Dem senators take aim at CIA head

Several Democratic senators took aim at CIA Director John BrennanJohn Owen BrennanTrump lashes out at former intel officials for criticism of Iran tweet Trailer shows first look at Annette Bening as Dianne Feinstein Webb: Questions for Robert Mueller MORE on Wednesday over an internal CIA review of the agency’s harsh interrogation techniques during the George W. Bush administration.

Sens. Mark UdallMark Emery UdallPoll: Trump trails three Democrats by 10 points in Colorado The Hill's Morning Report — Trump and the new Israel-'squad' controversy Colorado candidates vying to take on Gardner warn Hickenlooper they won't back down MORE (D-Colo.) and Martin HeinrichMartin Trevor HeinrichOvernight Defense: Dems grill Trump Army, Air Force picks | House chair subpoenas Trump Afghanistan negotiator | Trump officials release military aid to Ukraine Democrats grill Army, Air Force nominees on military funding for border wall Overnight Defense: Dems talk Afghanistan, nukes at Detroit debate | Senate panel advances Hyten nomination | Iranian foreign minister hit with sanctions | Senate confirms UN ambassador MORE (D-N.M.) clashed with Brennan, as they pushed for the CIA to allow the public release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 6,300-page “torture report” on the Bush-era enhanced interrogation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Udall pressed Brennan to talk about the CIA’s internal review of the interrogation techniques, launched in 2009 by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta.

He asked Brennan whether he knew about the internal review when Brennan issued a statement last year criticizing portions of the Senate Intelligence report that concluded the Bush-era interrogation techniques were not effective.

“It wasn’t a review, senator, it was a summary. At the time, no, I had not gone through it,” Brennan said.

“That strikes me as a bit improbable,” Udall responded, “given that you knew about the internal review, and you spoke to us and stated that your obligation as CIA director was to make sure the CIA response was as thorough and accurate as possible.”

Read more from The Hill.