-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to thank my friend from Washington State. I want to follow some of her concerns. It is pretty remarkable, so I do rise with grave concern to speak in opposition to the nomination of Joe Kent to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.

Others may have already said this, but this is not a nomination we should treat lightly. The Director of NCTC plays a central role in asserting and integrating intelligence on terrorist threats, both foreign and domestic. That person must be trusted to tell the truth and to uphold the core principles of the intelligence community: objectivity, nonpartisanship, and fidelity to fact. Unfortunately, Mr. Kent has shown, time and again, that he cannot meet the standard.

Now, let me acknowledge at the front end that I respect Mr. Kent because he spent much of his adult life in service to this country. He enlisted in the U.S. Army at 18. He served for two decades as a Green Beret. He deployed overseas 11 times before working as a field operative for the CIA. That record of service deserves recognition.

And I do not question Mr. Kent's devotion to our country. However, that service, while admirable, cannot overcome a consistent pattern of questionable judgment and false statements, at odds with the objectivity he would be expected to uphold as Director of NCTC.

In May, Congress received clear written evidence that Mr. Kent, while serving as Chief of Staff to Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, sought to manipulate intelligence to match a political narrative promoted by President Trump. Specifically, after the National Intelligence Council assessed that the Venezuelan Government was not directing the movement of Tren de Aragua--the Tren de Aragua gang--into the United States, Mr. Kent pressured career analysts to alter that conclusion, not because of new intelligence but because he feared the report would ``be used against the DNI or POTUS.'' Let me say that again. Mr. Kent pressured career nonpartisan intelligence analysts to change their conclusions not to reflect the facts but somehow to protect Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard.

The remarkable thing that happened next is that when the analysts stood firm, they were fired, sending a chilling message to every intelligence officer tasked with protecting this country.

Let me be crystal clear. Tren de Aragua is a violent and dangerous transnational gang, and the Maduro government are pretty bad folks. And nobody that I know of--least of all me--is minimizing the threat that Tren de Aragua poses or the importance of tracking their ideas and their activities in the United States. But our national security decisions must be based on facts, not politics.

When intelligence professionals conclude, based on the best available information, that the Venezuelan Government is not coordinating with that gang, their analysts--analysis--I think, has to be respected, even if it contradicts a political talking point.

Distorting that analysis to score political points not only undermines trust in the intelligence community, it risks misdirecting resources and attention away from the real threats we face.

Unfortunately, this incident is part of a much larger pattern, underscoring that Mr. Kent lacks the judgment and commitment to truth required of such an important position.

Mr. Kent has openly embraced the lie that the 2020 election was ``rigged'' and ``stolen,'' a lie that the Senator from Washington indicated helped fuel an insurrection against our democracy, and he has defended those who violently stormed the Capitol on January 6, referring to them as ``political prisoners,'' and falsely claimed that the FBI and intelligence community were involved in directing the violence that occurred that day.

I can tell you, I was here that day. That was not directed by the FBI.

He has participated in the Signalgate group chat, where Gabbard, Pete Hegseth, and other political appointees discussed classified information, carelessly putting our sailors and pilots at risk--and for which Mr. Kent, in testimony before my committee on the Senate Intelligence Committee, remained thoroughly unrepentant.

During his nomination hearing, rather than reassuring the committee of his qualifications or judgement, he launched into a diatribe about the so-called Russia hoax, dismissing well-documented foreign interference in our elections as if it were a partisan invention.

Down to my last two pages, Mr. President.

That claim is not just wrong, it is willfully ignorant. The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a comprehensive, five-volume, bipartisan investigation of the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Over those five volumes, we detailed how Russia interfered in our democratic process, how those efforts were designed to help Donald Trump, and how individuals affiliated with his campaign welcomed his efforts.

That is not a hoax. That is a fact. Matter of fact, unanimously confirmed by every member of the Senate Intelligence Committee-- Republican and Democrat.

Mr. Kent's outright dismissal of it speaks volumes about how he views the truth, intelligence, and accountability, nor can we ignore his troubling associations. Mr. Kent has repeatedly aligned himself with far-right extremist groups, employing a member of the Proud Boys, a white nationalist organization with a record of political violence and extremism, as part of his 2022 campaign for Congress, a campaign for which he also solicited help from white nationalist Nick Fuentes.

At a time when domestic, violent extremism is one of the fastest- growing threats to the homeland, we are being asked to put someone in charge of counterterrorism who has aligned himself with political violence, promoted falsehoods that undermine our democracy, and tried to twist intelligence to serve a political agenda.

I urge my colleagues--particularly those who value the credibility of our intelligence Agencies--to think carefully about what message it sends if Mr. Kent is confirmed. Allowing Mr. Kent to lead the NCTC would not just compromise the integrity of our counterterrorism efforts, it would embolden those who believe loyalty to one man should outweigh loyalty to the truth. It would signal that the politicization of intelligence in service of falsehoods is no longer a disqualifier, and it would make this country less safe.

Mr. President, for these reasons, I join others and strongly urge a ``no'' on this nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source