As FBI Director James Comey and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster appear before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the now-confirmed investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible collusion with the Russian government to interfere in the U.S. elections and ultimately to destabilize western democracy, Republicans on the committee have time and again pointed to a statement by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. During a March 5 interview with NBC’s Meet The Press, Clapper said, "At the time, there was no evidence of collusion.” Key words: At. The. Time. The transcript of this interview is below. Donald Trump himself cited this statement this morning in a bizarrely nervous Twitter rant:
After seeing the president’s tweet and hearing Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee bring up this statement again and again, a spokesman for the former DNI director released the following statement:
CHUCK TODD:
Well, that's an important revelation at this point. Let me ask you this. Does intelligence exist that can definitively answer the following question, whether there were improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials?
JAMES CLAPPER:
We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, "our," that's N.S.A., F.B.I. and C.I.A., with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians. There was no evidence of that included in our report.
CHUCK TODD:
I understand that. But does it exist?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Not to my knowledge.
CHUCK TODD:
If it existed, it would have been in this report?
JAMES CLAPPER:
This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government.
CHUCK TODD:
At some--
JAMES CLAPPER:
But at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion.
CHUCK TODD:
There's a lot of smoke, but there hasn't been that smoking gun yet. At what point should the public start to wonder if this is all just smoke?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Well, that's a good question. I don't know. I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest, in the current President's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom of all this. Because it's such a distraction. And certainly the Russians have to be chortling about the success of their efforts to sow dissention in this country.
CHUCK TODD:
So you feel like your report does not get to the bottom-- you admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?
JAMES CLAPPER:
It did-- well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time. Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know.
CHUCK TODD:
There was a conclusion that said, "It's clear that the Russians interfered and did so in an attempt to help Donald Trump." Do you still believe that conclusion?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Yes, I do.
CHUCK TODD:
But at this point, what's not proven is the idea of collusion.
JAMES CLAPPER:
That's correct.
CHUCK TODD:
When you see these parade of officials that were associated with the Trump campaign, first they deny any conversations, now we're hearing more, does that add to suspicion? Or do you think some of this is circumstantial?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Well, I can't say what the nature of those conversations and dialogues were, for the most part. Again, I'd think it would be very healthy to completely clear the air on this subject. And I think it would be in everyone's interest to have that done.
CHUCK TODD:
Can the Senate Intelligence Committee-- what are we going to learn from their investigation, do you think, that will move beyond what you were able to do?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Well, I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could. And at this point, I do have confidence in the Senate intelligence Committee and their effort. It is underway, in contrast to the House Intelligence Committee, which just last week agreed on their charter.
And importantly, in the case of the Senate Intelligence Committee, this appears to me to be a truly bipartisan effort. And so I think that needs to play out. If, for some reason, that proves not to be satisfactory in the minds of those who make those decisions, then perhaps then move on to a special prosecutor.
CHUCK TODD:
The New York Times, earlier this week, and as I was introducing you, this idea that they sort of left a trail, maybe lowered classif-- can you walk us through how that would work? Did they lower classification levels on certain information? Was that a fair read of what was done in the last few weeks of the administration?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Actually not. Because of the sensitivity of much of the information in this report, our actual effort was to protect it and not to spread it around, and certainly not to dumb it down, if I can use that phrase, in order to disseminate it more widely. We were under a preservation order from both our oversight committees to preserve and protect all the information related to that report, in any event.
CHUCK TODD:
Let me ask you one other final question on the infamous dossier that was put together by this former British operative named Christopher Steele. Why did you feel the need to brief the president on that at the time?
JAMES CLAPPER:
We felt that it was important that he know about it, that it was out there. And that, without respect to the veracity of the contents of the dossier, that's why it was not included as a part of our report. Because much of it could not be corroborated. And importantly, some of the sources that Mr. Steele drew on, second and third order assets, we could not validate or corroborate.
So for that reason, at least in my view, the important thing was to warn the president that this thing was out there. The Russians have a term, an acronym, called Kompromat, which they will either generate, if it's truthful or if it's contrived. And it's important, we felt, that he knew of the existence of this dossier.
CHUCK TODD:
Have you done this with other presidents? Have you had to brief them about unverified intelligence?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Yes, I've had occasion in the six and a half years I was DNI to tell President Obama certain things that we could not corroborate or validate, but that we just thought he ought to know it was out there.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. James Clapper, I have a feeling-- do you expect to have to testify on Capitol Hill among these things?
JAMES CLAPPER:
Oh, I don't think there's any doubt.
CHUCK TODD:
All right. Mr. Clapper, then I have a feeling we will see you on T.V. some time soon. And hopefully you'll come back here on Meet the Press. Thanks for coming on and sharing your views, sir.
JAMES CLAPPER:
Thanks very much, Chuck.