Jay Clayton, the US attorney for the southern district of New York, refused to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election during his Wednesday confirmation hearing to become the nation’s next intelligence chief. Clayton opted instead to say that Biden was “certified” as president. He also skirted questions about his previous election integrity claims and whether a White House official asked him to subpoena a group of New York Times journalists as part of an alleged national security investigation.
Confirmation hearing highlights
Clayton, if confirmed, would replace Bill Pulte, whom Donald Trump installed as acting director of national intelligence last month. Pulte’s position has been deeply divisive on Capitol Hill, with members of both parties saying his background as the chair of a federal mortgage regulation agency is insufficient for the job, and that his unwavering loyalty to Trump makes him a dangerous spy chief. Trump is scheduled to address the nation Thursday night about supposed fraud in the 2020 election, and Pulte has reportedly pushed Trump to make the address.
Senators press Clayton on election integrity
Senate Democrats repeatedly pressed Clayton to articulate his view of the 2020 election. Mark Kelly, the Virginia senator, asked: “Can you tell me why Joe Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 election?” Clayton responded: “He had the most electoral votes, followed our process, and was declared the winner,” stopping short of calling Biden the winner. Kelly responded: “It seems that folks nominated for these positions just fundamentally refuse to disagree with something the president says. If you can’t disagree with him when he’s not in the room, will you be able to disagree with him when you are sitting across from him in the Oval Office or the Situation Room?”
Clayton's qualifications questioned
Senators also questioned Clayton about his qualifications and political loyalties. His hearing had been delayed by more than a month, extending Pulte’s acting tenure, following Trump’s unusual intervention to stall the confirmation of his own intelligence chief after Tulsi Gabbard exited the role in June. Tom Cotton, chair of the Senate intelligence committee, asked Clayton to reaffirm his commitment to downsizing and streamlining the oversight agency. Like Pulte, Clayton has thin credentials for the top intelligence job. He served as chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term and made millions as a Wall Street attorney. He has no experience serving in any intelligence agency.
Continued debate on election fraud claims
Senators continued to litigate questions of election integrity throughout the hearing, following up on Clayton’s June 8 remarks to CNBC stating: “We’re doing an absolutely terrible job, and the American people are right to question it.” He also said California’s mail-voting laws created an “opportunity for fraud.” Angus King, the Maine senator, asked: “Is there a problem with voter fraud in this country?” Clayton responded: “I don’t think we can say definitely.” There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the US.
Concerns over political interference
Gabbard also adopted Trump’s special interests as DNI priorities, launching investigations into baseless claims of 2020 election fraud. Several lawmakers asked Clayton whether he planned to enact the president’s agenda or preserve the integrity of intelligence products. Mike Rounds, the South Dakota senator, said: “If the IC workforce feels they’re going to get political blowback, or get fired, because they reach a conclusion that may not be what certain folks in the administration want to hear, that undermines the whole work of the whole community.” Rounds also called it “stunning” that Gabbard had appeared at an election site raid. Clayton committed to not interfering in US elections, stating: “We cannot have the DNI trying to put his or her hands on the scales in terms of tipping the outcome of any American election.” Mark Warner, Senate intelligence vice-chair, noted that a substantial number of intelligence employees now say they are concerned about political interference undermining intelligence analysis.
