On Thursday’s “CNN News Central,” former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson stated that DNI nominee Tulsi Gabbard deserves careful scrutiny, but “on occasion, it’s a good thing to be skeptical of the intelligence that we’re provided. Those of us who are in a position of making serious decisions, policymakers. I have received intelligence that I’ve been skeptical of, and I’ve asked the hard questions. I’ve asked to speak to the briefers directly who wrote the report. So, being skeptical of what the intelligence community produces can be a good thing.”
Co-host Sara Sidner asked, “Let me ask you about another nomination, Tulsi Gabbard, for the job of director of national intelligence, meaning she oversees all of the intelligence agencies. … She has spread Russian propaganda. She has challenged the intelligence on whether President Assad used chemical weapons, which the intelligence said he had certainly done. And now she’s in this position to potentially head the high intelligence agency — over all intelligence agencies. What does this mean to you?”
Johnson responded, “Well, I’m going to surprise you a little bit. I don’t think that it is an absolute prerequisite that the director of national intelligence be someone of the intelligence community. I also believe that, on occasion, it’s a good thing to be skeptical of the intelligence that we’re provided. Those of us who are in a position of making serious decisions, policymakers. I have received intelligence that I’ve been skeptical of, and I’ve asked the hard questions. I’ve asked to speak to the briefers directly who wrote the report. So, being skeptical of what the intelligence community produces can be a good thing. I’m thinking of the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War, for example. But again, I believe that the Senate has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on this nomination and scrutinize it carefully.”
Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett
