Wyden: CIA Nominee Ratcliffe "has a record of ignoring the law ... and misrepresenting basic facts"
As prepared for delivery
Watch a video of Wyden deliver his remarks here
I speak today to oppose the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. I often vote for nominees who have different policy views than I do, but my concerns with Mr. Ratcliffe are much deeper than that. In 2020, I opposed his confirmation to be Director of National Intelligence because of his partisanship and willingness to say whatever might please Donald Trump. Unfortunately, John Ratcliffe’s actions as DNI only confirmed my concerns.
But I want to focus today on John Ratcliffe’s commitment to the law and his truthfulness with Congress. I’ll give just a couple examples that illustrate my concerns.
In 2019, Congress passed a law requiring the Director of National Intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible for the brutal murder of Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi. In 2020, after John Ratcliffe was nominated to be DNI, I asked him at his confirmation hearing whether he intended to follow that law. He responded that he needed to take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be released, which is not the same thing as saying he would do what the law required.
After Director Ratcliffe was confirmed as DNI he decided that nothing more could be declassified about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman approved the operation to capture or kill Khashoggi.
The public only has the facts today because, after the 2020 election, DNI Avril Haines abided by the law and released the report. But while John Ratcliffe was DNI, Saudi leadership was protected from public accountability.
While he was DNI, Director Ratcliffe wrote to multiple members of Congress saying that he had completed his review of the intelligence and then determined that nothing more could be released. And, despite the fact that the U.S. Congress had passed a law, Director Ratcliffe insisted that there was only “marginal” public interest in declassification. He wrote all this in three letters – to me, to Acting Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner, and to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.
All of this raises questions about John Ratcliffe’s commitment to the law. I also have concerns about his truthfulness with Congress.
As part of this nomination process, I submitted a written question asking him why he didn’t abide by that law. He responded that a review had been necessary to determine what could be declassified and that – quote – “this review was not completed until after I left office.”
M. President, that’s just not true. He wrote three letters to Congress saying the review had been completed. This fact was even included in the ODNI’s representations to a court in a FOIA case.
Mr. President, if John Ratcliffe is willing to make representations to Congress that are contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would be for him to misrepresent classified matters, behind a veil of secrecy.
Besides refusing to abide by a law passed by Congress and this recent misrepresentation, there are other aspects of John Ratcliffe’s record as DNI that are troubling. He said during his confirmation hearing that he would tell truth to power, but his record suggests the opposite. For example, at the end of September 2020, he released intelligence about Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, even though the Intelligence Community didn’t know if it was accurate or the extent to which it was exaggerated or fabricated by Russian intelligence. Needless to say, this was a major break from standard practice, and it’s hard to escape the conclusion that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given the timing. So I asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he’d ever taken any actions that were actually in conflict with the positions of the President. His response had nothing specific.
Mr. President, my concern in 2020 that John Ratcliffe was too partisan to be confirmed as the head of an intelligence agency has unfortunately been validated. And, as I said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the U.S. Congress and misrepresenting basic facts about that decision.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.
###
Next Article Previous Article