Graham slams Russia, defends intelligence community

Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamThe Hill's Campaign Report: Arizona shifts towards Biden | Biden prepares for drive-in town hall | New Biden ad targets Latino voters Senate Democrats' campaign arm announces seven-figure investment to boost Graham challenger Graham: Comey to testify about FBI's Russia probe, Mueller declined invitation MORE (R-S.C.) called for stronger measures against Russia for interference in the U.S. elections, putting him in direct opposition to the incoming Trump administration.

"It is time not to throw pebbles but to throw rocks," he said, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin "is up to no good and he better be stopped."

Trump has cast dispersion on the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia tried to influence the outcome of the election by hacking into the email servers belonging to the Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonHillicon Valley: FBI chief says Russia is trying to interfere in election to undermine Biden | Treasury Dept. sanctions Iranian government-backed hackers The Hill's Campaign Report: Arizona shifts towards Biden | Biden prepares for drive-in town hall | New Biden ad targets Latino voters FBI chief says Russia is trying to interfere in election to undermine Biden MORE aide John Podesta's and leaking them.

Graham, a former presidential candidate and leading defense hawk, also defended the intelligence community's assessments.

"They're the best among us and they're trying to protect us," he said.

Kaine: Investigating Russian hacking isn’t about changing election results

Updated 12:22

Tim Kaine Timothy (Tim) Michael KaineBiden promises Democratic senators help in battleground states Second GOP senator to quarantine after exposure to coronavirus The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by The Air Line Pilots Association - Pence lauds Harris as 'experienced debater'; Trump, Biden diverge over debate prep MORE (D-Vir.), the former Democratic vice presidential candidate, argued for the non-partisan importance of the election hacking investigation well beyond the election results.

ADVERTISEMENT

Kaine opened his remarks comparing election hacking to Watergate.

“It was not an investigation driven because something affected the election. The 1972 election was the most one-sided in modern history,” he said. “But it was a high moment for Congress because Congress in a bipartisan way stood for the principle that you couldn’t undertake efforts to influence an American presidential election and have there be no consequence.”

Kaine has nearly unparalleled authority to ask to separate the debate over Russian hacking from the debate on how it affected his opportunity to become VP. If election hacking did affect the outcome of the election, he lost the second most.

Clapper: 'People with glass houses' shouldn't counterattack over cyber espionage

Updated 11:23

During questioning on the U.S. response to the OPM hack, Clapper pulled out an old saw to explain why retaliation is not always in order.

"Nobody seems intimidated by us," said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), later adding "We're showing it will not be costly to hack the files of 22 million intelligence officers."

Clapper responded, "As I say, people in glass houses need to think about throwing rocks. This was an act of espionage. And we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage."

McCaskill: US adversaries benefit from Trump's 'trashing' US intelligence community

Updated 11:01 a.m.

Sen. Claire McCaskill Claire Conner McCaskillDemocratic-linked group runs ads in Kansas GOP Senate primary Trump mocked for low attendance at rally Missouri county issues travel advisory for Lake of the Ozarks after Memorial Day parties MORE (D-Mo.) said the "biggest benefactors" of President-elect Donald Trump Donald John TrumpHR McMaster says president's policy to withdraw troops from Afghanistan is 'unwise' Cast of 'Parks and Rec' reunite for virtual town hall to address Wisconsin voters Biden says Trump should step down over coronavirus response MORE "trashing" the intelligence community are U.S. adversaries.

"[Who is] the benefactor of someone who is about to become commander in chief trashing the intelligence community?" she asked at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with top intelligence leaders.

"I assume the biggest benefactors [are] Iran, North Korea, Russia and [the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria]," she said.

Trump has cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the presidential elections on behalf of the president-elect by hacking the emails of Democratic National Committee and top Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta and leaking it to Wikileaks.

Trump has bolstered his claim by saying the intelligence community got intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq War wrong.

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told McCaskill there is a difference between "healthy skepticism" and disparagement.

"I think there is a difference between skepticism and disparagement," he said.

However, he added, "The intelligence community is not perfect. We are an organization of human beings," We are prone sometimes to make errors...I don't think the intelligence community gets the credit it's due for what it does day in and day out to keep this nation secure."

Obama hacking report will address Russia's motivations

Updated: 10:51 a.m.

The Obama administration's report detailing Russian interference in the U.S. election — due in unclassified form early next week — will address the question of Russia's intentions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Clapper told lawmakers that the report "will ascribe a motivation."

"There's actually more than one motive," Clapper said. "That will be described in the report."

He declined to provide further detail on Thursday.

Officials up until now have described the attacks on the DNC and Podesta as an attempt to "influence" the U.S. election, but have stopped short of describing it as an explicit attempt to help elect Donald Trump.

The distinction has been one of the flash-points in the debate over Russian hacking. Trump has treated any suggestion of Russian interference as an attack on the legitimacy of his victory.

The classified version of the report was reportedly delivered to President Obama today. Clapper said Thursday that he intends to make as much of the report public as possible.

Clapper: "I intend to push the envelope as much as I can on the unclassified report. I think the public should know as much as possible." — Katie Bo Williams (@KatieBoWill) January 5, 2017

Clapper: No talks with Trump about ODNI

ADVERTISEMENT

Updated: 10:24 a.m.

Clapper told lawmakers that he has not been involved in any discussions with Donald Trump's transition team to overhaul his office.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday night that Trump is weighing slimming down the Office of the Director of National Security (ODNI) and cutting CIA staff in Washington in favor of placing more personnel overseas.

ODNI was created after the Sept. 11 attacks to smooth information sharing between intelligence agencies, but has faced criticism that it has merely added a layer of bureaucracy.

Current CIA Director John Brennan last year restructured the CIA to combine analysts with spies into so-called "mission centers." The move faced some internal criticism for undermining the agency's human intelligence mission.

Hacking report prepared by three agencies

Updated 10:24 a.m.

The Intelligence Committee’s report on Russian hacking is primarily being prepared by three agencies: the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency, Clapper

The report, which was reportedly delivered to Obama today, is intended to provide a comprehensive view of Russian interference in U.S. elections going back multiple years.

Clapper: No way to judge impact on election

Updated 10:12 a.m.

The Intelligence Community has no way to determine the impact of Russian hacks on the outcome of the election, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told lawmakers.

“They didn’t change any vote tallies,” Clapper said, but “We have no way of gauging the impact that — certainly the Intelligence Community can’t — the choices that the electorate made. There’s no way for us to gauge.”