Does Phil Mudd know something The Washington Post doesn't?
On Friday's New Day, Mudd, a CNN counterterrorism analyst, claimed that even with the Top Secret clearance he had in his senior positions at the FBI and CIA, he wouldn't have been permitted to view the documents related to nuclear weapons that the FBI was allegedly looking for at Mar-a-Lago.
Introducing the issues, co-host John Berman read this opening paragraph of the WashPost story, hyping it as a "potentially mammoth bit of reporting":
"Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former president Donald Trump’s Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation."
But Berman omitted this paragraph [emphasis added]:
"The people who described some of the material that agents were seeking spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. They did not offer additional details about what type of information the agents were seeking, including whether it involved weapons belonging to the United States or some other nation."
So the Washington Post, which broke the story, doesn't know what those documents are, or just how classified they might or might not be. It certainly can't say whether the FBI found what their anonymous sources were claiming as justification for this unprecedented don't-call-it-a-raid.
But Mudd said:
Nuclear stuff, let me give you a clear picture of how significant it is--really clear. I was deputy director of counterterrorism at the CIA. I had a Top Secret code word clearance for 25 years. I was deputy director of national security at the FBI.
I do not believe, based on my understanding of these documents, that I would have had the clearance to view them. I don't know what else to say. This is serious stuff that very few people get access to, Brianna.
So, just what is Mudd's "understanding of these documents," and who provided him that understanding? Does Mudd have sources WaPo doesn't? And if he knows something not contained in the WaPo article, why didn't he spell it out?
Mudd also derided security at Mar-a-Lago, twice dismissing it as a "beach house." He summarized "You're keeping nuclear stuff at a beach house that I couldn't review at the CIA. Enough said."
Huh. A beach house. I'll have to look it up on Airbnb. I'm willing to go $500/week. Oh, wait.
Here's the transcript.
CNN
New Day
8/12/22
6:00 am EDTJOHN BERMAN: Another potentially mammoth bit of reporting overnight from The Washington Post. I'm going to read from it right now. Their lead is, "Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons were among the items FBI agents sought in a search of former President Donald Trump's Florida residence on Monday, according to people familiar with the investigation."
Now, this would put the possible concern over these documents at an entirely different level.
. . .
BRIANNA KEILAR: First, I want to bring in CNN counterterrorism analyst and former FBI intelligence adviser Phil Mudd, CNN political commentator Errol Louis, and Palm Beach state attorney Dave Aronberg with us as well.
Phil, just put this into context for us: classified documents relating to nuclear weapons.
PHIL MUDD: Boy, let me give you a couple perspectives. I initially downplayed this, because when you think about classified documents you can everything -- if you think about a car on a car lot, from a 15-year-old clunker with 200,000 miles, to new Maserati, this is at the new Maserati end of that car lot.
You can look at documents that might have been explainable in Mar-a-lago. For example, maybe the president kept transcripts of his conversations with presidents in Europe. Maybe he kept documents related to how he decided to withdraw from the climate change, from the climate treaty. I would have said, you know, I wouldn't worry about that too much.
Nuclear stuff, let me give you a clear picture of how significant it is--really clear. I was deputy director of counterterrorism at the CIA. I had a Top Secret code word clearance for 25 years. I was deputy director of national security at the FBI.
I do not believe, based on my understanding of these documents, that I would have had the clearance to view them. I don't know what else to say. This is serious stuff that very few people get access to, Brianna.
. . .
BERMAN: Classified documents relating to nuclear weapons, those were among the items the FBI agents sought. If those were at Mar-a-Lago, why would the Department of Justice, the FBI, the counterintelligence division of the FBI apparently, because that's who signed off on it, why wouldn't they want them at Mar-a-Lago?
MUDD: Well, if you look at the security at place like the Department of Justice, if you look at the security at a place like the Department of Energy, compared to a beach house, are you kidding me? One of the reasons the Department of Justice would have asked for the videos from Mar-a-Lago is to ask some basic questions that you would never have to ask if these documents were properly secured.
For example, who brought stuff in? Do we have the stuff that they brought in? Or did it disappear on another day? More significantly, who went in that room? And I'm going to guarantee you, that if there's national-security stuff related to nuclear weapons in there, that people who went in that room not all of them had the appropriate clearance. So you don't know what's in there. You don't know who is accessing it. You don't know if those people know how to secure this kind of secrets.
I mean, I don't know what to say, John. You're keeping nuclear stuff at a beach house that I couldn't review at the CIA. Enough said