President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), made clear in his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday that he believes Russia was involved in hacks leading up to the U.S. presidential election in an attempt to undermine America’s democratic credibility. “It’s a long-standing effort of the Russians,” Pompeo said, adding that there are others out there engaged in similar activities against the U.S.
“This was an aggressive action taken by the senior leadership in Russia,” he said.
Pompeo also made clear that these actions require an “incredibly robust American response.” That means, building up the capabilities of the United States to defend against these kinds of attacks and reacting in a manner which holds the perpetrators accountable, explained Pompeo.
Pompeo’s stark attitude toward Russia raises the question of whether he will be at loggerheads with the President-elect on issues – like Russia – and how he will potentially stand-up to Mr. Trump.
After months of denying Russian involvement and criticizing the Intelligence Community assessment, Trump publicly stated on Wednesday, “I think it was Russia,” although he added, “it could have been others also.”
When asked by Senator Angus King (I-ME) if he can commit to giving the future President unpleasant news that may be inconsistent with his policy preferences, Pompeo responded affirmatively, saying, “I can tell you that I have assured the President-elect that I’ll do that” and that his role as CIA Director is only effective if he is always “straight-up.”
Senators also questioned Pompeo about Trump’s disparaging remarks about the Intelligence Community. Pompeo noted he doesn’t think Trump’s comments have caused “low morale” across the community, but he does think these “spirited warriors” of intelligence want to get out of the political spotlight and simply perform their functions.
“This is a world-class intelligence service that if confirmed, I am humbled to have the opportunity to lead,” said Pompeo.
Toward the end of the hearing, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) asked Pompeo what the greatest threat to America is right now. “Terrorism as it extends into the homeland,” he answered. Although ISIS and al Qaeda are the biggest and most immediate concerns right now, he said threats coming from North Korea, China, and Russia also top the list. The nuclear powers are the ones that have the greatest ability to do the most catastrophic harm to America, he added.
Regarding controversial positions Pompeo has taken in the past on enhanced interrogation methods, the Iran nuclear deal, and mass surveillance, Pompeo consistently said he would always follow the rule of law and current policies approved by Congress.
Cipher Brief Managing Editor Pam Benson spoke with former CIA and NSA Director General Michael Hayden about Pompeo’s performance at the hearing and about the relationship between a President and his CIA Director.
The Cipher Brief: What struck you about the hearing?
Gen. Michael Hayden: I thought he was confident, and knowledgeable and frankly there was genuine enthusiasm about being there, and being selected for this job which is not something you normally see in these kinds of hearings. That struck me: confident, knowledgeable, and genuine enthusiasm about going to CIA.
TCB: Which I would gather sits well with the CIA workforce?
MH: I think he did very well for himself with the workforce today. I don’t know that he can deliver the administration in terms of, please stop saying these things, but he certainly would have impressed the workforce. Something I noticed several times in the parts I saw, when asked about what the CIA would do, he said we, not they or not the agency, we. He’s already embraced being part of this team. It wasn’t the third person, them, and it wasn’t first person singular, I. It was we. I think that will be noticed.
He also had a great line. He said these people will walk through fire for you.
TCB: Getting into some of the specifics of the hearing, Pompeo talked a lot about how he will stand up to Trump when intelligence assessment might not be in line with the President’s policies. Based on your knowledge of the two individuals and the dynamics of the relationship between the President and the CIA Director, how do you think Pompeo will react when his Agency disagrees with the President and/or the National Security Advisor?
MH: I do think he will, he said he would represent the Agency’s views and he will follow the facts where ever they lead, is one thing I’ve written down. He also has the responsibility of getting those facts into the heads of what sometimes might be a hostile audience. So it’s going to require some skill on his part to craft the message in a way that is not immediately oft putting or alienating to the first client or the National Security Advisor. That’s different from not telling them the truth, or being reluctant to report unpleasant facts to them.
TCB: Yesterday, Trump alluded to living in a Nazi state because of what he claimed were leaks by the Intelligence Community. You previously told The Cipher Brief that Pompeo’s biggest challenge would be to stand up for a workforce against a backdrop of a President who disparages them. Given all that has been said, is this a workable relationship?
MH: It’s less workable today than it was before the Nazi comment. And I’m sure Congressman Pompeo was quite disappointed to have that said the day before he’s got to testify, the day before, frankly, most of the Agency gets to see him for the first time, during the hearing. I don’t think it’s yet irrecoverable. But it’s less recoverable today than it was before the Nazi comment, which was particularly unwarranted, because frankly, I’m convinced nobody in the Intelligence Community leaked the document. It wouldn’t have been theirs to leak. And the document has been around town for two months. They didn’t have to leak it.
TCB: Given all the leaks that have occurred in this situation, is it unreasonable for Trump to be suspicious, to feel targeted, and therefore be distrustful?
MH: I was watching (columnist) David Ignatius this morning on Morning Joe, and Scarborough was pursuing this line of inquiry. And David answered perfectly. He said it’s not the intel guys who leaked. It’s their clients who leaked. And so everything here has been briefed to people downtown. It’s been briefed to the gang of eight on the Hill. So why would you – why would anyone – presume it’s the intelligence guys who were leaking this information? And I guess that’s often the thought, for the new team. Get used to it. Welcome to the big leagues. This is what happens.
I remember instances where we would debrief something, and then 24, 36, 48 hours later, it would be leaked – not by us. And I would turn to Steve Kappes, my deputy, and say well that didn’t take very long did it? And it wasn’t the intel guys who were doing the leaking. And Ignatius pointed that out. He didn’t quite say it, but he as much as said, they’re not my sources.
TCB: I guess in this day and age it come with the territory now the expectation that something will be leaked.
MH: Yes, we know it. They’re making a lot of it and there is some legitimacy in it. But it’s not like this is new.
TCB: Pompeo seemed to say all the right things: Russia was behind the hacks; aggressive action needs to be taken against Russia; terrorism is a priority; he’ll stand up to Trump; even though he was against the Iran deal, he acknowledged his role has changed. Was this just theatre? Can the CIA director be more activist in setting policy even if it goes against what his analysts are telling him?
The phrase I’ve always used is: intel guys create the right and left-hand boundaries of legitimate policy discussion. If the policy decision is really way outside those lines, then he has really got to say something. But for the most part, the correct policy doesn’t follow like a syllogism from the intelligence laydown. The intel laydown sets the broad parameters where logical discussion should go. And I should add, intelligence is only one of several legitimate inputs into a President’s decision making.
He has got to make that message clear – and frankly, he owes it to the President and the National Security Advisor to say, “you are basing your policy on a worldview or an assumption that we believe is not warranted.”
You’ve got to say it.
TCB: Any other points?
MH: He was asked questions about privacy, and he showed some depth in how he responded – in understanding both the security and the liberty question. I liked that very much.
He pinned the blame for the Russian hack on the Russian senior leadership, which is quite inconsistent with what the President-elect has been saying. And frankly, he, (Defense Secretary nominee James) Mattis and (Secretary of State nominee Rex) Tillerson have said a whole series of things that have been inconsistent with what we’ve been hearing from the President-elect.
He was asked about modernization, and I thought he gave a very good answer. He said “well we’ll have to see, we’re still in the shakedown cruise.” The objectives were noble but frankly he was reserving the right to make some decisions with regard to it.
Again, he looked comfortable, so I thought it was a strong performance. The people at the Agency are worried; he did what he could today. I don’t know how he could have performed any better. But, to answer your earlier question, is that enough to calm them down? Probably not. But certainly enough to have them accept him as someone they would want to work for, and with.
TCB: However, the President? Something else.
MH: Um, yeah! He (Pompeo) can’t promise them he can deliver. He can’t promise that he can make him (Trump) stop saying these sorts of things.
Kaitlin Lavinder is a reporter at The Cipher Brief. Follow her on Twitter @KaitLavinder.
