Advertisement

Trump nominee Markwayne Mullin grilled by senators at DHS confirmation hearing – live | Trump administration

Mullin does not express regret over comments about Renee Good

Mullin declined to express regret for saying he “absolutely” believed the federal officer who killed Renee Good was “justified” in shooting her.

He told the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal that the officer “had to make a split decision” and that there was an ongoing investigation.

double quotation markIn that case was a car was running towards him and did strike him at that point, that car becomes a lethal weapon. And that was there was another officer obviously giving her verbal commands.

“I apologize for interrupting you, but you’re saying you do not regret that statement?” asked Blumenthal.

Mullin replied that the federal investigation into Good’s death is “going on” and that he would take a look at it if confirmed.

Share

Updated at 

Key events

As our colleagues Joseph Gedeon and George Chidi report, Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee pressed Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, to explain why her deputy, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter on Tuesday that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation,” which contradicts weeks of statements to the contrary by Donald Trump.

The president and his aides have repeatedly described the threat posed by Iran as imminent to justify the war, although when he announced the start of “major combat operations in Iran” from his Florida beach club on 28 February, Trump declared that it was a mission “to defend the American people by eliminating eminent threats from the Iranian regime”, having apparently misread the word “imminent” on the teleprompter.

In a carefully worded statement after Kent’s resignation on Tuesday, Gabbard, who made opposition to war with Iran the central plank of her failed run for the presidency in 2020, said that “determining what is and is not an imminent threat” was up to the president, not the intelligence community she oversees. She notably failed to say that the intelligence she had seen supported Trump’s claim that Iran was about to attack the US.

In his questioning of Gabbard, senator Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, pointed out that on Day 2 of the conflict, the White House website called the US attack a “military campaign to eliminate the imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime”.

“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an ‘imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime’, yes or no?” Ossoff asked.

When Gabbard replied: “Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Ossoff shot back: “False. This is the ‘Worldwide Threats’ hearing, where you present to Congress ‘national intelligence, timely, objective and independent of political considerations’. You’ve stated today that the intelligence community’s assessment is that Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was obliterated and that ‘there had been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability’.”

Senator Jon Ossoff pressed Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, whether the White House was correct to say that Iran posed an “imminent nuclear threat” to the United States.

“Was it the intelligence community’s assessment,” he continued, “that, nevertheless, despite this obliteration, there was a quote ‘imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime’? Yes or no.”

“It is not the intelligence community’s responsibility to determine what is and is not an imminent threat,” Gabbard replied.

“No, it is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the ‘Worldwide Threats’ hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, quote, you ‘represent the IC’s assessment of threats’.”

When Ossoff again repeated the question of whether there was intelligence to support the White House claim Iran posed “imminent nuclear threat”, Gabbard repeated her claim that it was up to the president to say if a threat was imminent.

“You’re evading a question because to provide a candid response to the committee would contradict a statement from the White House,” Ossoff concluded.

Share

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9e588d47159f1b2df4855231d453afac0d7e3cd7/672_272_2995_2395/master/2995.jpg?width=1200&height=630&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&precrop=40:21,offset-x50,offset-y0&overlay-align=bottom%2Cleft&overlay-width=100p&overlay-base64=L2ltZy9zdGF0aWMvb3ZlcmxheXMvdGctbGl2ZS5wbmc&enable=upscale&s=ec68fd802184c5dbbda88bcb7fc04296

2026-03-18 16:18:24

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com