MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:
OK. Let's pause for a sec here to take stock of who may have the next President's ear on matters of national security, whether it is war in Ukraine, as we were just talking about, or security risks closer to home. President-elect Trump, as we know, has been busy naming Cabinet-level advisers he would like to bring on board, some of whom are already generating much controversy even before confirmation hearings get underway. Among those raising questions is Jim Himes. He is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He's on the line from Capitol Hill. Congressman, welcome.
JIM HIMES: Thanks for having me.
KELLY: I want to start by making clear you are not drawing a partisan line in the sand here. You do not oppose everyone Trump wants to bring on. In fact, I gather you believe several of his picks for top national security jobs are pretty solid. Like who?
HIMES: Yeah, I do. In fact, it was a really funny week, right? Because on one day, we got nominations that I thought were really very solid, individuals who are experienced and who might have served in a Bush administration. Of course, I'm thinking of Marco Rubio for secretary of state, John Ratcliffe at CIA. I worked with John when he was on the committee. Jay Clayton who was nominated...
KELLY: He's a former congressman. Go on.
HIMES: Former Congressman, yeah, and I think U.S. attorney or deputy U.S. attorney. You know, though, it's a little bit far afield from the IC. You know, Jay Clayton's nomination to SDNY I thought was great. And of course, the very next day, we get Matt Gaetz at Justice, which is almost hard to say, and Tulsi Gabbard at DNI. I mean, it just - you know, talk about, you know, the best of times and worst of times. That was a tough day.
KELLY: That was your week last week. OK, let me walk through some of those names you've just thrown at us one by one. Stay with John Ratcliffe for a minute. He is the pick for CIA director. He did serve as director of National Intelligence at the end of Trump's first administration. What did you see there that convinced you he has the chops to run the Central Intelligence Agency?
HIMES: Well, you know, I know him personally. Again, we served on the Intelligence Committee together. And to me, he was a pretty standard-issue Republican, which meant that we didn't always agree on things. But, you know, he grew up in - as a Texas lawyer and in Texas law enforcement. Again, he had some role in the U.S. attorney's office there. And I thought he did a reasonable job, which was not easy to do in the Trump administration, trying to pitch it down the middle.
You know, remember - as we think about Tulsi Gabbard and as we think about John Ratcliffe - the intelligence community is not a policymaking body. They are about speaking the truth, come what may. And...
KELLY: And they're supposed to be doing jobs that are too important for politics to be involved.
HIMES: That's the theory. That's the theory. And there were moments when John, you know, I sort of saw a little bit of a genuflect to President Trump in version 1.0 around issues of Chinese meddling in the election. But again, I think he's capable. He's knowledgeable, and I think he will understand the role and navigate - you know, think about the paradox. The intelligence community...
KELLY: Well...
HIMES: ...Is about finding the truth and presenting it regardless. And that is, of course, not what President Trump wants from his people.
KELLY: You sound - forgive me for jumping in. You sound less persuaded about Tulsi Gabbard as the pick to oversee all 18 U.S. spy agencies as director of national intelligence. Why?
HIMES: Yeah, that's correct. You know, and I don't know Tulsi Gabbard all that well, but people who do are deeply, deeply concerned. And those concerns range from sort of sidling up to President Assad of Syria to promulgating conspiracy theories around whether Ukraine had bioweapons labs or whatever. Again, any sort of flirting with conspiracy...
KELLY: She does - I mean, she's a former member of Congress. She served in the U.S. military. She just had a track record that would support some experience for the role.
HIMES: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, she's not utterly inexperienced in national security. She is in the National Guard. I think she was even in a number of combat zones. But the fact that she sort of promulgated conspiracy theories - that's just completely at odds. The fact that she doesn't seem to speak with clarity or think with clarity around people like President Assad of Syria and Vladimir Putin of Russia - that's concerning.
KELLY: I want to ask about Matt Gaetz, who you mentioned. He is the pick for attorney general, which is in your wheelhouse, because in that role, he would oversee the FBI. He is the subject of a long congressional ethics investigation into allegations involving bribes, drugs, sex. I heard you asked about this over the weekend. You were speaking on CBS. You argued that the Ethics Committee report is actually a distraction. Why?
HIMES: I absolutely think it's a distraction. In fact, I've been talking to people about it. You know, everyone is staring at the Ethics Committee report and ignoring the fact that there is not a single molecule in Matt Gaetz's body that in any way speaks to the probity, to the respect for the rule of law that are absolutely essential for an attorney general. I frankly don't care what the Ethics Committee report says because I know him to be fabulously - not just unqualified; look, you can be unqualified - but at odds with the very idea of an attorney general.
KELLY: Congressman, understanding that you cannot get into classified intelligence, I do want to ask, is your opposition to some of these picks grounded in knowledge and intelligence that you have gained from your work on the intel committee? I mean, in other words, for those listening who might be wondering, I don't know, maybe he just doesn't like the guy. What do you say?
HIMES: So two answers to your question. No. If your question is do I know things in virtue of my access to classified information which gives me pause because there may be some compromise by a foreign power, the answer to that question is a clear no.
On the other hand, I don't think I have to answer that question in the case of Matt Gaetz. There is not a single member of the Republican Conference in the House of Representatives - they may not say this 'cause they don't want to get crosswise with Donald Trump - but I can tell you with certainty that there's not a single Republican - well, I shouldn't say it that absolutely. There may be a handful of the 220 Republicans in the House who think that this is a good idea. An honest Republican in the House who has seen Matt Gaetz, not just as he brought down the speaker and prevented a new speaker from being appointed, would tell you that this is a catastrophic nomination.
KELLY: You're talking about Kevin McCarthy.
HIMES: Exactly.
KELLY: Although, many of the president's supporters would argue, look, an incoming president has the right to nominate who he wants and there's a process for it - that if there are disqualifying black marks on that person's record, that's going to come out in the confirmation process. What's wrong with that argument?
HIMES: Nothing. That's a perfect argument. That is the argument. I mean, thank God we do have, in our Constitution, the requirement that the Senate give its advice and consent. So again, what this mostly is - Matt Gaetz, in particular - is a test of the United States Senate. Does it still exist as a constitutional entity or has it been subsumed by Donald Trump?
That's the question. Because, again, I can't stress this enough. You know, if the Senate were to consent to the appointment of Matt Gaetz to be attorney general, it has ceased to exist as a constitutional entity, as an independent check on the power of the president. And that's a little bit of a scary thought.
KELLY: That is Connecticut Democrat Jim Himes. He is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Congressman, thank you.
HIMES: Thank you very much.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
