Closing summary
Gina Haspel, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the CIA, defended her record and pledged that under her leadership the agency would “never, ever” restart the brutal interrogation program like the one she helped run in 2002. But after a nearly three-hour confirmation hearing on Wednesday morning, the fate of her confirmation remains uncertain.
Several prominent senators have already indicated that they are likely to object over her role in the CIA’s use of torture and it’s unclear if her testimony was enough to overcome their objections.
During the hearing, Democrats on the committee sought to extract commitments from Haspel, who, if confirmed, would be the first woman to run the agency, while Republicans widely praised her years of service.
This afternoon she will testify again before the committee in a closed-door hearing, where senators can ask her questions related to classified intelligence.
- Haspel vowed that under her leadership the CIA would not restart an interrogation program that employed torture techniques. “I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral, even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it.”
- In exchanges with senators, Haspel was both defensive and evasive when pressed to expound on her views on the morality of the CIA’s use of torture. She repeatedly refused to characterize the program in hindsight as “immoral”. “My moral compass is strong,” she said.
- Asked if she agreed with Donald Trump’s assessment that torture is an effective means of obtaining information, Haspel said: “I don’t believe that torture works.” But she added that valuable information was gained from the al-Qaida detainees who were subjected to the interrogation techniques.
- Haspel refused to say that she would inform the committee if Trump asked her for a pledge of loyalty, insisting the scenario was unlikely.
- She said she agreed with the conclusion that Russia interfered with the US presidential election to help elect Trump.
- Haspel disputed the assessment that she is the unidentified person referenced as the head of the agency’s interrogation program in a book by longtime CIA lawyer John Rizzo. “I did not run the interrogation department,” she said.
- Democrats accused Haspel of refusing to declassify sensitive information about her career that might be damaging to her nomination buts he dismissed their calls for more transparency.
Read David Smith’s full report:
Updated
Burr adjourns the hearing by telling Haspel that she “may in fact be the most qualified nominee ever nominated for this role” and says she’s poised to “crack” the glass ceiling at the agency.
Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican who sits on the committee, announced before the hearing’s conclusion that he will support Haspel.
“Gina Haspel is a career intelligence officer who has served over 30 years with the CIA, and combated both communist threats and terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. She is perhaps the most highly qualified person ever nominated for this crucial national security position. Her nomination has the support of six former CIA Directors who have served under presidents of both parties, and I look forward to her rapid confirmation on the Senate floor,” Rubio said in a statement.
“I implore my colleagues not to play politics with this essential nomination, and to consider what message that would send to the thousands of patriotic personnel serving our nation at agencies in Washington and around the globe, as well as what message that would send to our adversaries and those who seek us harm.”
Burr and Warner are making their closing remarks. There will be a closed hearing after this public one ends, where senators can ask questions related to classified information.
A brief heated exchange erupted between Warner and Cotton, who criticized his colleagues remarks. Cotton interrupted Warner as he delivered his concluding comments and Burr hit the gavel to silenece him.
Updated
Another protester is taken put by Capitol Police. Got pretty heated. pic.twitter.com/rEux5alXMz
— Emma Loop (@LoopEmma) May 9, 2018
Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat of Rhode Island, asks what she would say to the president if he asked for a personal pledge of loyalty.
“My only loyalty is to the American people and the constitution of the United States. I am honor-bound,” she says.
Reed asked if she was approached by Trump in such a way, if she would inform Congress. Haspel does not agree to do so.
“I don’t believe that such a circumstance would ever occur,” she says, even though former FBI director James Comey - who was abruptly fired exactly one year ago - testified before Congress that Trump had sought to extract a pledge of loyalty from him.
Senator Kamala Harris, a Democrat from California and a former prosecutor, asks Haspel whether she believes torture techniques are immoral.
Haspel sidesteps the question each time. Harris asks for a yes or no and she will not give it.
Harris: “Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were immoral?”
Haspel: “I think I’ve answered the question.”
Harris: “No you have not.”
Haspel repeatedly declines to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether previous interrogation techniques were "immoral" https://t.co/2MMmZpk0Jd
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) May 9, 2018
Does torture work, Harris asks.
“I don’t believe that torture works,” she says but doesn’t directly but then says the program led to the extraction of “valuable information” and its unknowable whether “enhanced interrogation techniques played a role in that”.
Updated
Senator Tom Cotton, a staunchly conservative Republican from Arkansas and an Iraq war veteran, used his time to critique his colleagues comments and views. He asks how many Democrats would support Haspel if she was nominated by Barack Obama. He jokes that she does not have to answer.
Cotton, who boasts a close relationship with Trump, was reportedly considered as a possible replacement for Mike Pompeo, the former CIA director who now serves as Secretary of State.
Tom Cotton preparing for his future CIA directorship.
— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) May 9, 2018
Updated
Next up is Senator Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat whose vote may be pivotal to her confirmation. Haspel sat down with Manchin this week, and on Wednesday morning she hugged the Democrat upon entering the room earlier, which some observers interpreted as a positive sign.
His praise for her – Manchin said he boasts about the clandestine service to his West Virginia voters – suggest that just may be the case.
WEST VIRGINIA:
— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) May 9, 2018
Haspel and Manchin pic.twitter.com/NbKSDCQcX4
Updated
Asked by Maine Independent Angus King whether she agrees with the Intelligence Community’s 2017 assessment that Russia meddled in the US presidential election to help Donald Trump win the US presidency, Haspel says: “I do.”
Hearing is interrupted by a protester who shouts: "No, the question is what do you do to human beings in US custody? How do you treat human beings in US custody? Bloody Gina, bloody Gina, bloody Gina! You are a torturer." (She is escorted out by police.)
— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) May 9, 2018
In an exchange, Heinrich presses Haspel to say whether torturing terrorism suspects in post-9/11 period was morally right. She does not answer directly but defends her “moral compass”.
“We should hold ourselves to a stricter moral standards, and I would never allow CIA to be involved in coercive interrogations,” she tells him.
“Where was that moral compass at the time?” he replies.
“In all of my assignments I have conducted myself honorably and in accordance with US law. My parents raised me right. I know the difference between right and wrong,” she replies.
Haspel also says that in hindsight she would not support the order to destroy the tapes in 2005.
Haspel says she would no longer support the destruction of tapes that occurred in 2005; she told Heinrich privately she supported it at the time
— Manu Raju (@mkraju) May 9, 2018
Updated
Haspel on torture: 'We’re not getting back in that business'
Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, asks what she would do if Trump ordered her to waterboard a high value suspect
“Senator, I would advise - I do not believe the president would ask me to do that,” she says, taking a long pause. “But we have today in the US government other US government entities that conduct interrogations. ... CIA is not the right place to conduct interrogations.”
“CIA does not today conduct investigations. We never did historically and we’re not getting back in that business.”
Senator Martin Heinrich, a Democrat from New Mexico, follows up, saying she did not answer the question about what she would do if Trump ordered her to waterboard a detainee.
“I would not restart under any circumstances an interrogation program at CIA, under any circumstances,” she says.
Updated
Haspel gets defensive during a testy back-and-forth with Democratic senator Ron Wyden, a strident opponent of her nomination.
“After 9/11, I didn’t look to go to the Swiss desk. I stepped up. I was not on the sidelines,” she said.
Feinstein asks whether Haspel is the person, referenced in a book by longtime senior CIA lawyer John Rizzo, who “has previously run the interrogation program”.
“Is that you?” Feinstein asked.
Haspel: “I’m so pleased you asked me that question.”
Feinstein: “A yes or no will do.”
Haspel: “No.”
Haspel emphatically denies that she is that person in the book and says that a correction has been issued.
The book has been the source of much debate. Rizzo initially reaffirmed his contention in the book that Haspel “ran” the interrogation program but he later walked that back.
In an email to the Daily Beast’s Spencer Ackerman last month, Rizzo said: “After reading your story, and upon further reflection, I want to make clear that I never intended to suggest in my book that Gina Haspell was in charge of CIA’s interrogation program. She was not. I have nothing further to say on this subject other than to stress that I fully support her nomination to be CIA Director.”
Haspel points to a story in the Washington Post that explains the contention over the book. Read that here.
Haspel also declines to answer a question from Feinstein about whether she oversaw the waterboarding of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at the black site prison in Thailand. Haspel says the answer is classified.
Feinstein also asked: “Were you an advocate for destroying the (CIA interrogation) tapes?”
Haspel replied: “Senator, I absolutely was an advocate if we could within and conforming to US law.”
Updated
Next up is Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, and one of the members of the committee who has pressed the CIA for more transparency from the CIA over her history.
Feinstein said the CIA declassified only select pieces of information while keeping damaging parts “under wraps”.
Feintstein says she likes Haspel personally but finds the hearing to be “probably the most difficult hearing in my more than two decades that I have ever sat in”.
Updated
Senator James Risch, a Republican of Idaho, spends the majority of his five minutes for questions praising Haspel and recalling meeting her in the field. He does eventually ask a question about the tension between the various agencies within the intelligence community and the congressional committees charged with overseeing them.
"I will sleep better at night knowing you are directing these efforts," Sen. Risch tells Gina Haspel when pledging to support her nomination
— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) May 9, 2018
Why do senators charged with assessing and confirming senior officials use their question time to shower nominees with unrestrained praise?
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) May 9, 2018
Updated
Haspel: I would never, ever take CIA back to an interrogation program
Warner: With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the interrogation program was consistent with American values?”
Haspel doesn’t answer directly and Warner follows up, pressing her to reveal her “moral code.”
She responds again: “I would never, ever take CIA back to an interrogation program. First of all, CIA follows the law. We followed the law then, we follow the law today. I support the law. I wouldn’t support a change in the law.”
Warner comes back – what would you do if the president asks you to do something you find “morally objectionable”?
Haspel: “My moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I thought was immoral even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it.”
Warner: So you wouldn’t follow the president’s order?
Haspel: “No, I believe that CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values.”
Updated
Burr begins the round of questioning by asking Haspel to explain her role in the destruction of videotapes that depicted brutal interrogations.
Haspel maintained that the decision to destroy the recordings was made by her boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, who was the director of the agency’s clandestine service.
“Mr Rodriguez has been very up front on a number of occasions publicly that he and he alone made the decision to destroy the tapes. I would also make it clear that I did not appear on the tapes as has been mischaracterized in the press.”
She said a review found that there was no legal requirement to keep the tapes. She said multiple investigations concluded that she was not at fault and her actions and my decisions were consistent with my obligations as an agency officer.
Updated
Haspel: I would "not restart" CIA interrogation program
Haspel: “I have views on this issue and I want to be clear. Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership CIA will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.”
Answers from Haspel to the intel committee's questions. Among them, "Published Writing and Speeches: none." Life in the shadows. https://t.co/UDbzss4Kud
— Shane Harris (@shaneharris) May 9, 2018
Haspel is now under oath and will deliver her prepared remarks.
“I am here because I have been nominated to lead the extraordinary men and women at the Central Intelligence Agency –men and women who are our country’s silent warriors”.
The career spy introduces herself to the committee as a Kentucky-raised military brat. “I don’t have any social media accounts, but otherwise I think you will find me to be a typical middle-class American.”
After a globetrotting career as an undercover spy, very little is actually known about Haspel’s life. The CIA has declassified specific details about her life.
Updated
Warner: Will you stand up to Trump?
Warner presses Haspel about how she would react if Trump pushed her to “carry out some morally questionable behavior that might seem to violate a law or treaty”.
How will you respond if a secret DOJ opinion authorizes such behavior and gives you a “get out of jail free” card? On that day, if you are ordered to take actions that are inconsistent with American values, will you say “yes” and follow orders? Will you keep Congress in the dark?” ...
This President seems incapable or unwilling to accept facts that might contradict his views or his policy preferences. Indeed, there have been those in the Administration – even some of the President’s own appointees – who have been attacked for telling a truth in public that contradicts the White House narrative. You simply cannot allow the prospects of such attacks to dissuade you in any way.
Trump has said that torture and in particular, a technique known as waterboarding, “absolutely works”. He has also suggested that the US should “take out” the families of terrorists in order to win the fight against ISIS.
Updated
Senator Mark Warner, the vice chair of the committee and a Democrat from Virginia, says in his opening remarks:
Many people – and I include myself in that number – have questions about the message the Senate would be sending by confirming someone for this position who served as a supervisor in the Counter Terrorism Center during the time of the Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation program.
Ms. Haspel has acknowledged the history of the program. She has stated that the law has changed and that the RDI program is no longer legal. She has committed to upholding the law.
I appreciate that, but it is not enough. The secrecy inherent in the CIA’s work demands that the Director honor and follow the law – particularly in the dark spaces where the IC often operates, and when the glaring light of public scrutiny is nonexistent. No one should get credit simply for agreeing to follow the law—that’s the very least we should expect from any nominee, and certainly from the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Warner: "I expect you to look for reasons to read us in, rather than look for excuses to keep us out of the loop."
— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) May 9, 2018
Updated
Burr: This hearing is about Haspel, not torture
Burr, a Republican from North Carolina, offers high praise for Haspel in his opening remarks: “You are without a doubt the most qualified person the President could have chosen to lead the CIA and the most prepared nominee in its 70 year history.”
He seeks to neutralize criticism about her record and background:
“Some may seek to turn this hearing into a trial about a long-shuttered program. This hearing is not about programs already addressed by executive order, legislation, and the court of law. It’s about the woman seated in front of us.”
“Those who have issues with programs or operations conducted years ago should address those concerns and their questions to presidents to former presidents, former directors, and former attorney generals. This hearing is about how you’ll lead the central intelligence agency into the future not how you’ve faithfully executed missions in the past.”
Updated
Protesters told: 'If there are outbursts, you'll be cleared from the room'
Intelligence committee chairman Richard Burr opens the hearing with a stern warning to protesters: “I will not be lenient. If there are outbursts you will be cleared from the room and it will be done immediately.
“So,” Burr tells protesters who might plan to interrupt the hearing, “for the benefits of members and for the benefit of our witness, do it fast, do it early and be gone.”
Updated
Gina Haspel has arrived in 216 Hart for her confirmation hearing. She will be introduced by former members of the Senate Intelligence Committee Evan Bayh, a Democrat of Indiana, and Saxby Chambliss, Republican from Georgia and former vice chairman of the panel.
Updated
Scenes from inside and outside the hearing room where Haspel is due to appear shortly.
Protestors are outside the Senate office building where Gina Haspel’s hearing is being held this morning pic.twitter.com/SNjixdwFkv
— Chris Megerian (@ChrisMegerian) May 9, 2018
At Senate intelligence committee hearing on Gina Haspel’s nomination for CIA director. At least eight protesters are in the public gallery. pic.twitter.com/i8IuXiMCKa
— David Smith (@SmithInAmerica) May 9, 2018
Smith reports that the the Code Pink protestors chant: “Don’t reward torture! Don’t reward torture!”
“A US Capitol police officer replies: “You are all under arrest.” Scuffles break out as police start removing protesters.”
Updated
Haspel prepares for confirmation hearing
Gina Haspel, Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, is set to appear before the Senate intelligence committee for her confirmation hearing at 9.30am in what is expected to be a public reckoning of a dark chapter in American history.
Whether Haspel is confirmed is likely to depend on how well she responds to a battery of pointed questions from Senators who are demanding more details about her time overseeing a secret, post-9/11 detention site in Thailand where terror suspects were brutally interrogated using techniques widely condemned as torture. Senators will also ask her to explain her support for destroying videotapes that documented the interrogations of the inmates.
In excerpts of prepared remarks released ahead of the hearing, Haspel planned to tell senators that she would not allow such a program to be re-started under her leadership.
I understand that what many people around the country want to know about are my views on CIA’s former detention and interrogation program. I have views on this issue, and I want to be clear. Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership CIA will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.
Haspel, 61, is a 33-year veteran of the agency where she currently serves as the acting director. If confirmed, Haspel would be the first woman to lead the CIA, but her confirmation rests on a divided Senate.
Despite strong support from former top members of the intelligence community, her record has drawn fierce condemnation and on Wednesday more than 100 former US ambassadors who severed under Republican and Democratic administrations signed a letter opposing her nomination.
Haspel is reported to have offered to withdraw her nomination, but was reassured by presidential aides that she had the admisnrtation’s full support.
The hearing is expected to be contentious and perhaps may yet hold a few surprises. The New York Times is reporting that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the 9/11 attacks who was tortured by the CIA, has asked a military judge at Guantánamo Bay for permission to provide “six paragraphs” of information about Haspel with the committee.
The Guardian will follow the hearing live with oberservations from inside the hearing from Washington Bureau chief David Smith and analysis from world affairs editor Julian Borger.
To read more about what to expect from today’s hearing, Borger has the details here
And here’s more about the administration’s support for Haspel
And here’s a bit more background about the would-be first female boss of the CIA by Guardian reporter Amanda Holpuch
And here’s opinion writer James Cavallaro on why Haspel is “perfect” for the job.
Updated
.jpg?w=600)
