whatever.
	Whoever did this is a bad mistake.
	Now, can somebody be managing Michael Waltz's account?
	Do these people who have all the security, who are, like, the busiest people on Earth, do they have people managing their accounts for them?
	Totally.
	Could this have been a mistake by one of the members of the staff?
	Totally.
	Are there other people named Jeffrey Goldberg that this could have been a mistake, right?
	You hand a staffer your phone.
	You know, you ever see these guys?
	You ever see these guys walking around?
	They have like seven phones, these people.
	You have like seven phones.
	You hand your staffer the wrong phone.
	They add the wrong Jeffrey Goldberg.
	Like, there's so many explanations for this.
	But the result is the worst possible result, which is why we're talking about it.
	So that's what they contend in the article.
	Now, what are they saying publicly?
	Michael Waltz is telling colleagues that he has never met or talked to the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, which I believe is totally disqualifying, right?
	You shouldn't be talking with these people.
	You shouldn't be kind to them.
	You should give them nothing.
	That's what we do, and it's worked out great for us, actually.
	I don't got to see my name in the New York Times.
	I don't got to see my name in the Washington Post.
	They're going to write whatever garbage they're going to write anyway.
	So why should I add fuel to the fight?
	Why should I give them more clicks?
	Why would I give aid and comfort to the enemy?
	Don't do it.
	Michael Waltz is saying now that Jeffrey Goldberg is lying.
	Jeffrey Goldberg says he's met Michael Waltz.
	Michael Waltz is a national security advisor.
	Big time dude.
	The question here is more important.
	Latest claims that Waltz has never, ever talked to Goldberg before.
	So who added the number for the regime propagandist journalist liar, hoaxer, anti-Trump, vicious animal?
	Okay, so then what happened in these chats?
	I mean, what happened in these chats are what you would expect.
	There was a little like TikTok of what was going to happen to the Hooties.
	I've reviewed the chats as far as what's available.
	It was pretty much public knowledge.
	President Trump, like, put out photos of him bombing the Houthis.
	There was a ton of saber rattling.
	And it was public knowledge about what was about to happen to the Houthis.
	I don't see any problem with it, but I'm no national security expert.
	Should all this been going on on Signal?
	I don't know.
	I can't answer that for you.
	To be honest with you, I don't have a security clearance.
	Doesn't seem like a bright idea to me.
	Because of the nefarious...
	Because of the nefarious purpose of that app.
	And I'll get to that in just a second.
	Because the app was all but designed to do something like this.
	And I'll explain, alright?
	I'll explain.
	Sean Davis asking the real questions here.
	I just want to get into this.
	Because President Trump sounded off on this this morning.
	Saying that Michael Waltz has learned a lesson.
	The White House has confirmed that this isn't fake, meaning this isn't fake news, meaning the chats are real, okay?
	The chats are real.
	You can pop up the image of the chat.
	The chats are real.
	The chats are, like, this isn't fake news, meaning they're not making all of this up.
	The White House has confirmed that this did occur, and this chat did occur, and the only explanation is that Jeffrey Goldberg got access to it, which again is insane.
	Because what's he listed under in the chat?
	I mean, clearly, there's a bunch of smart people in this chat.
	They all know Jeffrey Goldberg.
	They all know what he's capable of.
	Did he show up as, like, Jeffrey Goldberg's been added to the chat?
	I'm in Signal group chats.
	When you add someone, it shows their number.
	It shows their name.
	Like, who would ever have this conversation in front of Jeffrey Goldberg?
	Seems insane.
	Was he there as, like, a spy?
	Was he spying on it?
	Was he there under a pseudonym?
	Did they think he was someone else?
	This is a real question.
	But this is what the chats look like.
	The chats are real.
	Okay, so here we go.
	Here are the questions.
	Who initiated the chat?
	When did it occur?
	Who added Goldberg?
	When he was added, did he...
	When was he added relative to other members?
	Whose device was being used to add Goldberg?
	How was Goldberg's information stored in that device?
	Did Goldberg's number have a different name associated with it?
	Right?
	Was he there as a spy?
	Did that name belong to anybody else in the chat?
	Was anybody working from within the chat to try and sabotage everyone?
	How did Goldberg's name appear in the chat?
	When did Waltz and or any other person add Goldberg to the chat?
	This is a massive breach.
	Listen, we're here to fight and destroy the communists.
	We have like four years.
	Really, we have like 18 months.
	Before everybody is locked into running for Congress and fighting for their seats again and fighting for these majorities.
	We don't have time for this F-up.
	And this is an F-up!
	There's no other way to say it!
	So we don't have time for this.
	And you heard this entire national security Senate hearing that we just went through.
	Every question was about this.
	And oh, when does this story drop?
	It drops the day before the hearing!
	So that Democrats have something to...
	Prattle on about.
	Because actually, Trump has done an incredible job at making the country secure.
	This is why I keep calling it a hoax.
	Because it's all too perfect and there are no coincidences.
	Okay, let's go.
	Which media personalities did Waltz and his staff have contact with after learning the breach?
	What was the content of those conversations?
	If you're not trying to answer these questions, you're a hack.
	Or you're not an honest broker.
	If you're entirely focused on Vance or Hegseth...
	Whom both are victims of what happened, because there's no indication that Vance or Hegseth, who are two big players in this chat, Tulsi Gabbard also in the chat, there's no indication at all that they had any clue what was going on.
	Goldberg himself says right here that Michael Waltz is the reason I'm in this chat.
	Michael Waltz asked me to be in this chat.
	He added me to this chat.
	Dude, is he bonkers?
	Like, I don't think, Michael Waltz has been on this show.
	Like, he seems like a, I don't know, I'm not his best friend, but like, is he suicidal?
	I think so.
	Something terrible happened here.
	A horrible operational F-up.
	And they're saying that Waltz did it.
	Now, what's really curious to me is that the way that, like, this is being talked about inside of the administration.
	So let's establish two or three very quick things.
	One.
	The Signal Chat is something that is allowed on government computers.
	It's not like what happened with Hillary Clinton at all.
	This has no, zero connection to Hillary Clinton storing top-secret information on her own personal PC off-site.
	This is a government-allowed app.
	This was an app created by the intel agencies.
	Seriously, I'm in connections with intelligence.
	People that I know who've worked in intelligence, who have a great understanding of this, they say that the CIA created the Signal app for this purpose, for, like, conversations that don't need to happen inside of a skiff, inside of, like, everyone walk into this underground trailer, right, where nobody has any phones, where you can actually have working conversational capacity with people.
	So, having this app and talking on this app isn't illegal.
	What they're going to try and do is they're going to try and get Trump to fire people or maybe criminally charge them for saying that they were sharing classified information in an unclassified setting.
	Hilarious from the people who brought you Joe Biden.
	Hilarious from the people who brought you Hillary Clinton.
	Hilarious!
	Particularly funny.
	But it just goes about, you know, the way that evil works, right?
	They're going to take what they're guilty of and flip it around and try and smear you with it.
	It's called a wrap-up smear.
	So here we go.
	I want to establish this.
	Signal is allowed.
	Here's Tom Cotton this morning.
unidentified		Many people in the intelligence community use signal.
		They have communication all the time.
		Is that not correct?
tom cotton ▲ ● ▼		Lawrence, that is correct.
		In fact, I bet a bunch of those senators that you see at the hearing today are using Signal as well to speak to each other or to speak to their aides.
		And it is my understanding that the Biden administration authorized Signal as a means of communication that was consistent with presidential record-keeping requirements for its administration, and that continued into the Trump administration.
		It's simply another messaging app, like the iMessage app on your iPhone or email servers.
		That every administration has set up in which senior administration officials can communicate with each other.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		Okay, let's go down to the next issue.
		War plans to the Carolyn Levitt tweet, please.
		Jeffrey Goldberg is well known for a sensational spin.
		Here are the facts about the latest story.
		There's no war plans discussed.
		No classified material was sent.
		The White House Counsel's Office has provided guidance.
		A number of different platforms the President's Trump...
		Top officials to communicate with safely and efficiently as possible.
		National Securities Council stated the White House is looking into how Goldberg's number was inadvertently added to the threat.
		So here she straight up admits that's the question.
		Who did this?
		Thanks for the strong, decisive leadership, President Trump.
		The Houthi strikes were successful and effective.
		Terrorists were killed and that's what matters most.
		Okay, good.
		President Trump saying that Mike Waltz learned his lesson.
		So even President Trump saying it seems to be Mike Waltz's problem.
		All right.
		We're getting to it now.
		No war plans were discussed.
		Now, this is something that even Jeffrey Goldberg, a weasel, was on TV last night saying, ah, it wasn't actually war plans that were discussed.
		This is the point.
		If you're sharing war plans, if you're sharing classified information in an unclassified setting, then they can charge you.
		There are rules for that.
		They could literally charge you.
		You could lose your job.
		There could be the brand new Russia hoax, right?
		All over again.
		So that's what this really hinges on.
		So let's listen to Goldberg himself.
		What are these war plans exactly?
unidentified		Responsible here and not disclose the things that I read and saw.
		I will describe them to you.
		The specific time of a future attack.
		Specific targets, including human targets, meant to be killed in that attack.
		Weapon systems.
		Even weather reports, you know, that the government is...
		I don't know why Hexup was sharing it with everybody.
		I mean, the precise detail.
		And then a long section on sequencing.
		This is going to happen.
		Then that is going to happen.
		After that happens, this happens.
		Then that happens.
		And then we go and find out if it worked.
		I mean, you know, he can say that it wasn't a war plan, but it was a minute by minute accounting of what was about to happen.
		organized.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		I love that this jackass later in the interview says that it's Pete Hegseth's fault and it's J.D. Vance's fault.
		It's amazing.
		You can almost see the op that's being worked on right now in order to pry into the Trump administration and create a team of rivals that hate each other.
		And that are backstabbing each other.
		And that seems to be the operation that's going on right now.
		Tulsi Gabbard saying no classified information was shared.
		Now, she's the director of national intelligence.
		All of the agencies answer to her.
		So you'd assume she'd definitely know about this.
		Let's go.
john ratcliffe ▲ ● ▼		Your question was, have I participated in any other group chats sharing classified information?
		To be clear, I haven't participated in any signal group messaging.
		That relates to any classified information at all.
unidentified		Okay.
unidentified		Director Gabbard?
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		Senator, I have the same answer.
tulsi gabbard ▲ ● ▼		I have not participated in any signal group chat or any other chat on another app that contained any classified information.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So that's going to be the question.
		What's classified and what's not?
		And the deep state is going to deep state, right?
		They're going to fight like hell to try and get some...
		You know, some nugget classified and say that everyone on the chat is a criminal and that everyone on the chat is now culpable.
		That's how this op is going to play out.
		Carolyn Levitt saying the same thing that we're saying.
		The real question here is who the literal F added this regime propagandist to this chat.
		This is a huge problem and I just want to throw something out there.
		I don't have any evidence of this, except for this.
		I have great sources telling me that Signal is just an operational Intel app, and that Signal is designed by our own intelligence agencies and the CIA.
		Could Mike Waltz be a victim here?
		Could all of these people be a victim?
		Again, let me establish something.
		This is very different than accidentally adding Tucker Carlson to a chat.
		This is adding the single worst journalist that you could conceivably imagine to this chat.
		A very, very bad move.
		You want to talk about a lack of security in something that has massive potential consequences for the administration.
		That's it.
		Because these people are out to kill us.
		They're out to destroy the country.
		People like Jeffrey Goldberg and his ilk are here.
		To put MAGA in, I mean, they want Trump in prison or with a bullet in his head, and they want all of us, anyone who's ever worn a red hat in their lives, locked up, fired, and destroyed.
		Could it be that there was other forces that added Jeffrey Goldberg to that chat, that knew that it was going on, that potentially have operational control, like a black splinter group inside of the CIA?
		That have operational control of the app and how it works and could shove Jeffrey Goldberg's number into that chat.
		That those individuals, maybe they...
		I'm not going to show you my signal right now, but if you have a signal, you're going to get bots that hit you up.
		You're going to get fake people that hit you up.
		He says himself in his writing that he wasn't sure.
		He didn't think it was the real Mike Waltz who was hitting him up.
		Could it possibly be an op from somebody masquerading as Mike Waltz who has operational control or some line of data, some line of code that could add Jeffrey Goldberg to this chat?
		They knew this chat was going on.
		Maybe they were maybe spying on it.
		And then they added the single worst journalist in America.
		They snuck him in there.
		Could this be the case?
		Could this actually be the new deep state op?
		That they can take these social media apps and messaging apps, add journalists to them when they know that members of the Trump administration are using them, and then blame it on members of the Trump administration by using pseudonyms, right?
		By using fake IDs and fake identities and do that.
		That's a theory way over here, all right?
		I'm not ruling it out.
		We're just asking questions.
		There's a theory right over here, which is, I would assume, That Michael Waltz isn't suicidal from a career perspective.
		Michael Waltz says he's never even met Jeffrey Goldberg.
		That somebody, perhaps like somebody had his number in their phone.
		A staffer takes the phone and then accidentally adds the wrong Jeffrey Goldberg.
		Has butterfingers.
		Adds the person by accident.
		Still doesn't account for the fact that everybody messaging, everybody talking in the chat would have seen Jeffrey Goldberg.
		Atlantic editor-in-chief has been added to the chat.
		Blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink.
		Everyone leaves, right?
		Like, ooh, we're out.
		Like, that's what would happen.
		Duh!
		Something insane is going on here.
		Something way darker beneath the surface, I think, is going on here.
		Somebody who has operational control of the Signal app has got to be effing around.
		Adding journalists that they know are regime propagandists in here in order to eff over the Trump administration.
		That's where I...
		That's where I think I find myself right now.
		The reason why is that I don't believe in coincidences, and this is just too perfect.
		You know, you don't have a bunch of access to Tulsi Gabbard.
		I mean, we do, right?
	Cash, you know, we're chilling with cash at the DOJ.
	We have relationships with these people.
	We can ask for meetings, right?
	We can ask for steak dinner.
	In fact, we may be doing just that in the future.
	But you would never have...
	You know, it's not like they do regular pressers where Tulsi Gabbard is just standing there going, ask me anything.
	They deal in classified and very secret information and they only come out to talk to the press on very specific circumstances and very controlled environments.
	Often, the only time you're really able to go in and ask the FBI director a question is during a Senate hearing or a House hearing.
	That's it.
	It, with the exclusion of very specific circumstances inside the FBI, controlled press, controlled media, access points, blue cards and everything, you don't just get to walk up and ask cash a question.
	So it's like, this report drops within 12 hours of them doing this, this morning.
	Like, it's just like a photo, can we get just like a photo of them at the hearing?
	Like, like, they're, so every, like, multiple people who are on this chat, Are going to be sitting before the Senate within 12 hours?
	It's just too perfect.
	And get a chance for the desperate...
	There it is, perfect.
	For the desperate Democrat Party to, like, foment this hoax?
	I know, Cash, who's the only guy who wasn't on the chat, right?
	Like, isn't that something?
	What does that tell you?
	I think it's dirty.
	I think it's dirty tricks.
	That's what I believe in my heart of hearts.
	That's the evidence, ladies and gentlemen, and also Pete Hegseth, clearly furious about this.
	We wouldn't be able to leave this topic without showing you what Pete Hegseth said.
	He happens to be traveling 5,000 miles away, just how this stuff works.
	And they were landing for refueling in Hawaii, and he did a short press interview.
	And he also, like Mike Waltz, was like, who the F is?
	I don't even know this guy.
	How'd this guy get added to the chat?
	GO.
unidentified		ONE QUESTION.
		CAN YOU SHARE HOW YOUR INFORMATION ABOUT WAR PLANS AGAINST THE HUTHIS IN YEMEN WAS SHARED WITH A JOURNALIST IN THE ATLANTIC?
		AND WERE THOSE DETAILS CLASSIFIED?
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		SO I YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DECEITFUL AND HIGHLY DISCREDITED So-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the, I don't know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax.
		So this is the guy that peddles in garbage.
		This is what he does.
		I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign.
		Because of the skill and courage of our troops, I've monitored it very closely from the beginning.
		And you see, we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration.
unidentified		Our troops, our sailors were getting shot at as targets.
pete hegseth ▲ ● ▼		Our ships couldn't sail through.
		And when they did shoot back, it was purely defensively or at shacks in Yemen.
		President Trump said, no more.
		We will reestablish deterrence.
		We will open freedom of navigation.
		And we will ultimately decimate the Houthis, which is exactly what we're doing as we speak from the beginning overwhelmingly.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		So the conversation here from Hegseth is, you know, F this reporter, F you guys.
		This operation was wildly successful, and it was.
		And I don't got time for this.
		So we'll see.
		President Trump saying that Mike Waltz learned his lesson and that he's a good man, right?
		This is what he said the verdict is in.
		Trump remains confident in Mike Waltz.
		Atlantic story is the only glitch in two months.
		They're calling it a glitch.
		They're saying he learned his lesson.
		I don't know.
		I don't know.
		I'd love to hear the answer.
		I'd love to hear the answer.
		Jesse Kelly, ladies and gentlemen, is somebody that I...
		He's a veteran.
		He's somebody I really respect on these issues.
		He has a searing, burning moral clarity on this kind of stuff.
		And he really understands who the enemy is.
		And he had this take on this.
		And, you know, hard for me to tell you I don't disagree with a lot of this.
		Here we go.
unidentified		Accidents are okay depending on the qualifications of the person who committed the accident and depending on, most importantly, the importance of the topic at hand.
		We are dealing with national security issues.
		Military issues.
		The Trump administration has less than four years to purge the communist menace from inside the federal government while at the same time juggling about 19,000 world affairs, international, domestic, and otherwise.
		And if there is one person, I don't care what his name is, in the Trump administration who is so thoughtless, careless, or stupid That he's going to include a dirty communist on an important group chat of national security matters, then that person can prepare his resume, pack up your stuff, and leave Washington DC immediately.
		And it needs to be done publicly so everyone else in the administration understands you're not allowed to be a moron.
		You hold a critical national security position in the most powerful country on earth.
		The stakes of the game are quite literally, I hate to use that word, life and death when it comes to future generations of this country.
		I don't want to hear about accidents.
		I don't want to hear about boo-boos, mistakes.
		I'll try to do better next time.
		No.
		No, sir.
		Fired.
		Publicly.
		Immediately.
		I don't care what his name is.
		I don't care what his position is.
		Gone.
		See ya.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		That's assuming that a member of Team Trump accidentally added this regime propagandist via a mistake.
		Maybe it was on purpose.
		Maybe they were trying to get some cutesy story written.
		Some puff piece about how great they are.
		This is DC's wild, man.
		People do the dumbest, the absolute dumbest shit.
		In D.C., I mean, I'm telling you, I've seen it all.
		They are so addicted, like moths, to a burning blue light, a buzzing blue light on the back of a porch in the middle of Louisiana.
		Moths just can't resist it, and they just go up and get zapped.
		So goes neocons and establishment Republicans to corporate media and legacy journalist mastheads.
		I've seen it before, and they debase their entire careers.
		They'll do anything to get their names in a polished headline from those places.
		It's real sick, cuck-like behavior.
		It's a total disrespect to people that are built like they're the vibrant media ecosystem, conservative media ecosystem that's been built by people with actual grit and care for this country, like Jesse Kelly.
		So that's the option.
		It was either done...
		It's one of three options, and then we're going to not talk about this again, because I hate these kind of news cycles.
		It's one of three options.
		Option number one, dumbass managing Mike Walz's account accidentally added Jeffrey Goldberg.
		Option number two, dumbass managing Mike Walz's account or Mike Walz purposefully added Jeffrey Goldberg.
		In order to get some beautiful story written about him or whatever.
		I don't know.
		I don't know.
		Option number three, far more nefarious option.
		The worst option.
		There's an op for people who control lines of code at Signal, and they were able to sneak a journalist in there without anybody knowing.
		And they used fake names, and they snuck this individual in, and it was actually an Intel operation.
		A black splinter group acting against the interests of the Trump administration.
		Be nice to find out.
		Be nice to find out.
		It's one of those three.
		And I don't know, man.
		I tend to agree with Jesse Kelly on this.
		There should be punishments for this type of threat to the movement that we're building.
		Because as you saw, Democrats are flailing.
		They've never been worse.
		And they're screeching and screaming to grab hold of some new hoax.
		And this is it.
		This has given them a teeny little breath of life as they're floundering.
		It's given them a teeny little rope as they're drowning for something to scream and hold on to.
		Will it matter?
		Will it work with the American people?
		I'm not sure.
		Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know.
		I don't know.
		I felt like it was important to educate our audience on it.
		Because you're going to hear a lot about this because Democrats have nothing else.
unidentified		That's it.
benny johnson ▲ ● ▼		They have nothing else.
		Remember, Mar-a-Lago classified documents.
		Remember what they did with that?
		This is the gear they try and bite you with.
		This is the trap.
		The trap is this.
		Oh, it's classified.
		Oh, it's unclassified.
		Oh, you mismanaged classified information.
		That's what they're going to do.
		That's what they're going to do here.
		So I want you to prepare you for that.
		All right, ladies and gentlemen.
		Have you ever met Jesse Kelly?
		He's like...
		6 '5"?
		He's a really tall dude.
		Jesse Kelly is extremely tall, but some may say he's tall as a tree.
		And, well, I would agree with that, except for I've got some tall trees in my yard.
		How tall are the trees in your yard?
		Big, tall, 100-year-old oaks in our neighborhood, and I frickin' love them.
		They're great.
		Ladies and gentlemen, we've just redone our backyard at my house because we have little kids, and those little kids need...
		Kind of a different vibe in the backyard.
		We used fast-growing trees in order to make sure that we had plants custom sent in in order for us to be able to have the backyard that we want.
		Fast-growing trees is the biggest online nursery in the United States.
		Thousands of different plants, over 2 million happy customers.
		They have plants for all your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering tree shrubs, much more.
		We use the privacy trees.
		Whatever plants you're...
		Interested in Fast Growing Trees?
		Has you covered?
		Find the perfect fit for your climate and space.
		Fast Growing Trees makes it easy for your dream yard.
		Order online and get the plants delivered to your door in just a few days.
		Plus, get support from their trained plant experts.
		Ladies and gentlemen, make sure that you go right now to FastGrowingTrees.com slash Benny.
		FastGrowingTrees.com.
		Use the code Benny.
		It's a perfect time in the spring to plant.
		This has helped us.
		Get a head start on sort of, we don't have a big yard, don't have a big house, but it's enough for our little kids and my wife is going crazy with the kids running out in the street, so locking it down.
		This spring they have the best deals for your yard, half off on select plants and other deals.
		Listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using the code Benny, B-E-N-N-Y at checkout.
		That's an additional 15% off at fastgrowingtrees.com.
		Okay, ladies and gentlemen.
		This has been interesting.
		What have we been live for three hours and 15 minutes?
		We just let her rip.
		This is just how we roll on this program.
		Nobody will work harder to bring you the front seat to the golden era.
		No one will work harder than us.
		But I'll tell you what, man.
		There's so much news that we just can't get to because when you do two hours of a...
		Senate confirmation hearing.
		You don't have the time to let her rip!
		But it was very, very interesting.
		So here's one thing that we must push forward.
		Our Tesla giveaway.
		We got this Tesla.
		We don't have a Tesla yet.
		We're going to pick somebody and then we're going to work with them on getting a Tesla.
		We're going to give away a Tesla.
		We've had a wildly successful year and we want to give back.
	No gimmicks.
	You don't have to...
	Pay anything.
	Buy anything to enter.
	You just got to follow along.
	Follow is free.
	Go over here to BennyJohnson.com slash Tesla giveaway and we're going to be giving away Tesla.
	We want to support Elon.
	We want to support his mission.
	We want more Teslas on the road.
	The libs screaming and burning down Tesla dealerships motivates us all the more because the brand pisses them off so much and makes us really happy that we can Disabuse these libs of their terrorist ways.
	So we hope they all get locked up in prison.
	And if Tesla is a triggering brand, then we're going to make sure there's more of them on the road.
	So go on over there.
	All you got to do is subscribe and then enter your name and email.
	And we're going to pick in about a week.
	We're going to pick a free Tesla.
	Okay?
	All right.
	Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know if you'll win the Tesla.
	I'm going to hand deliver it too, by the way.
	I'm going to go and I'm going to deliver the Tesla.
	Okay?
	We've already worked this out.
	I don't know.
	But I do know that if you are feeling lucky today, maybe you will win.
	But no matter what happens today, you need your verse of the day from Psalm 118.
	The Lord is with me.
	I will not be afraid.
	What can mere mortals do to me?
	There is a lot of darkness out there.
	And it's important for you to understand that without having a good foundation, you are going to get destroyed.
	This world will punch you and hit you and break you until you are down and you can't get back up.
	You've got to have a good, strong foundation, especially in these times.
	Seems like for the first time in my lifetime, evil is retreating just a little bit.
	That's wonderful to see.
	And it doesn't like that.
	So it's going to lash out.
	Make sure you have a good foundation.
	The Lord should be with you.
	Do not be afraid.
	What can mere mortals do to me?
	Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us on this long broadcast today.
	It's your boy Benny, front seat to the golden era.
	March with us.
	We're going to win.
	See ya.
unidentified		We're going to win.
		This is how a democracy works.
		We talk to each other.
		Because only by speaking can we create a free and a...
		Squeak I'm sorry
		about the knife.
		I'm sorry about the knife.
		The Benny Show's a storm, see the truth unfold.
		Stay in the loop, let freedom take hold.
		Salt on all the libs, soul never sold.
		It's the Benny Show, where the truth gon'be.
		Faith and freedom on your TV screen.
		Stand up strong, battle through the night.
		The Benny Show's here, bringing liberty to light.
		Liberty to light.
		Bringing liberty to light.
		Liberty to light.
		Bringing liberty to light.
		From the speeches to the gates, Benny Sharp.
		like a blade coming through the last This man never fades.
		You know it's prime time when Benny invades.
		From saving the nation to stories untold.
		The Benny shows the storm.
		See the truth unfold.
		Stay in the loop.
		Let freedom take hold.
		Salt in all the libs.
		Soul never sold.
		It's the Benny show.
		Where the truth gon' be.
		Faith and freedom on your TV screen.
		Stand up strong.

▲