CSPAN - Washington Journal Martha Miller

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 30, 2025 19:55-20:17 - CSPAN

21:53

Washington Journal Martha Miller

Participants

Appearances

kimberly adams

cspan 03:41

pam bondi

admin 00:39

Clips

roger stone

r 00:16

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		In thinking about respondents' primary argument here, which is that a single undrilled hole is enough to exempt a product from regulation, I think the court doesn't have to blind itself to the practical ramifications of that rule.
		The agency's interpretation reflected in this rule is the status quo.
		It is how the law has been applied over 50 years.
		And if this court now says that one undrilled hole is enough to exempt these products from regulation, then that is going to be a sea change in how the Gun Control Act is implemented.
		At that point, it can't serve out its function because all manufacturers everywhere could simply exempt their products from regulation through that simple expedient.
		And that means that going forward, all guns could become ghost guns.
		This court said 200 years ago in the Emily that you don't have to interpret a statute to be self-defeating like that if there is a plausible alternative construction.
		Our construction is not only plausible, it is the best reading of the statute looking at text, context, purpose, and history.
		So I'd encourage the court to say that and reverse the Fifth Circuit.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Thank you, General.
unidentified		Counsel.
unidentified		The case is submitted.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We're joined now by Martha Miller, who is the National Security Institute Deputy Executive Director at George Mason University's Law School.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Welcome to Washington Journal.
unidentified		Nice to see you.
unidentified		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So, first, can you tell us about the National Security Institute, your funding, and any political point of view you all might have?
unidentified		So, we're actually a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization.
		It was founded in 2017, and it was founded under the idea of meeting a group of policymakers, practitioners who believe that the United States should take a leading role in the world.
		And we are funded by private foundations, so we take no government money.
		And our point of view, like I said, is bipartisan.
		We have actually volunteer fellows.
		So, our fellows are practitioners.
		We have both Republicans and Democrats.
		We have people who have worked for George Bush, for President Biden, for Trump, and Obama.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, speaking of former presidents, can you tell us a little bit about your own background?
		You worked in Bush 43's White House.
		Can you talk about the capacity you were working in and if your work involved classified information, which is a topic of discussion this morning?
		Sure.
unidentified		So, actually, I worked in presidential personnel at the White House.
		I did have a security clearance.
		My work at the White House did not include classified information.
		However, I did work also at the United States Senate at the Foreign Relations Committee, and I did go into SCIF briefings in a secured facility to receive classified briefings.
		Also, at the Political Military Bureau at the Department of State, I worked there for about a year and a half during the Bush administration, actually, in the lead up to the Iraq War.
		And so, I did have experience.
		I had both a classified and an unclassified computer.
		I had to put my classified hard drive in the safe every night before I went home.
		So, I am familiar with having two different systems to work on.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so this is obviously in the news because of that signal chat that was written about in the Atlantic magazine.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		But before we get into the details of that exact chat, can you break down the legal definition of classified information and the different levels of it?
unidentified		So, classified information, this is actually established by executive order.
		You know, previously, I think it was, you know, Roosevelt was the first time that we had classified information was established under Franklin Roosevelt.
		But most, you know, we have had in successive presidencies, it's been established by executive order.
		The most recent executive order was actually, you know, 13526.
		And, you know, essentially there are various levels of classified information.
		There is, first and foremost, there's unclassified but sensitive, then there is secret, then there is top secret, and then you get into compartmentalized information where you could have a colleague who doesn't know what you know and vice versa.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So then your thoughts on this last week's event, because obviously there's this revelation about the Signal group chat with senior intelligence officials on the U.S. military action in Yemen.
		And so for folks who may have missed the news, on the day of the attack, March 15th, Defense Secretary Hegseth shared operational details in this chat two hours before the strike.
		What is your take on that situation?
unidentified		So, you know, in reading the articles about it and the information that I've seen, it looked to me as though Mike Waltz had created the chat for coordinating, you know, ensuring that individuals in the group had seen emails that were sent on the high side, that is, classified emails,
		which is something that most of us do in our daily lives is we make sure people have received the information that we know they need to see.
		But it was not until Secretary Hegseth, you know, it was actually kind of logistical until actually the vice president started to talk about the policy.
		And then it was Secretary Hegseth who started sharing operational details to, you know, to your point, two hours prior to the strikes.
		And to me, you know, this is something that is, you know, we don't know.
		They say that it's not classified, but there is a process to declassify information and operational details.
		I think, by and large, pretty much any national security professional you ask would say that that should be classified.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		So can you discuss the use of the app Signal by these high-ranking officials?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		For folks who aren't familiar, what is this app and should they have been using it regardless of the content of the conversation?
unidentified		So Signal has been an authorized app for setting up meetings for logistical reasons.
		It is used also by political activists.
		It's used by journalists.
		It is used also by our allies, diplomatic corps, when they are coordinating, hey, we're going to meet at this date.
		Can you confirm that you're coming?
		That sort of thing.
		And so I think the way that aside from adding, erroneously adding a journalist to the chat, I think it would have been okay had it just been to say, hey, you have information you need to review on your classified computer.
		So I think, yeah, so it definitely is okay for certain things that are unclassified.
		I think what is concerning is put aside the fact that Signal is an encrypted app, and so people do trust it as a way to communicate for personal reasons and what I just described.
		But for, you know, the problem is that foreign adversaries, even if they don't know, even if they can't crack the encrypted code, they know how long, who's in the chat, and how long they're speaking, and at what time they're speaking.
		So then they can compare that to other pieces of intelligence they have.
		Let's say that they also were following the Israelis.
		And they put two and two together and say something big is happening.
		You know, they'd see that the vice president, that the national security advisor, that the SECDAF Secretary of State, that they're all on this chat and actively talking during a certain period of time, that's going to, that's something they'll know, and that will be a piece of information that they can use.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		There's been discussion as to whether this signal leak was a violation of the Espionage Act, which is the reference to the Espionage Act of 1917, which is criminalized, unauthorized retention and dissemination of sensitive information that could undermine U.S. national defense or aid a foreign nation.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Do you think it was?
unidentified		You know, I think that this is definitely something that needs to be very seriously reviewed.
		And it will be, I know, by the Senate Armed Services Committee, they've also asked the Inspector General to launch an investigation.
		I think that is telling that the chairman, Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, has asked for that.
		Many Republicans have expressed grave concerns.
		And so, you know, look, I think intent, number one, is actually relevant.
		You know, a lot of times, you know, if it's inadvertent, it's harder to prosecute.
		You know, I think sharing operational details is probably another level of concern that rises, you know, that goes a step beyond mistakenly adding someone.
		But that could be construed, however, as gross negligence, right?
		So we'll see.
		I mean, I think there will be numerous investigations.
		And certainly if the House changes in the next election, I think we could see some serious investigations on the House side.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		We'll be taking your questions for Martha Miller about the signal leak and the national security implications of it.
		Our line for Democrats is 202-748-8000.
		For Republicans, 202-748-8001.
		And for Independents, 202748-8002.
		Now, Martha, at a press conference on Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi was asked by a reporter if the Department of Justice would investigate the signal chat case.
		Here's what she had to say.
unidentified		In terms of the signals chat controversy that's going on, is DOJ involved at this point?
		If so, why?
		If not, why not?
pam bondi ▲ ● ▼		Well, first, it was sensitive information, not classified, and inadvertently released.
		And what we should be talking about is it was a very successful mission.
		Our world is now safer because of that mission.
		We're not going to comment any further on that.
		If you want to talk about classified information, talk about what was at Hillary Clinton's home that she was trying to bleach bit.
		Talk about the classified documents in Joe Biden's garage that Hunter Biden had access to.
		This was not classified information.
		And we are very pleased with the results of that operation and that the entire world is safer because of it.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think of Attorney General Bondi's response there?
unidentified		You know, look, I think the Trump administration is disinclined to admit fault.
		You know, I think Mike Waltz certainly did step forward to say it was his fault for adding a journalist to it.
		But I think it will require a lot more pressure.
		from, frankly, from voters to make any shift here.
		I think it's highly likely that there will be no prosecution.
		I don't think there will be actual action taken.
		And I think ostensibly, even if that were to take place, I think then you have the presidential pardon, which is feasible, certainly within the realm of possibility as well.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What can we learn from the number and the positions of the people who were in this particular chat?
		Chief of staff Susie Wiles, Treasury Secretary Besant, joint chiefs of staff not involved?
		What do you think?
unidentified		You know, I think that they certainly, you know, folks who are on the chat and folks, you know, should raise their hand when they say, when they see something that shouldn't be, you know, hey, reminder, we're not on a classified system.
		And then, you know, others, you know, who may or may not have been in the chat, you know, look, this was not, this was a messy situation.
		Let's just put it that way.
		And, you know, someone should have checked to see who was in the chat.
		Someone should have raised their hand when they saw that, you know, hey, stop, did you forget that you're on an unclassified system.
pam bondi ▲ ● ▼		All right.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's get to some questions from our audience.
		Tom is in Eldon, Illinois on our line for Republicans.
		Good morning, Tom.
unidentified		Yeah, let me mute my TV a second.
		Yeah, I just want to say that Mike Waltz is on the Senate.
		He's on the House Select Intelligence Committee.
		He's on the Armed Services Personnel Committee.
		This just stinks like the Defense Department, the CIA.
		Newt Brindich said that the executive branch people that come in are just summer help.
		And these people that are running everything, this looks like a thing to make the Trump administration look inept.
		Mike Waltz looked like he's part of the deep Washington administration, and it just stinks to high heaven.
		Anyway, how could a guy that's doing all that, 12 years Congress, part of all this intelligence, make this mistake?
		It was a mistake.
		They just, they're running things.
		They kill presidents.
		They make wars.
		And the Trump is up against a huge wall of deep state administration.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Tom, before you go, I just want to make sure that we're clear on your point.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Are you saying that you think that this was intentionally done?
unidentified		How couldn't it be?
		This guy's part of the Select Intelligence Committee.
		How can he not know about how to run an intelligence chat?
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Would you like to respond to that?
unidentified		You know, look, he, you know, look, we're all human.
		We all make mistakes.
		I take your point.
		You know, yes, how could someone make that kind of mistake?
		But mistakes do happen.
		I think, you know, this is actually case in point.
		They are human beings just like we all are.
		And so my sense is it's highly embarrassing for him.
		He took responsibility for it in the sense that he admitted he shouldn't have done that, that it was reckless.
		So I guess I disagree.
		I don't think it was intentional.
		I think that he made a mistake that is quite embarrassing.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Rick is in Cottkill, New York on our line for independence.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Rick.
unidentified		Hi there.
		I just want to say I'm pretty sure that both China and Russia are sending folks over to our country to protect Trump's cabinet because if there was a problem and it broke out in the world, they would want the current administration in place to handle any issues.
		They would not want a competent group to maintain and handle any geopolitical problems.
		They would want the exact group in place maintaining their current positions and handling any issues that came up militarily.
		Thank you.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Any response to that?
unidentified		You know, I don't really have a response to that.
unidentified		I'm not sure what to say.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well, let's move to Steve in Webster, Massachusetts on our line for Republicans.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Steve.
unidentified		Okay, thanks for taking my call.
		I worked, I did 20 years active duty, Army, Intel.
		I worked for the government, blah, blah, blah.
		I noticed none of the first thing glaring on Signal.
		None of this stuff was portion marked.
		The thing is, has Signal been used before by other entities, governmental entities?
		And with that, I mean, if this is ubiquitously used, we're going to need a deep dive to see how much stuff has actually been compromised.
		Now, there was, you know, mission accomplished, we can say.
		The Houthis were destroyed.
		Yes, it was a mistake.
		But I would say that this was just flap on the wrist is what it deserves.
		We have bleed all the time in the agencies.
		It just happens.
		And this is not worth the problem.
		Yeah, it was a bad thing.
		Goldberg, I'll give him credit.
		He did the right thing by keeping it close to his chest until after the operation.
		But it is what it is.
		And I'm just wondering, are we going to get a deep dive into this as to how often this happens?
		How long has Signal been used?
		How much classified information, non-portion marked, has actually gone over it?
		I actually think that's a great point.
		You know, this is actually a wake-up call on several levels.
		I think certainly this calls for a review of the use of Signal and other possible messaging apps.
		And maybe also just the fact that security procedures writ large need to be improved.
		And certainly our leadership should be following the appropriate security procedures.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Ron is in Barrien Springs, Michigan, on our line for Democrats.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		Good morning, Ron.
unidentified		Good morning.
roger stone ▲ ● ▼		I think this was a setup by the Trump administration to try and take down Atlantic magazine and the reporters, Mr. Goldberg in particular, because he has been a spur in their saddlebag.
unidentified		And they were going to take down the magazine, destroy it, take it over.
		But this is all planned by the and it was also probably planned through Putin and his administration also, because you destroyed the coverage of this corrupt administration, this Russian Putin administration in D.C. right now.
		And when you no longer have any means to report on it, it's easier to install fascist imperialist martial law, plain and simple.
		You know, I think it can be tempting to come up with scenarios that to try to explain things.
		I think oftentimes the simple answer is actually the truth.
		And I think this is a situation of human error and poor judgment.
kimberly adams ▲ ● ▼		What do you think this incident will, or how do you think this incident will affect the willingness of U.S. allies to share sensitive information with the United States?
unidentified		Well, we've already heard from the Israelis, the British, and concerns among other allies about sharing intelligence.
		The Israelis were outraged, understandably, because we actually relied on their intelligence for this operation.
		Presumably, we were actually relying on human intelligence, which means that it could have put actual individuals in danger and probably obviously very valuable assets in danger, who I assume we would want to keep doing this work on the behalf of our national security interests.
		And the Europeans already, there's a bigger context at play.
		They are already very concerned about many of the statements and actions of the Trump administration.

▲