who is put in place as the proposed national security adviser someone who traffics in these fake news stories and retweets them and shares them, who betrays a sense of either gullibility or malice that would kind of be -- these are stories that most fourth graders would find incredible. that a national security adviser would find them believable enough to share them causes me great concern. second, go back to joe dunford. he talked about russia as a potential adversary because they had capacity and they have intent. with respect to our cyber, i think we have capacity. but i think what we've shown is we shouldn't yet developed an intent about how, when, why, whether we're going to use the capacity we have. so if we're going to shore up our cyberdefense, if i can just one word, you think what we really need to shore up is our capacity or shore up our intent?

>> well, that's, as we look at foreign adversaries, that is always the issue. capability and intent. and certainly with -- in the case of the russians, they do pose an extensial threat to the united states and i agree with chairman dunford on that. it's probably not our play, at least my place, in the intelligence community to do an assessment of our intent. that's someone else's place, not mine. >> senator shaheen. >> thank you, mr. chairman and senator reed for holding this hearing and thank you all for testifying this morning and for your service to the country. dr. robert kagan testified before this committee last december with respect to russia. and at that time, there was less information known to the public about what had happened in their

interference in the elections. but one of the things he pointed out was that russia is looking at interference in elections, whether that be cyber or otherwise. the whole messaging piece that you discussed with senator heinrich. as another strategy, along with their military action and economic and other diplomatic methods, to undermine western values, our euro-atlantic alliance and the very democracies that make up that alliance. is that something that you agree with, director clapper? >> yes, that's clearly a theme. it's certainly something the russians are pushing in messaging in europe. they would very much like to drive wedges between us and western europe. the alliances there. and between and among the

countries in europe. >> and i assume that there's agreement on the panel? does anybody disagree with that? so one of the things that i think has emerged as i've listened to this discussion is we don't have a strategy to respond to that kind of an effort. we don't have a strategy that's been testified with respect to cyber, but a broader strategy around messaging, around how to respond to that kind of activity. do you agree with that? >> i think we -- i'm speaking personally. >> sure. >> institutional response as i commented earlier to senator mccain, i do think we need a u.s. information agency on steroids that deals with the totality of the information realm and to mount -- in all

forums and to include social media. >> i'm sorry to interrupt but can i just ask, why do you believe that hasn't happened? director clapper, admiral rogers? >> for my part, i don't know why it hasn't. i can't answer that. >> admiral rogers? >> from my perspective, in part because i don't think we've come yet to a full recognition of the idea that we're going to have to do something fundamentally different. i think we still continue to try to do some of the same traditional things we've done and expecting to do the same thing over and over and yet achieve a different result. >> no, that's the definition of crazy. i think we've determined that. secretary? >> i would just add in this area, the capability and intent framework is useful to think about. i think it is only in the last few years that we have seen

adversaries with true intent to use propaganda and the ability to reach out as terrorists are doing and try to incite and match that up with the tremendous power that social media tools allow to make that easy and simple and effective and broadly applicable. >> so given that this is a strategy and given that it's aimed not just at the united states, particularly with respect to interference in our elections, but at western europe and eastern europe for that matter. is there an effort under way to work with our allies through nato or otherwise? i've been to the cybersecurity center in estonia. but there didn't seem to be a nato agreement that this was something that we should be working on together to respond to. so is this an effort that's

under way? >> just speaking from my lens of things, there's a lot of interest in doing that and doing it more effectively and comprehensively, but we have not cracked the code on doing it effectively yet. we need to keep the pressure on ourselves and our nato allies who are like-minded in this regard to keep improving our approach. >> and it's also got to be much broader than cyber. >> thank you. director clapper, my time is almost up, but before you go, since this is the last opportunity we'll have to hear from you, can i just ask you, do you think that the dni needs reform? >> well -- there's always room for improvement. i would never say that this is the ultimate. i do think it would be useful, though, if we're going to reform or change the dni or change cia

that some attention be given to, in our case, the legislative underpinnings that established the dni in the first place and then added additional functions and responsibilities over the years that congress has added to our bag of duties. but to say that, you know, we can't, there's not room for improvement, i'd never suggest that. >> i appreciate that, and i certainly agree with you. if there's going to be this major reform, hopefully both legislators and others who have been engaged in the intelligence community will be part of that effort. thank you. >> i certainly agree the congress, no pun intended, gets a vote here. >> thank you. >> i know that our time has expired, and i apologize to our new members that we won't have time because you have to go, but

maybe, director clapper, since this may be, hopefully, your last appearance, do you have any reflections that you'd like to provide us with, particularly the role of congress or the lack of role of congress that in your years of experience? >> i'm going to have to be careful here. >> i don't think you have to be. >> i was around in the intelligence community when the oversight committees were first established and have watched them and experienced them ever since. congress does have, clearly, an extremely important role to play when it comes to oversight of intelligence activities. and unlike many other endeavors of the government, much of what we do, virtually all of what we do is done in secrecy. so the congress has a very

important, a crucial responsibility on behalf of the american people for overseeing what we do, particularly in terms of legality and a protection of privacy. at risk of delving into a sensitive area, i do think there's a difference between oversight and micromanagement. >> well, we thank you. we thank the witnesses, and this has been a very helpful and, director clapper, we'll be calling you again. >> really? >> this hearing is adjourned. >> welcome to "inside politics." i'm john king. you've been listening for the past 2 1/2-plus hours the senate

armed services committee with a hearing call to explore the broad cyberthreats against the united states. most of the questioning focussing on the russian hack of the democratic national committee. clinton campaign chairman john podesta's e-mails during the past presidential campaign. the director of national intelligence james clapper saying he has no doubt this was orchestrated by russia saying he feels more strongly about this than when they first issued a statement about it during the election campaign back in october. a lot to discuss. a lot of the hearing highlights to play back and discuss this hour. my "inside politics" panel is here with me. let's go first live to cnn's phil mautsi imattingly. evan perez will also join us. phil, let's start with you. this is a hearing call by the republican chairman, john mccain, who clearly, although he was very polite. he did not get into a battle publicly with donald trump. clearly wanted to have the intelligence community come in, make clear once again they believe russia meddled in the presidential election and mccain wants the president-elect, no doubt, to listen to them and to

believe them. >> yeah, no question about it, john. if this was a 2 1/2-hour hearing, you can say probably 2 hours and 23 minutes of that were related to russia and related specifically to the activities that the intelligence community has assessed they participated in, in the lead-up to the november 8th election. you saw an interesting balance here. on the political side of things, you've seen a lot of republican senators who, behind the scenes, they and their advisers have told me and several reporters have been uncomfortable with the position he's taken on russia in general on foreign policy but also in his critiques and sometimes attacks on the intelligence community. i think a lot of what you saw from john mccain who as you notnote ed never mentioned donald trump throughout the course of this hearing. it was to make the case, set the case up to cut down on a number of criticisms you heard from the president-elect. you also saw democrats repeatedly try and push the intelligence officials towards making that same case for them

as well. it's an interesting moment because so many republicans right now empowered at this moment on capitol hill. in 15 days, empowered in the white house as well, are trying not to cross their president-elect. they don't want to upset him as they start to move forward on their agenda. no question with the chairman of the committee, john mccain. ted cruz on some parts trying to make this case this should not be a partisan issue. russia should not be a country they, as republicans, should embrace on the foreign policy things and most importantly what happened in the lead-up to the election isn't something that should be ignored. what we heard about the report, it was ordered by the obama administration into what actually occurred. james clapper, the director of national intelligence, confirming that report will be released early next week. likely monday officials have told cnn. and the most important part, several lawmakers made the case. our constituents don't take you at your word here. you need to go further than that. clapper saying they'll do their

best to push the envelope on the unclassified version as much as they can. it will be interesting what that looks like. >> it sure will be. phil mattingly. evan perez, as you come in, pick up where phil left off. director clapper wasn't going to discuss the classified report. it was presented to the president today. president-elect trump will be briefed on it tomorrow. they'll try to release as much as they can without disclosing methods and sources and other classified, sensitive information to the public. but as the hearing went on to director clapper did seem to feel a little more freedom to be more specific and saying, yes, it was russia, yes, not much happens in russia without president vladimir putin's approval. did you learn anything new listening to this today? >> that's what happens in these types of hearings. you get drips and drabs of pieces of what clapper already has prepared in this report. right at the beginning of that hearing is when the report had already been delivered to the president, and he was about to get briefod it.

so during the time that these members of congress were questioning clapper and other members of the intelligence community there, the president himself was getting briefed on the report that james clapper and dni prepared for him. key parts of this he said that obviously the russians, we expect this will be part of the report. the russians were not just behind the extracting of the data but were also in the dissemination part of it, including the fake news stories, some of the stuff that we've all highlighted that sort of caused outrage during the presidential campaign. he called it part of this disinformation campaign that he says continues to this day. so that's an interesting part of it. and we expect to see that to come into the report. he also called it one of the most aggressive campaigns he's ever seen. the russians have been doing this going back to the 1960s. obviously, this country has also been involved. a couple ever senators pointed out the united states has been a part of influencing elections

overseas. but what james clapper was saying is this was one of the most aggressive campaigns that he has ever seen, and he also described multiple motivations which is a very key part of this, john, because the president-elect thinks that what the intelligence community is doing is undermining his election. that's not what james clapper is trying to do, as you heard from him. he's saying, we can't tell what caused people to pull the numbers on november 8th, but we do know what the motivation was of the russians. >> evan perez, phil mattingly on capitol hill, thank you. a fascinating conversation to continue. with me cnn's nia-malika 00erson, dan balls of "the washington post," matt visor and walt cook. this is an issue that's been with us some time. the fact mccain wanted to have this on the third day of the new congress. usually congress comes in, they swear themselves in say hello and disappear or go off to do business we don't much care

about. this has been a very busy first congress. now the president-elect will get briefed on the classified report tomorrow. he's publicly said he doubts russia did this. doubts putin would be involved. he's disparaged the intelligence community through tweets and some public comments. some of what we heard today was subtle. some of it they leave us to connect the dots but listen to sar senator lindsey graham. john mccain's best friend. john mccain made his points without mentioning president-elect trump by name. lindsey graham, he wasn't afraid to go there. >> you agree with me that the foundation of democracy is political parties, and when one political party is compromised, all of us are compromised? >> yes, sir. >> all right. now as to what to do. you say you think this was approved at the highest level of government in russia, generally speaking. is that right? >> that's what we said. >> okay. who is the highest level of

government? >> well, the highest is president putin. >> do you think a lot happens in russia that he doesn't know about? >> not very many. >> yeah, i don't think so. >> certainly none that are politically sensitive in another country. >> okay. now as we go forward and try to deter this behavior, we're going to need your support now and in the future. so i want to let the president-elect know that it's okay to challenge the intel. you are absolutely right to want to do so. but what i don't want you to do is undermine those who are serving our nation in this arena until you are absolutely sure they need to be rundermined. and i think they need to be uplifted, not undermined. >> we're laughing a bit because it's great theater and senator graham has an interesting banter back and forth. but, dan, we're 15 days, two weeks away, from a new president. you have senior members of his own party essentially trying to hit him in the has with a 2x4

and say, mr. president-elect, stop disparaging these people. accept their findings. it seems to be universal that director clapper saying he had zero doubts the russians were behind this. it's a fascinating moment. a significant national security question, but it's sort of a very blunt not so subtle message there for the republican president-elect. >> well, all along we've had to separate the political from the policy, security questions. but you mentioned the 2x4. the senators and others in the republican party think that the president-elect has hit the intelligence community with a 2x4. and they are trying to respond in kind to set this up. i mean, up until now, what we've had are indications, statements. we are soon to get this report. president-elect is going to get the report tomorrow. the president has is. there will be a public version of this. it will be then, at that point, this will become a very supercharged issue. what does donald trump do once real evidence is put out by the

intelligence community as to the specific things that the russians did? the degree of which they were aggressive in this and to the multiple motivations that mr. clapper talked about. this has all been a prelude to what is likely to be a real problem for the president-elect next week. >> and he has set up a situation where he begins his presidency with an adversarial relationship with the people who brief him on the most sensitive issues in the world. and senator graham and others mentioned it in the other days of his administration. north korea may roll an intercontinental ballistic missile on to a test launch pad and the new president may have to decide what to do about that. does he believe the people telling him that? >> there's another thing that came up in this hearing very early on where mccain specifically asked clapper and others whether julian assange, someone donald trump now has also been saying has credibility, whether or not this

man should be given credibility for what he's saying about the fact that russia did not give him the e-mails that came from john podesta's hacked account. and point blank, they said, no, we do not trust jewulian assang nor should the president-elect. this is a game that republicans will be playing for the rest, certainly for the immediate future, and it could be for the entire tenure of donald trump's presidency is this idea that while they want to be with him on some of these issues when he's challenging democrats, when he's challenging what they see as his legitimacy as president, they want to be with him. at the same time, people like mccain and lindsey graham are always going to be beating down the door on the issue of national security and russia. where the other senators end up is going to be the more interesting piece because you don't know what they're going to do. >> you saw some of that with tom tillis essentially saying,

listen, we have done some of this, too. the u.s. has done some of this. we live in a glass house. you saw that with cotton saying, listen, he thinks that donald trump will be tough or russia than hillary clinton would have been because of some of the statements that he made, but to have lindsey graham out there and this great theater, that's going to get a lot of coverage throughout the day. this idea that it could be republicans next time. it could be another country next time. how will donald trump handle that? at that point, would he believe these intelligence agencies that he has so far gone some ways into questioning and even discrediting? >> you heard lindsey graham there. that was a republican delivering a not so subtle message to the president-elect. let's listen to an even less subtle exchange. this is senator claire mccaskill, democrat of missouri. she was an obama supporter in '08 but friend of hillary clinton in the 2016 campaign. who was lindsey graham-plus.

>> who actually is the benefactor of someone who is about to become commander in chief trashing the intelligence community? >> i think there is an important distinction here between healthy skepticism, which policymakers, to include policymaker number one, should always have for intelligence, but i think there's a difference between skepticism and disparagement. >> and i assume that the biggest benefactors of the american people having less confidence in the intelligence community are, in fact, actors you have named today. iran, north korea, china, russia and isis. >> the intelligence community is not perfect. we are an organization of human beings, and we're 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 safe and secure in a number of plots and to -- just one example, terrorist plots that have been thwarted, both those focused on this country and other countries. >> i want to thank the chairman, and i want to thank senator graham and others. there have been others i can count on maybe a little bit more than one hand who have stood up in a nonpolitical way to defend the intelligence community over the last few weeks. the notion that the elected -- the soon elected leader of this country would put julian assange on a pedestal compared to the men and women of the intelligence community and the military that is so deeply embedded in the intelligence community, i think it should bring about a human cry, no

matter whether you are republican or a democrat. there should be howls. and mark my word. if the roles were reversed, there would be howls from the republican side of the aisle. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for that nonpartisan comment. >> again, a bit of humor at the hearing, if you get mccain and graham in a room. usually a little bit of humor. but, matt, to the point. claire mccaskill is a partisan democrat laying down a clear marker there and taking a clear shot at the president-elect of the united states. but there is broad bipartisan befuddlement on this particular issue. we can have a debate about trump's tax plan. a debate about who trump is going to put in the cab net. most of that breaks down along partisan lines. but on this criticism of the u.s. intelligence community, his affinity to believe putin n say nice things about putin, now to your point, he said in a tweet this morning he's not saying he agrees with assange but assange who is often on the kremlin paid

russian television network. paul ryan calls him a sycophant for the russians, was a guest on sean hannity. everyone in that saying consider the source. that part is befuddling to people. why is donald trump so suspect of men and women who risk their lives every day, and if you look at the three men at that hearing, they've served democrats and republicans going back years. why is he so suspect of people who work for this country, patriots, and has such an affinity for the russians? >> you're seeing a test of power in the different broonchs of the united states government at this point where congress, you know, really it was a 2 1/2-hour hearing as evan perez indicated. drips and drabs of news in it. a 2 1/2-hour defense of the intelligence community from both sides of the aisle. and sort of punching back at donald trump and his tweets and his mentality of questioning which sets up an interesting

dynamic coming in. it also sets an interesting dynamic tomorrow when donald trump is briefed by clapclapper. in the room will be mike flynn who is trump's national security adviser who was fired, pushed out by clapper. so there's a lot of internal tensions within trump's orbit on this. and that briefing tomorrow will be quite interesting, too. >> john, one question that's still a little hard to decipher is the motivation of donald trump in the way he's handled this. is this because he fears there will be questions consistent and persistent about the legitimacy of his presidency? or is it specifically about his view of russia and putin? it's all mixed up together at this point. but which one is the real reason that he has taken such consistent and public stance skeptical of the intelligence. >> questioning the lejitsimacy or a very, very, very different world view than just about

everybody else in his party, particularly. >> what does this mean for the way he would govern and how, if there is bad news on his watch, for instance, if the economy only creates 70,000 jobs and the unemployment rate goes up, does he then go after the bls? is that how he's going to govern in this antagonistic way to agencies in his own administration that he is supposed to lead? >> and the credibility issue. we'll discuss this more. we're going to take a break in a minute. one of the issues here repeatedly raised was if donald trump keeps questioning the credibility of people who work for the united states government. man or woman watching at home, what do they think when he faces a big national security decision. he's asking for recommendations from people he didn't believe of credible. >> part of the reason he was elected is because the american people believe big parts of the government have let them down. they do not have the credibility they had 20, 30, 40 years ago. that's certainly benefitted him. he is living in that world as we all are. n the other thing, the

republican party came together immediately after donald trump was elected. they came together as voters to elect him. we're starting to see the cracks that we'd seen throughout the campaign between certain parts of that republican coalition. lindsey graham, john mccain are always going to be on one side. donald trump may or may not be with them. >> everyone at the hearing said there's zero, zero, zero evidence that russia changed votes. much more to dig into this hearing. and we'll get to that question dan balz just raised. will donald trump change his view after he hears from the intelligence chief? much more of our coverage just ahead. geico has a long history of great savings and great service. over seventy-five years. wait. seventy-five years? that is great. speaking of great, check out these hot riffs. you like smash mouth? uh, yeah i have an early day tomorrow so...

wait. almost there. goodnight, bruce. gotta tune the "a." (humming) take a closer look at geico. great savings. and a whole lot more. for your pet, to do the best you should know more about the food you choose. with beyond, you have a natural pet food that goes beyond telling ingredients to showing where they come from. beyond assuming the source is safe... to knowing it is. beyond asking for trust... to earning it. because, honestly, our pets deserve it. beyond. natural pet food. why does your tummy go "grumbily, grumbily, grumbily"? no more questions for you! ooph, that milk in your cereal was messing with you, wasn't it? try lactaid, it's real milk, without that annoying lactose. good, right? mmm, yeah. lactaid. the milk that doesn't mess with you.

...another anti-wrinkle cream in no hurry to make anything happen. neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair works... ...in one week. with the... fastest retinol formula available. it's clinically proven to work on fine lines and... ...even deep wrinkles. "one week? that definitely works!" rapid wrinkle repair. and for dark spots, rapid tone repair. neutrogena®. "see what's possible."

welcome back. we continue to dissect and discuss a remarkable hearing this morning to discuss the broad cyberthreats against the united states, including from china, iran, north korea, but most of the 2-hour, 40-minute hearing dedicated to russia's hacking of the united states during the presidential election, including the democratic national committee. clinton campaign chairman podesta's e-mails and those e-mails released into the public. a remarkable discussion after the hearing. john mccain met with reporters. >> what message do you hope the president-elect takes from this hearing today? >> well, i hope he understands the importance of the role of the intelligence commune iity, they may have made some mistakes in the past, but they are still vital in their advice and counsel and assessment for us to be able to secure this nation

and provide security. and it's clear that their conclusions, at least so far, have been correct. and we should respect the intelligence community and appreciate their work, recognizing that they're not always perfect. >> does it concern you that he continues to downplay the role of russia in the elections when -- does it concern you that he continues to downplay the role of russia in the elections? >> we'll see how he accepts this report from the intelligence that he's receiving, i think on friday -- tomorrow. >> and you were making the point that julian assange is not a credible source. why did you decide to do that in light of donald trump using, relying on julian assange as -- >> as i said in the hearing, mr. assange's name has been raised as some kind of a credible source of information, and the fact is that he is one of the

worst individuals because he put the lives of men and women that are serving this nation in jeopardy because -- by revealing their identities and where they were. this is really a person who has put the lives of americans in danger. he kncannot be trusted for anything. >> -- skeptical of the intelligence community as he's supposed to be -- >> you should always have a healthy skepticism. that's why we have hearings. but we start out with the assumption that the information they are giving us is correct. >> was there a risk that promoting that kind of skepticism? >> why do we [ inaudible ]. that's what the role of congress is. >> what strategy would you like to see the new administration pick up in the cyber domain?

>> first of all, to come up with what they haven't had. right now there is no policy. therefore, there is no strategy, therefore there's no response. >> senator mccain -- >> is there a moment you suggest the russian hacking of the election didn't affect the outcome of the election itself. he pushed back and said, we don't know that. >> what i was saying, we don't know. we can't assume anything. for someone to assume that they affected the outcome of the election is not correct. >> but senator -- >> do you think donald trump's election is -- >> does that raise the notion that his election was not legitimate? >> no, because it would have to be proven that it did affect the

election. >> senator mccain, have you determined why the president-elect doesn't share the same concerns about russia as many republicans like yourself on capitol hill? >> no, i don't know. i don't talk to him. how should i know? >> does it worry you, though? >> i do my job, and hopefully all the correct information will come out. i do my job, have hearings as committee chairman, i do a lot of work. >> his team has suggested this entire incident has become politicized. what's your response to that? >> i think the hearing we just held was not politicized. that's manifestation of a bipartisan approach to this issue which has characterized the work of the armed services. >> do you think it's important to keep the role of the director of national intelligence? >> keep the role? >> the president-elect has signaled that he -- >> no, they're not going to take out director of national

intelligence. they're talking about changing the composition of it and stuff, but they're not talking about doing away with the director of national intelligence. >> you said you don't think the outcome of the election was -- >> i said i do not know. but i won't believe that it was unless there's proof. i'm not assuming. and no one else should. >> do you think trump was helped by russia's hacking? >> i don't know. >> do you believe that hillary clinton's campaign was hurt by what happened with russia's meddling in the election? >> as i said, i have no evidence. for the fifth time -- >> i'm sorry. i missed it. >> i have no evidence that the outcome of the election was impacted by the hacking but the fact they were able to do what they did is a threat to national security because they intended obviously --

we have no policy and no strategy. and that should disturb all of us. >> do you believe what happened was an act of war? >> i think that the broadest context, it was an act of war, but we respond differently to different acts of war. espionage is an act of war but you don't go to war over it. you don't go into conflict. so it fits the definition of an act of war. it doesn't mean that all of a sudden, you start shooting. >> senator mccain, turkey has sent ground forces to syria to fight against daesh. that coalition does not support the -- what do you think? should they support turkish efforts in syria? >> until we find out the true intent of russia and spending

our time [ inaudible ] -- >> senator mccain, how should the u.s. retaliate? the intelligence officials seem to suggest that a cyberresponse was not the right approach. >> i think they are concerned about escalation, but my responsibility to that is, are you going to do nothing? we have whole variety of actions you can take, including increasing sanctions. the russian economy is very, very weak. 15th in the world. you can impose much harsher sanctions as a response. so far, we have really done nothing. >> do you have confidence the incoming administration will agree with tougher sanctions on russia? >> we'll find out. i have no confidence either way. i have no conclusion either way. >> if he opposes it, will congress --

>> i don't count votes but i will certainly and lindsey graham and cardon and others are preparing very tough sanctions against russia. whether they will pass or not, i'm not sure but we're sure going to try. >> senator, if president-elect donald trump continues to cast doubt on these intelligence assessments after he gets his briefing, will you consider holding off his cabinet nominees or what steps might you consider? >> the president is entitled to his views. i'm entitled to my views and i'll do my job as chairman of the committees. >> what's the most important thing -- >> senator john mccain there speaking to reporters in a senate hallway after a very important hearing on cyberthreats against the united states. much of the conversation in the hall. also much of the conversation at that hearing focused on russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election including hacking of clinton campaign chairman john podesta's e-mails

and the release of those e-mails into the public sphere. senator mccain saying he has no way of saying they impacted votes. there is no evidence that russia hacked in a way that changed votes, hacked into counting systems or voting machines. that didn't happen, at least there's no evidence of that. the conversation, back to the table here. listen to senator mccain. there's a lot to discuss. one thing that's stunning to me is the policy going forward. the obama administration put in sanctions against russia for this meddling. hawks like john mccain and lindsey graham don't think those sanctions are tough enough. lindsey graham saying that was a pebble. it's time to throw rocks to send a statement not just to russia but others who meddle in cyberwarfare. senator mccain doesn't know what the new president will do. he says he doesn't know what's the new president will do because i didn't talk to him. john mccain was not a fan of donald trump during the campaign. donald trump doesn't react to people who are not fans of donald trump.

but covering a number of transitions, dan, is it unusual that the incoming president of the united states has not yet -- he's met with the leaders but he has not reached out broadly to the policy experts in his party. if you'll have a conversation about foreign policy, you bring in john mccain and lindsey graham, maybe rand paul, too. to get the full conversation, differing views, but he hasn't done that. >> he hasn't done that. i don't know what to draw from that yet. we know he has met with a lot of people about a lot of things. he's got a government that he's got to populate. there's work to be done on that front. so at this point, you know, you would have to say he doesn't have a particularly good relationship with senator mccain and, therefore, that may be the reason. there may be other reasons. it's more important once he's in office to see how he begins to reach out to people on the hill other than the narrow leadership. >> and, john, you have seen many of these transitions. every time a president comes in,

they come in with the prem, i i'm going to change washington. i was voted to shake up washington and congress usually comes back. remember when bill clinton came in and senator moynihan pushed back. that's really nice. >> nice to see you, young man. you're going to be gone after four years. i'm here for a long time. nothing new about congress pushing back even a member of their own party who is president saying we have a lot of information. we have a lot of institutional knowledge. maybe you should listen to us and the new president saying, no, i was elected to push back on people like you. you are part of the problem. that to me is a natural and healthy tension there. the question that's going to occur afterward is, or throughout.presidency or the beginnings of this presidency is just how long these tensions are going to go and who else is going to be part of this? we know graham and mccain on security issues are going to be here. what about when we get to economic issues? what about foreign policy? what about when we get to entitlements? where are we going to see the party moving? >> trade, immigration, you go

through a long list. the election gave us the president but did not settle the ideological tensions within either party. both parties are fracturing on some of these issues. one thing senator mccain said he does not know, president-elect trump will get a briefing from some of the gentleman you just saw here today and other leaders of the intelligence committee, including the head of the cia tomorrow. he'll be told that there's absolute, unequivocal evidence that russia meddled in the elengs. that was russia's intent. will donald trump change his mind? lindsey graham, senator from south carolina, you heard him saying he thinks it's critical donald trump changes his mind, not so much because of the russian hacking issue but because of big policy questions going forward. >> here's what i hope he realizes. that if he has to take action against north korea, which he may have to do, i intend to

support it. but he needs to explain to the american people why. and one of the explanations he'll give is based on what i was told by the people that are in the fight. and let me tell you this. you don't wear uniforms but you're in the fight. and we're in a fight for our lives. i just got back from the baltics. ukraine and georgia. if you think it's bad here, you ought to go there. so, ladies and gentlemen, it's time not to throw pebbles but throw rocks. i wish we were not here. if it were up to me, we'd all live in peace, but putin is up to no good, and he better be stopped and mr. president-elect, when you listen to these people, you can be skeptical, but understand they are the best among uand they are trying to protect us. thank you all. >> is there anyone in the trump inner circle who delivers that

message? mike pence is very careful publicly. of course, president-elect trump has every reason to be skeptsical. the intelligence people say that was 13 years ago. we have much better ways of doing things now. who in the trump inner circle. maybe he won't listen to mccain or graham. is it general mattis who certainly respects the gentleman we saw today giving the testimony? who gets to him and says, sir, you have to change your mind. >> what he tweets tomorrow afternoon or as we speak. and sort of what his response is after that briefing tomorrow and how he recalibrates. we saw some early signs of him paving a way for him to back off a little bit. what is his reaction after the briefing that he gets, and that's his opportunity really to sort of back off. and the other thing, sort of at play is trying to figure out his moe motivations, his rhetoric on

putin. where that's coming from if he's playing some more strategic game than we give him credit for or if he is cozying up for putin for other reasons. that's another thing at play that we don't exactly know what the end game looks like. >> there's some -- hugh hewitt has a column in "the washington post" saying there's a brilliant strategy behind this and he's really playing putin in a way that other people may not understand. and he admits in that column that's maybe sort of a laughable conclusion. but i think also what we've seen from trump and some of his rhetoric is he might in the end say he believes the raw data, believes the conclusion, but let's move on, right? he said as much that the election was weeks and weeks ago. it's settled. but we need to turn the page in terms of how we deal with putin and russia. wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with russia to work together and take out isis. >> isn't it possible his

response to this will be, okay, i accept that the russians were, you know, doing bad things. but the intelligence community says they have no evidence that it changed the outcome. therefore, it didn't change the outcome, therefore, settled issue. we can move on. cyber threats are a real problem, not just from the russians. you can see him encompassing all of that. >> does he leave in place the obama sanctions. and what does he do when others say you should accelerate the sanctions, make them tougher. >> that's where the debate heads. mccain seems digging in and the question is, talking to ben cardin about having some resolution and passing something along and does trump veto that? >> probably a veto-proof majority. >> will there be any momentum or energy for fuller hearings on the hill. >> there will be. one will be rex tillerson. >> during the nomination.

>> but i mean a separate investigation. >> absolutely. so we'll have more of this next week and then we could have a full hearing. >> some of it in the confurmation hearings. especially secretary of state, rex tillerman, the exxonmobil head who has a close relationship with russia. and once this report is public it seemed to be indicated they might get call back up there or their deputies called back up there to talk about the public part of it. one of the fascinating part of it is when you watch these hearings, i always love to watch lawmakers with known ambition. among the members of the committee today is senator tom cotton. an army veteran, iraq war veteran, who is a strong conservative republican. he is no fan of vladimir putin. he's a hawk on many military issues but also understands the power of trump voters in the republican electorate. watch tom cotton trying not to side with putin but to be a little bit more careful. >> there's a widespread

assumption, this has been expressed by secretary clinton herself since the election, that vladimir putin favored donald trump in this election. donald trump has proposed to increase our defense budget to accelerate nuclear modernization and accelerate ballistic missile defenses and to expand and accelerate oil and gas production which would possibly harm russia's economy. hillary clinton opposed or was not as enthusiastic about all those measures. would each of those put the united states in a stronger, strategic position against russia? >> currently anything we do to enhance our military capabilities, absolutely. >> there is some contrary evidence, despite what the media speculates that perhaps donald trump is not the best candidate for russia. >> okay, senator cotton. it's an interesting point in the sense he wanted to get into the mix. he wasn't defending the hacking or defending the russians but,

what exactly was he trying to do there? >> he was making -- this is what you were talking about. lindsey graham and john mccain on one end and people in the middle trying to triangulate all of these difference forces. essentially praised trump, right? defend him and say that he would be better versus clinton. we'll have to see what the trump administration is like. what it's like in terms of its relationship to putin. and if he, in fact, rolls back these sanctions, i don't know what tom cotton will say about that. >> it seems like the hugh hewitt argument in some ways of giving trump credit that he's saying nice things about putin but underneath he's doing a lot more to build up the military or at least talking about that. >> there also may be another aspect of this, of what senator cotton represents. which is, there are a lot of republicans who are uncomfortable with what donald trump has said and done, vis-a-vis the intelligence community, but they don't want

this report to give more fuel to the idea that in one way or another, hillary clinton has a legitimate argument to make about what happened to her. they want to cut the democrats off. they want to make hillary clinton look less tough than donald trump on some of these issues. >> i want to make a point about the gentleman. as someone who has been in washington a long time. that donald trump has disparaged -- criticized for disparaging the intelligence community and taking the sides or viewing assange as a credible witness. he cites him on twitter as someone we should all pay attention to. taking the side of the russians. jim clapper is the director of national intelligence. he seemed happy to tell everybody he's leaving in 15 days. he's been in the military for some 40 years now. began his service in the tlngs community during the conditiondy administration. he's served democrats and republicans. marcel is the under secretary for defense. he goes back to bob gates. he has served secretaries hagel,

panetta and gates. two republicans and a democrat there. he didn't get to talk much today because he's a civilian appointee. admiral michael rogers. he has spent 36 years in the intelligence community in the united states military. again, for democrats and republicans. that is what has a lot of washington dismayed that, if you're going to attack -- have a republican president, fight some democrats, so be it. democrats are going to fight with the republicans. why is he disparaging the work of these people who try to be apolitical. dr. clapper said we don't always get it right, but we try to. one thing that came up is because president-elect trump has been so critical of the intelligence community, could it affect recruiting? here's admiral rogers on that point. >> i don't want to lose good, motivated people who want to help serve this nation because they don't feel they are generating value to help this nation. and i'm first to acknowledge

there's room for a wide range of opinions. we don't question that for one minute. and every intelligence professional knows that. i've had plenty of times in my career i've presented my intelligence analysis to commanders and policymakers and they just look at me and say, mike, thanks but that's not the way i see it, or you'll have to sell me on this. that doesn't bother any of us. what we do, i think, is relevant and we realize what we do is in no small part driven by the confidence of our leaders and what we do. without that confidence, i just don't want a situation where our workforce decides to walk because i think that really is not a good place for us to be. >> john, what he's saying right there is what the leaders of almost every industry in america believe right now, right? disparage the banks or wall street. we're not getting the best and brightest to come. disparage washington and the people who come here as public servants. you're not getting those people

to come. what he's saying is happening in every industry based on the fact that traditional institutions are not trusted in the way they used to be. >> under attack. remarkable in this case. president-elect doing it to the intelligence community. amy, matt, dan, nia-malika henderson. thanks for coming up. up next, wolf blitzer with more on the breaking news right after a short break. but then i realized there was. so, i finally broke the silence with my doctor about what i was experiencing. he said humira is for people like me who have tried other medications but still experience the symptoms of moderate to severe crohn's disease. in clinical studies, the majority of patients on humira saw significant symptom relief. and many achieved remission. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure.

before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. if you're still just managing your symptoms, talk with your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, remission is possible. as after a dvt blood clot,ital i sure had a lot to think about. what about the people i care about? ...including this little girl.

and what if this happened again? i was given warfarin in the hospital, but wondered, was this the best treatment for me? so i asked my doctor. and he recommended eliquis. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots and reduces the risk of them happening again. yes, eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. eliquis also had significantly less major bleeding than the standard treatment. both made me turn around my thinking. don't stop eliquis unless your doctor tells you to. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. if you had a spinal injection while on eliquis call your doctor right away if you have tingling, numbness, or muscle weakness. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily ...and it may take longer than usual for bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned medical or dental procedures. eliquis treats dvt and pe blood clots. plus had less major bleeding.

both made eliquis the right treatment for me. ask your doctor if switching to eliquis is right for you. [ that's a good thing, eligible for medicare? but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment

to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. ♪ hello. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m. in washington. 9:00 p.m. in moscow. wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks for joining us. up first, russia did it. u.s. intelligence leaders say they are more convinced than ever that russia was behind the hacking during the 2016 election here in the united states. and that sets the stage for a clash with president-elect donald trump who has repeatedly raised doubts that russia was responsible. at a senate aed