Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Intel Officials Testify After Stunning National Security Blunder; GOP Senate Armed Services Chair Confirms Plans to Investigate Trump Administration Group Chat Security Blunder; Some Democrats Call for Hegseth to Resign. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired March 26, 2025 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00]

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Had it not been Jeffrey Goldberg in that chat, had Mike Waltz inadvertently put a Russian contact in the chat, they could so easily have fed that information to the Houthis, who would have had significant advance warning about what was coming, prepared, and then possibly tried to shoot down and attack American service members.

MANU RAJU, CNN CO-HOST AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And what's been interesting in this hearing too, is that some of these officials have been covering themselves and how they handled it, not necessarily defending how Pete Hegseth handled it. Listen to John Ratcliffe, the CIA Director, talking about whether he shared classified information in that group chat.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN RATCLIFFE, CIA DIRECTOR: I used an appropriate channel to communicate sensitive information. It was permissible to do so. I didn't transfer any classified information. And at the end of the day, what is most important is that the mission was a remarkable success is what everyone should be focused on here, because that's what did happen, not what possibly could have happened.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: I used an inappropriate channel to communicate sensitive information.

SEUNG MIN KIM, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Like, in other words, I did not do anything wrong. Let's look elsewhere for the fault here. And I also find that last part of Ratcliffe's statement pretty interesting saying like, let's look at what did happen because that's for -- that's kind of the other line of defense that the administration and Trump allies are lining up behind. You know, Speaker Johnson just said, the messages The Atlantic released only prove that America is strong again.

But as Jim Himes pointed out earlier in today's hearing, it is by the grace of God that nothing worse happened. So that's why you kind of have Republicans just hanging on the fact that like, well, let's look at what did happen. Because they are lucky that nothing went wrong here.

RAJU: And the hearing just ended. This is about two-and-a-half hours this morning. They're now going to go into a closed session where they're going to get a further testimony, we'll see if they reveal anything. Yesterday, they did not actually reveal any of those additional text messages that were released by The Atlantic this morning. We'll see if they shed any more light.

But there was also these interesting moments yesterday and today with Tulsi Gabbard. She was asked about, whether she was aware in this group chat about whether there was discussion about timing and targets for the strikes that were about to occur in Yemen. And then yesterday, she said she was not aware and she was asked about that by Congressman Jim Himes earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: My answer yesterday was based on my recollection, or the lack thereof on the details that were posted there. I was not, and what was shared today reflects the fact that I was not directly involved with that part of the Signal chat.

REP. JIM HIMES, (D-CT): So, it's your testimony that less than two weeks ago, you were on a Signal chat that had all of this information about F-18s and MQ-9 Reapers and targets on strike. And you, in that two-week period, simply forgot that that was there. That's your testimony?

GABBARD: My testimony is, I did not recall the exact details of what was included there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: You would think that before you'd be asked this in a major hearing, you'd go back and review that Signal chat to make sure that you were aware of what was discussed.

MARQUARDT: In the same way that the CIA Director John Ratcliffe was very intentional by talking about his actions and what he did and how he participated in the chat, the use of 'I do not recall' and perhaps not going back and reviewing that also seemed very intentional and something that you would think a National Security Agency's lawyers would tell their principal. Why don't you leave this one be if you don't feel like you've got anything?

(LAUGH)

MARQUARDT: I think what's interesting is there is actually, and it's minor again, wording semantic details, Ratcliffe was very explicit and very short in his answers yesterday about those specific questions saying, 'I don't recall.' Gabbard went a little bit further and that's what Himes was talking about, and left herself open a little bit to needing to correct or at least being called on it today, now that the messages are out and that's the risk. RAJU: And yesterday, she refused to even say she was on the chat to begin with. Right? And then that was the beginning of the hearing. And then now, she has had a different response.

MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, and in The Atlantic story, that's essentially what they said, was they're essentially calling the bluff of all of these officials, saying if they're going to go out there and say things that we can disprove simply by publishing this information, and especially if they're going to claim that there's nothing about this information that would prevent it from being publicly disclosed, then OK, here's the information and let's call on them to explain it.

So you know, they clearly, some of them saw that as a possibility and others of them didn't in the way that they were covering themselves with their answers. But, the fact is that now that all of this is out, they're going to have to find some other explanation --

RAJU: Yeah.

BALL: -- because they can no longer claim that it has simply slipped their minds.

RAJU: Seung, when you cover the White House, how do you think Trump is going to handle this now? We've seen him sort of defend what happened, say that perhaps a low-level staffer added someone onto this group chat that Mike Waltz said that he's responsible. And now, we're seeing this Pete Hegseth and everything and the like (ph), what do we do -- do you think Trump is just going to try to move on and be defined and defend? Or he obviously doesn't like all this bad publicity as well?

MIN KIM: He doesn't like negative headlines; he doesn't like the appearance of incompetence. But I think you're right that we're going to continue to see those defiant kind of doubling down strategy.

[12:35:00]

You saw a little bit of that yesterday when he met with a group of ambassador nominees. He really defended Mike Waltz, said this was a mistake, he has learned from this issue, and kind of move on. And you see the line that's coming out of the White House today saying it was The Atlantic that got it wrong. And I'm sure, if we do see Trump later today, that you're going to be hearing that line. And obviously, Karoline Leavitt is going to be briefing this later this afternoon.

RAJU: Yeah.

MIN KIM: We'll be hearing that from her.

RAJU: And --

MARQUARDT: One more thing on the Ratcliffe, if it all, because he is kind of rejoicing today. He's saying I got it all right. The stuff that I put in the chat, that actually wasn't classified, that wasn't sensitive intelligence. I would argue that Jeffrey Goldberg was quite responsible in not putting what Ratcliffe said in there. He is also accusing Jeffrey Goldberg of saying that his chief of staff was a covert operative when in fact, she isn't. And so again, Goldberg is being quite careful there.

They are shifting that onus back onto Pete Hegseth about these questions of classification. But, I just want to highlight one very important thing that Ratcliffe said yesterday. He, in arguing that he did not put any classified information into that chat, he did go on to say that pre-decisional deliberations about a strike, so all the debate around a strike should be done in classified channels. Signal is not a classified channel.

RAJU: Yeah. There's no question about it. All right. What will the follow-up be? Who will be held accountable? Will anyone be held accountable? All big questions in the aftermath of this hearing. All right, so a lot more from this breaking news to discuss. We're coming up after a short break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:41:05]

RAJU: All right, the following breaking news on Trump administration's massive security blunder. The Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is now confirming he'll work with Democrats to move forward on an investigation. Roger Wicker says he's sending a letter to the White House on all of this. Now, that's where CNN's Jeff Zeleny is now.

So Jeff, what are you hearing from the White House and from whether Donald Trump was OK with this testimony that we heard from his nation's top security officials about that controversial group chat?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Manu, that certainly is interesting because Senator Wicker as you well know and you talk to him frequently, has been one of the few Republican voices of criticism, particularly when it comes to matters of defense and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. But as for the president, he appeared on a morning radio show this morning and he said there was nothing that was released that was classified, nothing that was compromised. But he also sounds like he is alarmed by actually how this came about. Also, not exactly sure what Signal may be.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Somebody in my group either screwed up or it's a bad signal. You know, it's a bad signal, happens to. But, it seems to be maybe he came in with a staffer and it was by accident from what we can tell. We'll know pretty much today I think, but we have some pretty good guys checking out the phones.

But, it's something that is not a big deal other than you want to find out who did it and how they did it because you don't want it to happen, you know, in the future. You can't have that happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So it's seemingly sounding like talking like a different kind of signal, like a telephone signal. Of course, this is a messaging app, but nevermind all that. The bottom line here is the White House and the president are pushing back against all of this criticism. Of course, they're taking a familiar page out of the Trump playbook and blaming the messenger and The Atlantic.

But behind all of that, there are still many questions here about how Jeffrey Goldberg got added onto this group conversation anyway. The National Security Advisor Mike Waltz was on Fox last night. He did not answer all those questions at all. So those questions, of course, will be front and center at the White House press briefing, which is coming up in the next hour. So, as of now, the White House is standing by all of their advisors, even as these questions remain.

But one advisor told me the president does not like being lied to or in the dark. We will see if he believes he has been any of those going forward. Manu?

RAJU: Yeah. And Jeff, as you mentioned, the president and the White House are trying to make this about The Atlantic reporter, but those text messages have been released. It is the own words of the officials themselves and Hegseth himself trying to carry out this mission. Have we got any sense from whether Trump will still have full confidence behind Hegseth?

ZELENY: That is a central question here, because they put so much political capital on the line to get him confirmed, as you well remember. So as of now, the White House and the president have not said anything negatively against him. But notably, the president is also, when he had the opportunity yesterday, to have Mike Waltz just a few feet away from him at the same table, he said he was supporting him.

Secretary Hegseth, of course, is traveling. He's still into Hawaii, heading to Asia. But the president has not offered any criticism, but notably has also not offered his full support. So there's no doubt the bottom line, when the defense secretary comes back from this Asia trip, he'll be answering some questions on Capitol Hill and likely from the White House as well. Manu?

RAJU: Yeah, we know that Trump, if he wanted to, he could post something right now on Truth Social and offer his full-throated defense of Pete Hegseth.

ZELENY: Sure.

RAJU: We'll see if he ultimately does that. Jeff Zeleny, live from the White House. Thank you so much. And I want to bring in Retired Army General Mark Kimmitt -- Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt to discuss all this.

[12:45:00]

General Kimmitt, thank you so much for joining me this afternoon. As you heard from that testimony, Gabbard and Ratcliffe, they repeated that there was no classified information in that chat. I want you to listen to what they said in the sworn testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: No, it wasn't classified as I understand it. There was no classified information. There was no problem, and the attack was a tremendous success.

GABBARD: There was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.

SEN. ANGUS KING (I-ME): So then, if there were no --

GABBARD: I'll reiterate that there was no classified material that was shared in that Signal chat.

KING: And if there's no classified in --

RATCLIFFE: My communications, to be clear, in a Signal message group were entirely permissible and lawful, and did not include classified information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: So General, when you see those texts and you see Hegseth talking about the timing of these strikes and the like, is there any doubt in your mind that the information would be classified?

BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT (RET.), FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS: Well, there are two different questions here. Was the information classified? The secretary of defense is the classification authority. So if he says it's not classified, then it's not classified. That's not the relevant question. The relevant question is, should it have been classified? Look, the United States military is always careful to protect tactics, techniques, and procedures because we feel that if the adversary, if the enemy knows our TTPs, that gives them a decided advantage.

As I look at what was put out there, there were simply and clearly tactics, techniques, and procedures that, if they weren't classified, a responsible classification authority would say, let's classify this information.

RAJU: And the White House is trying to make a distinction between "war plans" and "attack plans" as they try to discredit The Atlantic. And so, just here are some of the posts from the White House press secretary and deputy chief of staff who posted The Atlantic was already abandoned in their "war plans" narrative, underlining the words "attack plans" in The Atlantic headline. So, what is the distinction between war plans and attack plans? Or is there really just not a distinction without a difference?

KIMMITT: Oh, there's a distinction with a difference. I was a war planner in Germany and at U.S. Syncom. War plans are preparatory plans that come in excruciating detail that are ready to conduct an operation in the future. They are plans; they're not operations. But when you take that plan and you say, let's execute it, then it becomes an op or it becomes an operation. Candidly, it is the case that war plans are probably less sensitive because they are speculative in nature. Operations plans, which we saw released as part of these texts, clearly, are less speculative, more active, and put more and more soldiers and sailors and airmen at risk.

RAJU: And the Ranking Democrat on the Committee, Jim Himes said, "I think it's by the awesome grace of God that we are not mourning dead pilots right now." Do you agree with that assessment?

KIMMITT: No. I don't agree with that assessment. I think that's a little bit inflammatory. The fact remains that Signal is a very secure app. It was very unlikely that information would've got out, but it does go to the central point, which is it is a good thing that the information didn't get out. And let's learn from that and just not do it again.

RAJU: What kind of accountability do you think should happen here, given that we saw this, what's happened in this chat and people are calling for Secretary Hegseth or the National Security Advisor Michael Waltz to resign. What do you make of those calls? Do you agree with that, or what do you think should happen?

KIMMITT: Look, I think that this "no falls, no error cancel culture that we live in" would cause somebody to say, let's get rid of these guys right away. I don't believe that. I came up in an army that was somewhat forgiving of mistakes that were made unintentionally, and did not create any harm. There may be some political rush to try to send these people down the river. But I would have a much higher standard before I would consider relieving any commanders or any staff officers for what I saw here.

RAJU: Do you think that secretary of defense should at least own up to a mistake here? He's been sort of defiant so far. Should he -- should he own up to it?

KIMMITT: Well, come on. We all know the old axiom, the cover-up is worse than the crime. And the fact is the crime was significant but not deadly. But the cover-up or the pushing back on this, I think is probably something that doesn't show a lot of maturity and people ought to think very hard about it. Just admit the screw up, fix it. Don't do it again. Don't try to turn this in -- on either side of the aisle, don't try to turn this into a political maelstrom.

[12:50:00]

RAJU: All right. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, thank you so much for joining me this afternoon. Really appreciate your expertise.

KIMMITT: Thanks for having me.

RAJU: And we'll -- absolutely. And we will be right back with more of breaking news from this pretty remarkable hearing from this morning.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) RAJU: Welcome back. We are continuing to dig into this fiery hearing from this morning in which Democrats in particular, went after the top administration officials in the aftermath of this group chat that occurred on the platform Signal, in the aftermath of the release of additional text messages by the reporters from The Atlantic, with their reporter Jeffrey Goldberg who was on that chain that showed Pete Hegseth, the Defense Secretary, talking about plans to strike in Yemen against those Houthi targets.

[12:55:20]

Now, Democrats in this hearing were the ones who really voiced the frustration, a taste of what they said just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO (D-TX): Well, the idea that this information, if it was presented to our committee, would not be classified, you all know is a lie. That's ridiculous.

REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): It is completely outrageous to me, completely outrageous to me that the administration officials come before us today with impunity.

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): This text message is clearly classified information. Secretary Hegseth has disclosed military plans as well as classified information. He needs to resign immediately.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Meantime, they said, the administration said these are not classified information and Republicans, for the most part, either defended the handling of all this, said that no, there were no "war plans," or they steered the subject to completely different topics altogether.

BALL: In the context of the hearing, yes, but we are not hearing total Republican unanimity on Capitol Hill of the, you know, the letter that was already discussed from Senator Wicker. That is going to prolong this because he wants real answers, not just semantic quibbles. You know, moderate Republicans such as Don Bacon have also expressed displeasure with this situation.

RAJU: He said his security clearance would be removed because he was a former Air Force official if he did the exact same thing, Don Bacon.

BALL: Exactly. And there's a lot of Republicans who have military backgrounds who, whether they're willing to say it publicly or not, can look at this situation and say, wait a second, something went wrong here. There has to be some kind of accountability or at least some kind of explanation.

So the fact that there are still lingering questions, the fact that so many other administration officials, as we've been discussing today, have put it on Pete Hegseth, and he still has not been before any committee. He still has not really answered questions about his role in all this, I think, is only going to prolong this story and keep it going as more and more lawmakers from both sides of the aisle look to get these questions answered.

RAJU: What -- what's the fallout going to be for Hegseth?

MARQUARDT: Honestly, my biggest question right now is what the IG investigation that has been called for, what Senator Roger Wicker, the Senate Armed Services Committee Chair, and what any Republican in a position of authority on Capitol Hill demand or try and draw out. To the extent that continues or is maintained over a period of time, Hegseth is going to have to answer questions, whether in closed session, whether by phone, or whether in a public hearing. And would get to go out on a limb and say it's probably not going to be a public hearing anytime soon. But how he answers those questions and I think frankly, we're going to start in four minutes when Karoline Leavitt is scheduled to start a press briefing.

The administration either needs to understand what the majority leader in the U.S. Senate is telling them, admit it, move on. It's not a huge deal. Nothing bad happened. Focus on the operation. Or they are going to be fighting this battle for days and days and days to come. And that is something Republicans aren't going to appreciate and they're going to hear about it.

RAJU: In meantime, the speaker of the house just made some comments and said, the messages The Atlantic released to only prove that America is strong again. President Trump's national security leaders are patriots who collaborate and then act decisively to take out terrorists. A welcome needed change after four years of weakness from President Biden. So that's the divided Republicans bus, people like Roger Wicker, national security types, who want answers and people like Mike Johnson who are rallying the troops.

MIN KIM: Right. Exactly. And the dynamic to remember for Senators is that when you're voting to confirm someone, you are vouching for their credibility. And we know how contentious and controversial the big Pete Hegseth nomination hearing was, and all these people who voted for him said, this guy is lead to -- you know, qualified to lead the Pentagon. And I'm sure some of those members are looking at their votes right now and saying, you know, Pete Hegseth might have to take some responsibility because what he did was not right.

RAJU: I mean, Wicker did say this morning, Chairman Roger Wicker of the Senate Armed Service Committee, he ushered him through, Hegseth through the confirmation process.

MARQUARDT: Expended lot of capital.

RAJU: A lot of capital.

BALL: Exactly. Yeah.

RAJU: But he did say today that he does not think he should resign, at least not yet.

BALL: And this is not the first time that Senator Wicker has taken issue with things that the secretary of defense, who, as you say, he ushered through that process, has done. He has objected to the secretary's characterization of what is happening in Ukraine. He has also objected to some of the things they want to do with restructuring the chain of command. So, I think it's fair to say that Senator Wicker has a fair number of concerns with Pete Hegseth, and he's got some clout here. He's going to demand those answers.

RAJU: Yeah. And it's interesting to see Johnson's response and John Thune's response, the two Republican leaders not on the same page in the aftermath of this controversy. All right, great discussion guys. There's so much more news. Thank you for joining "Inside Politics."

[13:00:00]