Open Hearing: Nomination of Peter M. Thomson to be the Inspector General (CIA)

[Senate Hearing 116-468] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 116-468 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF PETER M. THOMSON TO BE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 40-700 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] MARCO RUBIO, Florida, Acting Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman RICHARD BURR, North Carolina DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado BEN SASSE, Nebraska MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- JUNE 24, 2020 OPENING STATEMENTS Rubio, Hon. Marco, Acting Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Florida.. 1 Warner, Hon. Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia 2 WITNESSES John Kennedy, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana...................... 3 John Cornyn, a U.S. Senator from Texas........................... 4 Thomson, Peter M., nominated to be Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency............................................ 6 Prepared statement........................................... 9 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Letter from Hon. Bill Cassidy, a U.S. Senator from Louisiana..... 5 Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees........ 28 Additional Prehearing Questions.............................. 46 Posthearing Questions for the Record......................... 66 OPEN HEARING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATION OF PETER M. THOMSON TO BE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2020 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room SR-325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Marco Rubio (Acting Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Senators Rubio, Warner, Burr, Risch, Collins, Blunt, Cotton, Cornyn, Sasse, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Harris, and Bennet. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARCO RUBIO, ACTING CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA Acting Chairman Rubio. The hearing will come to order. I would like to welcome our witness this morning, Peter Thomson. Mr. Thomson is the President's nominee to be the next Inspector General of the CIA. Congratulations on your nomination. I would like to start by recognizing your family that you brought with you today. I understand you have your wife Patricia with you and your daughter Kalin. Welcome to both of you. Patricia, this is as much your day as it is Peter's, and we are all grateful for the support, the patience, the encouragement that you have no doubt provided him in helping him to get to this day. And this is most certainly a professional achievement that you should both take pride in. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable this Committee to have a thoughtful consideration of Mr. Thomson's qualifications to be the next Inspector General of the CIA. Mr. Thomson has provided written responses to questions from the Committee from its Members, and this morning Members will be able to ask any additional questions they have and hear the answer directly from the nominee. Mr. Thomson is a double graduate of Tulane University, receiving his law degree in 1983. He spent 23 years as a Federal prosecutor for the Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana. During his time with DOJ, Peter served on special assignment with the National Security Agency. Since 2011, he has been in private practice in New Orleans, where he has done dozens of criminal trials at the Federal and state court level, and he has litigated at the appellate level as well. In addition, he spent 20 years as an uncompensated adjunct professor at Tulane's law school teaching trial advocacy and giving back to his alma mater. Mr. Thomson, you have been asked to lead a statutorily created office that is responsible for independent oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency. If confirmed, you will conduct audits, inspections, investigations, and reviews of CIA programs and operations. You will play a very important role in ensuring that the CIA carries out its mandate efficiently, accountably, and always according to the law. The satisfaction of this Committee's oversight mandate will, at times, require transparency and responsiveness from you and your office. We may ask difficult questions of you and your staff, and we expect honest, complete, and timely answers. At the same time, we will also want you to feel free to come to the Committee with situations that warrant our attention and our partnership. I look forward to hearing from you today, to ultimately supporting your nomination, and ensuring its consideration without delay. I want to thank you for being here, for your years of service to our country, and for your willingness to resume that service, and we all look forward to your testimony. Now I recognize the Vice Chairman. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Mr. Thomson. It is good to kind of see you again in this awfully large room and let me add to the Chairman's comments in terms of congratulations on your nomination to serve as Inspector General of the CIA. The job of an Inspector General is critical to the effective operation of any Agency. Should you be confirmed, you will hold one of the most vital roles at the CIA and within the whole Intelligence Community because independent and impartial Inspectors General help to ensure that there is robust oversight of an agency that by necessity undertakes its most important and effective work in secrecy. Now, we all know by statute, the CIA Inspector General is expressly mandated to report not only to the CIA Director, but to this Committee and is specifically made accountable to Congress. This is necessary to ensure that we are able to conduct robust oversight of the CIA and be made aware of any significant problems and deficiencies. This Committee relies upon the Inspectors General of the intelligence agencies to ensure the IC organizations are using taxpayer dollars wisely, conducting their activities within the rule and spirit of the law, and supporting and protecting whistleblowers who report waste, fraud, and abuse. Unfortunately, what we have seen from this President and this Administration convinces me that the independence of the Inspectors General is under grave threat. We have seen the President attack without justification the brave men and women of the IC simply because they were doing what Americans expected them to do, telling truth to power. This is because, for this President, the truth is very often unwelcome, and its bearers have borne the consequences: DNI Coats fired. Deputy DNI Sue Gordon fired. Acting DNI Maguire fired. Intelligence Community Inspector General Atkinson fired-- fired for no reason other than doing his job and reporting to Congress, as he was legally mandated to do, reporting the serious complaints of a whistleblower. Unfortunately, we have seen this Administration go after other independent Inspectors General as well. At the State Department, at HHS, at the Defense Department, who have issued reports unwelcome in the White House or because they undertook investigations that were embarrassing to the President and his allies. But this is precisely why we have Inspectors General. Not many like to be called in front of you, but your independence and doggedness are what help keep fraud, waste, abuse, and malfeasance in check. So, I will be looking today for you to explain why we can trust you to be independent and how you'll go about your responsibilities, how will you assure the men and women of the CIA that if they bring forward a complaint using legitimate channels they will be protected against retaliation? What are your redlines if you become aware of abuse or asked to undertake actions that are not in keeping with what I hope will be your expectations and our expectations of you? If confirmed, you will be the first Senate-confirmed IG at the CIA in over five years. You will have a difficult job to ensure your independence, to reassure whistleblowers and to take over an office that has been vacant for so long. Mr. Thomson, again, thank you for being here today and agreeing to serve in this critical role. I look forward to today's discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you. Mr. Thomson, I understand you are going to be having two of our Senate colleagues present introductions on your behalf. We are actually in a pretty famous room. A lot of important hearings in our Nation's history have occurred in these halls, and so it is appropriate that Senator Kennedy, whose name is on the wall though it is not named after him, will be one of your presenters. So, welcome to your home, Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy. Are you ready for me? Acting Chairman Rubio. We are always ready for you, Sir. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be in front of the Intelligence Committee. I have never been in front of the Intelligence Committee. I am going to assume I am being bugged, so I will choose my words carefully. It is a delight for me to introduce and recommend enthusiastically and unconditionally Mr. Peter Thomson for this important post. I agree with so much of what Senator Warner said. We live in cynical times. People correctly or incorrectly don't trust government. I understand that. I have been in and out of government for, I don't know, 25, 30 years and I always tell my constituents that on occasion, as bad as it looks from the outside, you ought to see it from the inside. And Inspectors General help balance that. Not only do they report impropriety, they address issues of the appearance of impropriety, and both are important. Just recently--I happen to sit on the Judiciary Committee--and I was very proud of the work done by Inspector General Horowitz at the Justice Department. I am convinced had it not been for General Horowitz we never would have known about the abuses of the FISA process at the FBI, committed by a small group of people of the FBI. So this is an important job. Senator Rubio did, as usual, a superb job of welcoming Peter, and also Patricia and Kalin, his daughter. Peter brings a very unique background to this position. Right now, he works at a law firm called Stone Pigman in New Orleans. I'm not going to tell you it's the best law firm in Louisiana. We've got a lot of good ones, but the list--they don't hire dummies--and the list that Stone Pigman is on, it doesn't take very long to call the role. He heads the white-collar criminal defense practice there and is also involved in information security practices. He has been a special assistant to the Chief, Advanced Network Operations at the National Security Agency. He served for years as an Assistant United States Attorney. He has expertise in not just criminal defense but extradition matters. He is assisting corporations with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He has litigated civil matters, regulatory matters, and administrative cases. As Marco mentioned, he has also been an adjunct professor for years, I think, at Tulane, Peter, is that right? Mr. Thomson. Yes, Sir. Senator Kennedy. But let me just say a personal note before I conclude. Peter is a mature and serious person. He is not an especially good politician, but I don't think that's what this job requires. He is more of an intellectual, as I think you will see this morning. He exercises power intelligently and non-emotionally, and he has extraordinarily able and good judgment. And I think that is what we want in an Inspector General, particularly at the CIA. So again, it is my pleasure to be here today, and for what it's worth, Mr. Thomson has my highest possible recommendation, and I appreciate your time. Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you, and thank you for that presentation. Senator Cornyn, I understand you will be presenting Senator Cassidy's remarks. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cassidy did send a letter recommending the nominee, and he asked me to read it. If you will indulge me just for a few minutes, and then I would ask consent that it be made part of the record. [The letter from Senator Cassidy follows:] statement of hon. bill cassidy, a u.s. senator from louisiana Dear Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner: I am writing today to express my strong support for Peter Thomson to become Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency. Peter has a long and distinguished career in public service. His 23-year career as a Federal prosecutor in Louisiana gives him deep, first-hand experience rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse and wrongdoing. His peers attest to his competency and his character. On May 1, 35 of his colleagues in Louisiana law enforcement signed a letter citing Peter's high ethical standards, work ethic, patriotism, legal competence, and reputation for integrity. I share their sentiment. Peter's career has included overseeing the use of government funds, which makes him well-suited for the role of Inspector General. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Peter worked on the Katrina Fraud Task Force. Catastrophes can bring out the best in people, and I witnessed acts of sacrifice, courage, and generosity in the midst of tragedy. However, some seek to take advantage of bad situations. Peter kept them accountable, and he prosecuted the first significant public corruption case following the disaster. Not content to serve only in government, Peter took time to teach as well. He spent 20 years as the associate adjunct professor of law at Tulane University School of Law, where he mentored young people just starting their careers. In both, his personal and professional life, Peter has shown us the conduct we hope to see in all our public servants. I ask for your support in the nomination of my fellow Louisianan and friend. Should you need further information on my support, feel free to contact me. [Signed] Dr. Bill Cassidy, United States Senator. [End of Senator Cassidy's statement for the record.] Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you and without objection that will be in our record. Mr. Thomson before you proceed with your statement if I could ask you to please stand and raise your right hand. [Witness stands.] Do you solemnly swear to give this Committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Thomson. I do. Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you. You can be seated. Mr. Thomson, before we move to your statement, I want to ask you the five standard questions this Committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. They can be answered with a simple yes or no, if you prefer, for the record. Do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in other venues when invited? Mr. Thomson. Yes, I do, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the Committee and designated staff when invited? Mr. Thomson. I do, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the Committee in order for it to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? Mr. Thomson. Yes, I do, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. Will you ensure that your office and your staff provides such material to the Committee when requested? Mr. Thomson. I do, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. And do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all Members of this Committee of intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the Chairman and the Vice Chairman? Mr. Thomson. Yes, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed to your opening statement, after which I'll recognize Members by seniority for up to five minutes each. Mr. Thomson, the floor is yours. OPENING STATEMENT OF PETER M. THOMSON, NOMINATED TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Mr. Thomson. Thank you very much. Chairman Rubio, Vice Chairman Warner, and distinguished Members of the Committee: I am honored to be here today as the President's nominee to be the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency. I would like first to thank Senators Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy for introducing me and for the kind words. I also would like to thank President Trump and CIA Director Gina Haspel for the confidence they have placed in me with regard to this important position. Further, I appreciate and I am deeply grateful to those individuals who wrote or signed letters in support of my nomination. And last but certainly not least, joining me here today are my dear wife Patricia and my daughter Kalin. I wish to thank them for their patience and unwavering love and support throughout this process. Although I spent the majority of my government career in the U.S. Department of Justice, I have always held a deep respect and a profound admiration for the men and women of the CIA and the important work they do in preempting threats to our Nation. The CIA has the critical responsibility of collecting, analyzing, evaluating, and disseminating accurate and timely foreign intelligence to policy makers and consumers. And as you know, the CIA has the responsibility of conducting covert actions when necessary. I believe that officers who serve at the Agency, including those who serve at the Office of Inspector General, regardless of background, regardless of political affiliation, regardless of philosophical beliefs, are united at their core by a deep love of our Country and a strong desire and commitment to protect the American people. So for me, it is truly a deep honor, one beyond words, to be considered for such an important position within the CIA. And to be given the opportunity, if confirmed, to lead the dedicated and patriotic officers of the Office of the Inspector General. Growing up in New Orleans, I was blessed to have devoted and loving parents who taught me important values which are foundational requirements of an Inspector General. My mom grew up very poor, raised on a small farm on the banks of the Mississippi River. She was Sicilian, so I grew up eating lots of Italian food, but also spending lots of time at her family's farm, which we called the country. My mom had an exceptionally strong constitution and was known to fiercely defend right in the face of wrong. She taught me the importance of family and loyalty and how to pick your friends, which had everything to do with character. And she taught me the importance of standing firm in one's righteous convictions. I didn't know it then, but she was teaching me how to speak truth to power. Now, my father also grew up poor, raised by his widowed mother in New Orleans. At age 21, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps and was trained to be a heavy bomber pilot. He flew 35 combat missions over Germany in a B-17 Flying Fortress, which was named ``Old Blood and Guts,'' fighting the malignant human evils of his generation. After being honorably discharged, he went to Tulane law school with the help of the GI bill. Graduated Order of the Coif, a high honor, and became a successful attorney. My father taught me and modeled many of the same values as my mom. My father also kindled in me an interest in law. He taught me about the rule of law and why it must be respected. And without a doubt my strong sense of patriotism derives from my father's sacrifice during World War II. I tell you this to offer a glimpse into my roots in order to give you and the American people some insight as to how I will perform as Inspector General of the CIA. If I am confirmed, I feel the principles and the values instilled in me by my parents--honesty, integrity, patriotism, speaking truth to power, the rule of law and standing firm in one's just convictions--together with my faith, will serve the CIA and the intelligence oversight committees and the American public well. It is my belief that those important principles absolutely must guide the work of the Inspector General's Office. There is another central requirement, probably the most important requirement of the Inspector General's Office. It is independence. Although the CIA Inspector General reports to the CIA Director, and reports to and is fully accountable to Congress, the IG's office must independently plan and execute all of its oversight work with regard to the Agency. The CIA enabling statute requires it. Independence in my view means that the work of the Inspector General must be performed in an unbiased and impartial manner, free of undue or inappropriate influences. By law, no one can force the Inspector General to alter its work product. Should I be confirmed, I can say with absolute confidence that doing the work of the IG in an unbiased and impartial manner will be my top priority. Although independence is crucial to the proper functioning of the Office and essential to its integrity, the Inspector General must also strike a balance between that independence on one hand and on the other, working cooperatively and productively with Agency leadership and this Committee. In my view, in addition to all of the IG's legal reporting requirements, a collaborative team approach within the Agency and with Congress, working together to make the Agency better is as important to the proper functioning of the Inspector General as is the requirement of independence. Even so, to be clear, the buck stops at the door of the IG. Together with my character and values, I believe my professional background and corresponding skill sets have prepared me for this position. During my 23-year career with the U.S. Department of Justice, I obtained broad investigative and prosecutorial experience handling a wide variety of cases including investigations involving fraud, national security, violent crimes, domestic and international drug trafficking, racketeering, and political corruption. I held a top-secret security clearance for approximately 15 years which allowed me to work on some sensitive matters. I also coordinated many multi-Agency task force investigations. I worked with a myriad of Federal, state, and local agencies, including Offices of Inspectors General and countless confidential informants and cooperating individuals, rooting out crime, fraud, and abuse in a wide variety of contexts. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I was detailed to the FBI where I worked on the Katrina Fraud Task Force, which targeted all kinds of Katrina-related fraud and corruption. Ten years later, I had the opportunity to work on detail at the National Security Agency, where, as part of my duties, I provided legal guidance on certain signals intelligence and information assurance operations of the NSA. After retiring from the Justice Department, I entered private legal practice where I continued to handle criminal matters as well as civil matters and internal investigations involving fraud including, most recently, a case involving a $1 billion bank failure. My experience as a Federal prosecutor has a direct impact on how I will approach the job as CIA Inspector General. But perhaps none more important than my extensive work with numerous confidential informants and cooperators throughout my career. Based on this experience, I have a deep understanding of the importance of protecting CIA employees and contractors who report wrongdoing. I believe that one of the most important if not the most important program of any Inspector General's office is the whistleblower program. As Inspector General, if confirmed, I will work with Agency leadership to maintain and strengthen a culture of confidence and trust for Agency employees and contractors who have information exposing fraud, waste, abuse, violation of law, or other deficiencies or problems that should be corrected within the Agency. Finally, I'll conclude with a solemn promise before this Committee and the American public. If confirmed, I will protect the independence of the CIA Inspector General's office and approach all of its work with honesty and integrity in fairness and impartiality. If you entrust me with this critical role, I will look forward to working with this Committee to fulfill its oversight obligations of the CIA. Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Thomson follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you. And for the information of the Members, if anyone wishes to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, we ask that you do it by the close of business tomorrow. Mr. Thomson, I want to begin where you finished your comments. And the clear role and mandate on the creation of this Committee was to carry out consistent and vibrant oversight over the Intelligence Community and particularly over the Central Intelligence Agency. And to do that, we have to have timely access to intelligence. That's just crucial to having meaningful oversight. So if confirmed, and I think you've answered this already in that five questions set, but I wanted to re-ask it in a different way: If confirmed, can we be assured that you or your designees are going to keep us appropriately informed of any significant complaints that you receive in your office? Mr. Thomson. Absolutely, Senator. Acting Chairman Rubio. And let me just ask part of that question, will you provide the interview subjects and methodologies behind your finished reports and assessment? Mr. Thomson. I'm sorry, would you repeat the question? Acting Chairman Rubio. If asked by the Committee, if you inform us of such a significant complaint, will you also provide the interview subjects and methodologies behind your finished product and assessments? Mr. Thomson. Yes, Sir, to the extent that it meets the CIGIE standards. We will follow CIGIE standards and provide this Committee with everything that we're allowed to provide you with. Acting Chairman Rubio. Now, we've historically viewed the role that you've been nominated for as our partner in oversight, not as an adversary, but as a partner because we rely on the Inspector General to identify problems and to bring issues to this Committee's attention. So do we have your total commitment that if you are confirmed, you will keep this Committee fully and currently informed? Mr. Thomson. Absolutely, Senator. Acting Chairman Rubio. And how do you envision realizing that commitment you've just made? Mr. Thomson. Well first, Senator, we start with the law. We start with the statute, and the IG has a number of duties and responsibilities with regards to reporting to this Committee under the statute. If confirmed, I would take that very, very seriously and would follow the statute. I would look forward to working transparently with this Committee, cooperatively with this Committee, and doing everything we can to timely report semiannual reports. Any serious offenses will be brought to the attention of this Committee. As I said, we will provide you with all the information that we are allowed to provide you with. Acting Chairman Rubio. Now, let me briefly delve into the role that you've been nominated to fill. If you could share with us how do you view your approach will be to a situation; for example, where your legal analysis and conclusions differ from those of the CIA's General Counsel or the Intelligence Community Inspector General? Mr. Thomson. Sure. Well that might happen, Senator. So the Inspector General by law is required to have his or her own counsel. The Inspector General does have its own counsel presently. As Inspector General, I would rely 100 percent on--well, let me rephrase that. If there was a conflict, we would certainly consult with the General Counsel's Office at the Agency. But at the end of the day--and, you know, we could take the reviews into account--but at the end of the day, the judgment with regard to any legal matter falls squarely on the Inspector General, and we would exercise independent judgment and analysis with regard to that. Acting Chairman Rubio. How would you isolate yourself, or how do you intend to isolate yourself and your office, from the risk of perceived politicization? Mr. Thomson. Well, I think the best way to do that, Senator, is to be as independent as humanly possible, to follow the law, to certainly cooperate with the Agency, and to work collaboratively with Agency components, to work collaboratively with this Committee, to be transparent with this Committee, to report to this Committee. But I don't think the Inspector General's office needs to run around, you know, with a flag of independence. But I think, you know, we absolutely assert the independence in everything we do, whether it's through requesting information from the Agency--we would, you know, we would push back on that. For example, if we asked for information from the Agency and they were hesitant to give it or refused to give it, under the statute the IG is entitled to it. I would certainly take their views into account, but if I thought it was still important to pursue it, we would exercise our independence and still pursue that information. Acting Chairman Rubio. Thank you. Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson, I'm going to go over some of the points that you made in your testimony. And at the outset, let me just say: in our meeting I was impressed by your demeanor. It's disappointing that I have to rehash some of these issues, but there's been such a litany of individuals in the Intelligence Community who've had, I guess, the audacity, I would say it was their duty to speak truth to power, and that fulfilling of their duty has cost them their jobs. So, you've addressed this in your opening testimony, but I'd like you again to spend a minute or two on the importance you feel of keeping the IG's office independent. And specifically, how will you maintain the CIA IG's independence? Mr. Thomson. Thank you very much for the question, Vice Chairman. I think I would start with explaining my values--and I know the values of some of the senior leadership in the IG's Office--and push those values down throughout the Inspector General's Office, particularly independence. But also that there is absolutely no room in the Inspector General's Office, and I don't think there should be any room in an intelligence agency or a law enforcement agency as well for any form of bias, any political agendas, personal agendas, are not welcome in an Inspector General's Office, would not be welcome in the CIA Inspector General's Office, if I'm confirmed, because I believe very strongly, drawing on my career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney and have a history of this, to accomplish all the work in an impartial and unbiased manner, and exercise independent judgment and objectivity. And so, if there's any pressure, any perceived pressure or any real pressure, that we're not going to succumb to that and we're always going to exercise independent judgment and do what we believe is lawful and follows the facts. And as I've I think said in my Senate questionnaire, you know, I was brought up under Lady Justice in the Justice Department. And with everything that I've ever been a part of, I've been pressured. I've, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, received inquiries or letters from Congress. I have been pushed on hard by Special Agents in charge of certain agencies, by judges. And I've learned that you've got to maintain your position, listen to what they have to say, weigh it, you know, but make an independent judgment, not be bullied and not be pressured. So, I think pushing those values down to make sure everyone's on the same page with values, and then doing our work as we need to do in an independent fashion. Vice Chairman Warner. And Mr. Thomson, we discussed this when we met: If you did receive that undue pressure, inappropriate pressure, or were asked to do something that you felt didn't meet your moral beliefs or your belief of the independent role of the IG, what would you do? Mr. Thomson. Sure. Well, it would depend on the context and the pressure. But if it was undue pressure and serious undue pressure, I would do two things, Senator. I would consider it to be very inappropriate. I would inform the CIA Director's Office and I would inform this Committee. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you. Mr. Thomson. If I thought, Senator, and let me add, if I thought there was any criminality involved, I would, as required, refer it to the Department of Justice. Vice Chairman Warner. You've also in your statement---- Mr. Thomson. I'm sorry, Vice Chairman. I apologize. Vice Chairman Warner. You've also in your statement, I thought, made good points about the need to protect whistleblowers. Do you have a view on a whistleblower's right to remain anonymous? Mr. Thomson. Well, I can answer that in two parts. My personal view, you know, having dealt with so many confidential informants who've risked a lot--some risked their lives, you know, throughout investigations I've been a part of. Just personally, I absolutely would want to protect them. Under the law, the IG must protect them to the fullest extent that we can. And I would follow the law and I would follow my personal beliefs as well and draw upon my experience as a Federal prosecutor in protecting informants and cooperating individuals. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Burr. Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson, the country is indeed fortunate that your nomination has come up. I think you're eminently qualified for the role of IG at the CIA. As the Chairman and the Vice Chairman have said, we are reliant on a very close relationship between the CIA IG and this Committee in our oversight responsibilities. And I think the most important part of your testimony was at the end, where you said: ``I will protect the independence of the CIA Inspector General and approach all its work with honesty, integrity, fairness, and impartiality.'' I don't think we can ask of an individual any more than that. So, I really am limited to one question. What do you believe is the scope of your responsibility as CIA IG? Mr. Thomson. The scope of my responsibility. Well, maybe I'll try to start broad and try to narrow in. In my view to begin with, I see the role of the CIA IG as to help make the agents of the CIA better through the independent work of the IG. But part of that is to be accountable. And certainly the IG has to report directly to the Director and be under the general supervision of the Director. And with regard to reporting to the Director, there are a number of requirements in the CIA IG statute that lay out the reporting requirements. Beyond that, I think of great importance, Senator, is the oversight role of this Committee and the House Intelligence Committee. So, the CIA is a secret organization, as you know. The activities, the programs, and operations of the Agency are entirely hidden from public view. And you, the Senators and the Representatives, all represent the people of the United States. And the only way that the people of the United States can see into the Agency and to provide oversight of the Agency is through the intelligence committees. So, part of the scope of my role is to work with the committees and in a sense, although still maintaining the independence of the IG and the importance of the independence, the IG can serve, through the lens of independence, as the eyes and ears of the Committee, so the American people, through their representatives, can provide oversight to the IG. Senator Burr. Do you believe that your responsibilities include the review of covert action? Mr. Thomson. Absolutely. So, our responsibilities would be to conduct--I mean, I wasn't going to quote the statute; I figured everybody knew the statute--we're going to perform audits and inspections and investigations and root out waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement and so forth through the audits, inspections, and investigations. Part of our duty is to make policy recommendations to the Director, to bring any serious problems that we see to the attention of the Director and this Committee. If urgent concerns are raised, to assess those under the law, provide that to the Director for submission to the Congress. So, all of that is part of the duties. Senator Burr. Thank you, Mr. Thomson. Mr. Thomson. Thank you. Senator Burr. I yield back. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson, your nomination comes when Donald Trump is attacking the entire Inspector General and whistleblower system with a jaw-dropping theory that he can dump an Inspector General whenever he wants to without stating any reasons why. So, in my view, whether you will ignore that threat is at the heart of the confirmation process. So, the first question I want to ask involves legal determinations that you may have to make in your capacity, if confirmed. If your Inspector General attorney determines that laws have been broken and Bill Barr disagrees, what would you do? Mr. Thomson. So, make sure I understand the question. If the IG's counsel believes that a law has been broken---- Senator Wyden. Correct. Mr. Thomson. And that's at odds with the Department of Justice---- Senator Wyden. Bill Barr. Mr. Thomson. Okay. Can you give me the context of---- Senator Wyden. Well---- Mr. Thomson. This, the law being broken by who? Senator Wyden. Well, it has happened recently. But I think the question's pretty straightforward. Your counsel believes a law has been broken. Bill Barr disagrees. What would you do? Mr. Thomson. So, if it's within the jurisdiction of the Agency, or within the jurisdiction of the IG, and we are investigating something, and we investigate it and we find that a law has been broken, and it's a criminal law, we would refer that to the Department of Justice. It would be brought to the attention of this Committee, and it would be brought to the attention of the Director of the CIA. Senator Wyden. Now maybe we're making some headway. So, I just want to make sure that we're clear. Mr. Thomson. Yes. Senator Wyden. In the example that I gave, your lawyer thinks that laws have been broken. Bill Barr disagrees. You would, if confirmed, bring it to this Committee? You would inform us? Mr. Thomson. Well, Senator---- Senator Wyden. That one's a yes or no. Mr. Thomson. Well, Senator, under the statute, if we determine that in the course of our investigation of something we have a right to investigate within our jurisdiction-- actually, even outside that--I think there's other reporting requirements even, outside being an IG if a criminal law is broken. We can't sit on our desk, you know. We have to see that it's attended to in an appropriate fashion. But if it's within the context of the IG's role, it is a criminal violation, that's reported to the Department of Justice and we would report that to the Director, and we would report that to the Committee. Senator Wyden. Okay, I think that was the answer I wanted to have, and I'm glad that we agree that you have an obligation to report it to the Committee. Let me ask a question about whistleblowers. The law states when the Inspector General determines that a whistleblower complaint is an urgent concern and transmits it to the Director of the CIA, the Director shall send the complaint to Congress within seven days. How are you going to make sure if confirmed that the CIA respects that law, and what would you do if she didn't do it? Mr. Thomson. So, to begin with, if confirmed, the CIA IG's office will absolutely respect that law. It is the CIA IG enabling statute and there are provisions of urgent concern, or address matters of urgent concern. We would respect it and we would, by law, we would follow the law and submit it to the Director. The Director has the option, I think, of disagreeing. If the Director were to disagree and not want to forward the urgent concern, and we had determined it was an urgent concern and we found it to be credible, then I think at that point we would still forward that complaint to this Committee with an explanation of why we made the determination. The CIA Director would, I am sure, also be able to provide comments and an explanation as to why he or she felt that it was not an urgent concern. Senator Wyden. So you would--and my time is up--you would send it to the Committee, though, in the example that I gave, because these are---- Mr. Thomson. If we determined something was an urgent concern and it was reportable to this Committee as an urgent concern, but the Director of the CIA disagreed, it is my understanding under the law that we then are obliged or should provide that to this Committee. And then, you know, with comments, with an explanation. Senator Wyden. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson. May I add? Whatever we are going to do, I would have counsel. And however we proceed, we would absolutely follow the law. Senator Risch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson, having been on this Committee for as many years as I have, I've always been struck by the fact that the Community gets bogged down sometimes in its collection efforts, and loses sight of the fact that the purpose of collection is to get information to policymakers. Intelligence information in and of itself is worthless unless it's in the hands of people who can act on it and make policy judgments on it. Senator Rubio and I served on the Foreign Relations Committee, and I can tell you that there is no more important consumer of the information that the Intelligence Community develops than the Foreign Relations Committee. I want to remind you, and I remind everyone who comes here, the importance of seeing that that information gets in the appropriate hands, as opposed to just collecting it and then a report being written or being put in a file or something like that. So I hope that you will keep that in mind as you do your job, and remind those that you do deal with in the Community what the real purpose of collection of information is. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I have some other matters, but I'm going to take them up in a classified setting with the nominee. So thank you very much. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Thomson, in my view the best way to drain a swamp is to ensure that Inspectors General can just do their job. IGs are charged with rooting out waste, fraud, abuse, and protecting the rule of law. Yet, we've seen this President attack the independence of IG offices repeatedly. Given the President's treatment of IGs in this Administration, including the sacking of ICIG Michael Atkinson, who DNI Maguire said had, quote, done everything by the book, end quote, why do you believe it's possible to hold an IG position in this Administration and simultaneously speak truth to power? Mr. Thomson. Well, Senator, thank you for that question. So, you know, under the law as it's written, the President, no matter who the President is, has the right to fire Inspector Generals. He also has, you know, there's a requirement that you must provide reasons to this Committee 30 days out from the termination of that Inspector General. So, that's the law. What I can tell you is that there's nothing that has happened or could happen with regard to anything that could be perceived as an influence or potential influence or threat on the independence of the IG. I am going to do the work of the IG as I performed as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for 23 years, and I'm going to follow the facts no matter where they lead. I'm going to follow the law. And, you know, however things turn out is how they will turn out. I am not dissuaded and will not be dissuaded at all by any perceived undue influence from any source, Senator, not from a---- Senator Heinrich. Mr. Thomson, we're running out of time here. So I'll take your answer and move on to a related question which is, you mentioned in your opening statement, you wrote about how your parents taught you how to speak truth to power, and we hear that phrase a lot on this Committee. Sometimes we hear it too much in confirmation hearings without seeing it in action as much as we would like. But nonetheless, I want to ask you specifically from your professional experience, what are some examples, some specific examples that you can share with the Committee, about when you've had to speak truth to power in your professional life? Mr. Thomson. Yes, Senator. Well, as a prosecutor, you know, I was faced on a number of occasions with special agents in charge, for example, that would disagree on how I may have evaluated a case. And, they would come talk to me. On some occasions, they would go to the United States Attorney. But I had to maintain my position and I did. I wasn't going to sacrifice the integrity or my judgment-- not that they were challenging the integrity, they weren't doing that--but my judgment on a case for any kind of pressure from an agent in charge, or agents. Or within my office, maybe managers might disagree. But I stood my ground and explained my position. Also, I've been before many Federal judges, dozens. You know, I'm not sure how many--maybe over hundreds of times before Federal judges, and I've had to speak truth to power to Federal judges on countless occasions. Senator Heinrich. Okay. Mr. Thomson, the President has suggested numerous times in numerous tweets and other statements that there is a deep state in our government. Do you share those concerns that there is a deep state, either at the CIA or within the Intelligence Community more broadly? Mr. Thomson. So, Senator, I honestly don't exactly know what is meant by deep state or the President's comments on deep state. I'm really not sure how to define that. And so I really can't answer that question. I really don't know how to answer that. I can say this, that whatever obstacles we would come across, whatever attempts to influence, whatever pushback we get, we are going to stand our ground. We're going to exercise independent judgment. We're going to act impartially, unbiased, and just pull from my career in how we handle--or how I handled cases as a prosecutor. Regardless of any influence of any deep state that may or may not exist. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Thomson. The firing of the Inspectors General and the threats to expose the identities of whistleblowers may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of whistleblowers to come forward with allegations. What specific actions will you take to reassure CIA employees that they will be protected from reprisal, both within the Agency and outside of it, if they do expose wrongdoing? Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Senator. Very important. Very important question. I appreciate the question. So, in my view, one of the most important aspects about the whistleblower program is for the whistleblowers to have absolute trust and confidence in the system. When they don't have trust and confidence in the system, then it breaks down, right? It breaks down from our perspective. It breaks down from congressional oversight perspective. And then it also increases the possibility of things we don't want to have happen, like leaks. So a strong whistleblower program actually helps prevent leaks, Senator. But beyond that, to protect the whistleblowers, you know, we want to vigorously follow the law, number one, protect them to the fullest extent of the law. When whistleblowers come in or we engage people with bringing information, I would want to have the staff, myself and the staff, speak with them and talk about whether they want anonymity. Some may want anonymity, some may not. But the ones that do, we would do everything we could to protect them. The other thing I would do would be--well, I think training and outreach is very important. So when new employees are on- boarded at the CIA, they go through lengthy training. And so I think it's very important to have a solid training program with whistleblowers to explain their rights and how they communicate, how they provide information. Also training to CIA managers with regard to the law. Also to work with CIA leadership to--and I don't know the culture right now, Senator--but whatever that culture is, I think I'd want to work with CIA leadership to try to strengthen the culture within the CIA, the way they look at CIA whistleblowers. So they're not looking at the process as a way to get somebody in trouble or a gotcha moment, but as a way that is something that you should do, that you have an obligation to do, and it's to make the Agency better. Not to try to destroy the Agency or harm the Agency or create a lack of confidence in the American public, but to make the Agency better. Senator Collins. Thank you. Let me ask you a specific question. Do you believe that Michael Atkinson as the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community should have notified this Committee about the whistleblower allegations regarding the President's interactions with Ukraine? Mr. Thomson. So with regard to that matter--if you bear with me on my answer--I don't know Michael Atkinson. I've never spoken with Michael Atkinson. I've never served in the ODNI. I'm aware of his career, his very respectful career, and I know he grew up--or I believe, from my understanding--he grew up at the Department of Justice. So unfortunately I don't know all the facts. I read a few things, but I don't really know all the facts. I believe there's some facts that are classified and what he was addressing was a completely different statute. So he was addressing the enabling statute for the ICIG and the language in the urgent concern part of the statute--there was a little bit of difference with regard to the IG, to the CIA IG, statute. So not knowing those facts, I find it difficult to weigh in on that. But what I can say, Senator, is that if we did receive information purportedly to be an urgent concern from a CIA employee or contractor, we would look at that very seriously. We would determine if it is a very serious or flagrant problem or abuse or a violation of law. We would weigh the prerequisites in the statute, whether it involves a CIA activity, and is involved in intelligence information. So if we determine that it does fall within or meet those prerequisites, and then as a completely separate matter, we'd have to determine if the information is credible. And if we did, then we would then forward that to the CIA Director for reporting to this Committee. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Thomson, I've been following this. I've been impressed. I've been impressed. I read your references, but you lost me in the answer to Senator Heinrich's question. Are you telling this Committee that you've lived in the United States for the last three years, read newspapers, participated in the practice of law, and you don't know the meaning of the term ``deep state''? The more accurate answer than that long rambling nonanswer you gave was: no. Tell us what you think. You're not helping yourself by obfuscating and avoiding these questions. You also avoided Senator Collins' question, which was exactly the right question and everybody in the country knows what happened to that case. It's a very simple question. Should that complaint had been forwarded to Congress, yes or no? Mr. Thomson. The complaint by Michael Atkinson? Senator King. The complaint. The whistleblower complaint. Mr. Thomson. The whistleblower complaint. Senator King. That was the basis of an impeachment hearing. Mr. Thomson. Right. Right. Senator King. Don't tell me you don't know all the facts. We know the essential facts. You know what the complaint was. Should that have been forwarded to Congress, yes or no? Mr. Thomson. Senator, I fully understand your concern and the importance---- Senator King. Okay, you don't appear to want to answer. Let me move on. Were you interviewed by the President for this position? Mr. Thomson. The President of the United States? Senator King. Yes. Mr. Thomson. No, Sir. Senator King. You said, no? Mr. Thomson. Correct. Senator King. Were you interviewed by personnel at the White House? Mr. Thomson. The White House Counsel. Yes, Sir. Senator King. Was there ever any question that suggested to you any issue of loyalty or reminding you of your subservience to the President who was appointing you? Mr. Thomson. So, Senator, I'm going to answer that question. I will preface it. Generally conversations that I would have with the White House counsel I think are confidential. However, I can tell you---- Senator King. What's the basis of that statement? What's the basis of this statement of what questions you were asked in terms of your suitability for this position? Mr. Thomson. It's my understanding, but I will answer your question. Senator King. Thank you Mr. Thomson. No one from the White House ever gave me any kind of a litmus test or loyalty test to the President at all. Senator King. Did they suggest that was a significant concern or question or issue? Mr. Thomson. No one. Senator King. Did the word loyalty ever arise in any of those conversations? Mr. Thomson. No one. I will tell you, Senator, no one at the White House ever gave me any, to my knowledge or--I never perceived any kind of loyalty test at all with regard to the President. Senator, let me let me answer this. I would absolutely, I would absolutely if confirmed do my job in an independent way. If any pressure was brought on me by the White House, then I would consider that to be absolutely inappropriate and---- Senator King. Would you notify this Committee of that fact? Mr. Thomson. If I had pressure from the White House or any outside external source like that, I would notify the Committee. Senator King. Thank you. You understand that one of the critical important--I think the IG position is one of the most important in our government generally. But in this particular case, it's especially important because we're dealing with a secret Agency, which is an anomaly in a democracy. It doesn't have the usual watchdogs of the press or of interest groups or of outside people who know what's happening. Therefore, the position is especially, doubly important than it would be in the Department of Agriculture or another. Not to denigrate that, but that's a special role here. And also, the other pieces--the obligation as you've acknowledged--of reporting information to this Committee, because we're the only committee that follows what's going on in those agencies. So I hope you appreciate that this is an extremely important position and this President has made plain his desire to politicize the intelligence agencies and that he doesn't like the intelligence agencies. The Vice Chair read off the list of all the people that have been removed. I guess all you can do is tell me that you'll stand up to that, but I certainly hope that you will because it's important for the country. Whether it's this President--you may well be the IG for another President. Any President who was trying to influence the preparation of intelligence is harming themselves and harming the country. Will you commit unequivocally before this Committee to notify us of any such pressure and to resist any such pressure? Mr. Thomson. Senator, if any such pressure was brought on the IG's office to alter its product or how it would evaluate something, or from any other source, I would consider that very serious. I would report that to the CIA Director, I'm sure, and this Committee. And I will say, Senator, you're referring to you would hope that I would be independent and resist. You know, we really don't know one another, but if I'm confirmed, I think within a short period of time after working with me and working in my office, I think you would be absolutely convinced that I'm not going to give you--give in to any kind of undue inappropriate pressure, that I will always stand firm to my convictions. I can absolutely assure you of that. And I know anyone up here will tell you that. Senator King. Up to and including the likelihood of being, the possibility of being fired? Mr. Thomson. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Senator King. Up to and including the likelihood of being fired? Mr. Thomson. Senator, look, if I was fired for doing my job in a lawful way, in an appropriate way, then I would be fired. Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting Chairman Rubio. Senator Cotton. Senator Cotton. I'll answer Senator King's question very simply. That report from the so-called whistleblower should not have been forwarded to Congress because the law plainly says the Inspector General for the Director of National Intelligence deals with intelligence activities and a phone call between the President and the head of state is not an intelligence activity. And I raise that point not just to rebut what Senator King said, but to make the important point that he's making is that the Inspector General needs to stand for the rule of law, whether the rule of law comports with what a President wants or the rule of law comports with what the opposition party and the media wants. So Mr. Thomson, I will ask you this basic question. As the Inspector General, will you follow the law and uphold the rule of law? Mr. Thomson. Absolutely, Senator. Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let's turn to your experience in the U.S. Attorney's Office, which is long and extensive. You mentioned in your statement for the record and your papers that you had experience working with the NSA, the FBI, the CIA. Could you talk to us a little bit about how those experiences might prepare you for working as the Inspector General for the CIA, given the somewhat technical and often classified nature of material you'll be working with there? Mr. Thomson. Well, sure. You know, I do have some intelligence experience working at the NSA, and I think that's very transferable to the Agency. At the risk of repeating myself, which I try not to do, I think my experiences as an AUSA is one of the most important qualifications that I think I bring to the job in dealing with confidential informants and knowing how to handle sensitive information being brought in. So I would draw heavily on my experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. I'd also draw my experience as an attorney in private practice, in analyzing matters. I'm not sure what else you were asking. Senator Cotton. Well, let me ask you one more general question. This not so much about being an Inspector General for an intelligence agency, but something I've noticed with Inspectors General across all departments, especially when they come in with your experiences. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, you had tools like subpoenas and grand juries. The Inspectors General lack those. Can you talk to us about how you will approach the job without those powerful law enforcement tools to get the information you need to ensure that the officers and employees of the CIA are following the law and doing the right thing? Mr. Thomson. Right, so that is something that I would miss, certainly--the ability to work with grand juries and issue grand jury subpoenas and require testimony. I think it's very important to work with CIA leadership to gain their full support. I feel that that support's there with Director Haspel, and I believe that we would work very well together. I think the IG's office and the Director's Office, I think, would work well together. I think, you know, getting information, no matter which IG office you're in, which agency, which department--just, you know, my experience in the government, all shops can be a little bit protective about what they have. It's a little deeper. Not referencing deep state, but it's a little deeper in the Agency where you have a lot of compartmented programs. Some are even more deeply compartmented than others. And so there's always--not always--but there could be some pushback on that. And so that is something that we would work diligently through that to obtain the information that we need, and we would ask the support from the Director's Office, I know, if we need to. We'd also work with this Committee. So if there's any issues obtaining information and it got to be serious, or actually if we were refused I would come to this Committee and ask for Committee help as well. Senator Cotton. Thank you. The final thing I want to say is--it's not really a question because I don't expect you to have thought through this issue very carefully, yet. But I just want to flag it for you as you go into the job. With the pace of technological change and the evolution of cutting-edge, off-the-shelf commercial technologies, there could be a tension to balance between contracting officers who are trying to move quickly to adopt suitable commercial off-the-shelf solutions to technological challenges, on the one hand, and somewhat antiquated or rigid bureaucratic contracting roles on the other hand. I think that's a tension that all agencies need to manage, but this one in particular, and one that I would just ask you to be mindful of, too, whenever you're looking at contracting matters and what CIA can do to improve contracting in these situations. Thank you. Mr. Thomson. Yes, Sir. Acting Chairman Rubio. Mr. Thomson, we're about to close here, so I just have three very quick questions. The first is to touch on what's been asked already before, and just to leave it abundantly clear in the record. At any time in this process, from the moment this first became a possibility to the interviews you've had up to today, has anyone ever told you, implied, or made you understand in any way that you were being nominated for this position to protect the President from embarrassment, or to use it as a way to target people who--somebody maybe who was hostile? Mr. Thomson. No, absolutely, absolutely. Senator, let me just say if that had been part of the process, you wouldn't see me here today, Senator. Acting Chairman Rubio. Well, that was my follow-up question. I take it from your testimony today and the review of your record and everything that you've done, that it sounds to me like you would never, it appears, and I think logically, endanger your over-37-year career of public service and private practice for any reason. I think that's a fair assessment. Is that correct? Mr. Thomson. No, absolutely. I actually have thought of the same thing, Chairman Rubio. You know, I've got a 35-year career and I've I think built up a reputation of being a straight shooter and fair, and following the law and not giving in to pressure or in doing anything wrong or inappropriate. I'm not going to at all give that up at this stage of my life or for this position. I would never risk--to me, reputation is very important. It's one of the only things that we carry with us. It means everything to me as does the rule of law. So no, I would never do anything to risk that. Acting Chairman Rubio. Well, I want to thank you for the time you've given us here today. This is important. As you know, we'll move quickly to get a vote here from this Committee so we can process this important nomination. And I appreciate your family's time as well being here today and your willingness to serve, as I said. You have a very successful private practice, and it sounds like one that you were looking forward to continuing, but the opportunity to serve your country became available and you took it up once again. And so we thank you. I'll remind the Members what I said at the outset, that if anyone has any written questions, you can submit it for the record and get an answer for you, to do so by the close of business tomorrow. And again, thank you for being here. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:23 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] Supplemental Material [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources