one because they announced a year and a half before that they were leaving, so it's always tough when they're building a plant it's a little tougher than before they start or before they make an announcement. i want to thank united technologies. we've been meeting with a lot of companies, but what really is happening is the word is now out that when you want to move your plant to mexico or some other place and you want to fire all of your workers from michigan and ohio and all these places that i won, for good reason, it's not going to happen that way anymore. you want to move your plant and you think as an example you're going to build that plant in mexico and you are going to make your air conditioners or your cars or whatever you're making and you are going to sell it through what will be a very, very strong border, not a weak border like it is now. we don't even have a border. it's an open sive. it's not going to happen. you are going to pay a very large border tax. so if you want to move to another country and if you want

to fire all of our great american workers that got you there in the first place, you can move from michigan to tennessee and to north carolina and south carolina. you can move from south carolina back to michigan. you can do anywhere. you got a lot of states at play. a lot of competition. it's not like oh, gee, i'm taking the competition away. you got a lot of places you can move. i don't care. as long as it's within the united states. the borders of the united states. there will be a major border tax on these companies that are leaving and getting away with murder, and if our politicians had what it takes, they would have done this years ago, and you would have millions more workers right now in the united states that are 96 million really wanting a job and they can't get. you know that story. the real number. that's the real number. so that's the way it is. okay. go ahead. >> mr. president-elect, i have a question about the supreme court and the border security, but i

also want to ask you about something you said on twitter. are we living in nazi germany? what were you driving at there? do you have a problem with the intelligence community? on the supreme court, what's your timeline? you said a while ago you were down to four. have you conducted those interviews yet. what's your timeline for nominating? on the border fence, it now appears clear u.s. taxpayers will have to pay for it up front. what is your plan -- >> that's not clear at all. >> -- to get mexico to pay for it? >> do you have any more? on the fence -- it's not a fence. it's a wall. you just misreported it. we're going to build a wall. i could wait about a year and a half until we finish our negotiations with mexico, which we'll start immediately after we get to office, but i don't want to wait. mike pence is leading an effort to get final approvals through various agencies and through congress for the wall to begin. i don't feel like waiting a year or year and a half. we're going to start building. mexico in some form and there are many different forms, will

reimburse us and they will reimburse us for the cost of the wall. that will happen. whether it's a tax or whether it's a payment. probably less likely that it's a payment. it will happen. remember this, okay? i would say we are going to build a wall, and people would go crazy. i would then say who is going to pay for the wall? people would all scream out 25,000, 30,000 people because nobody has ever had crowds like trump has had. you don't like to report that, but you know that, and that's okay. now we agree. finally he agrees. i say who is going to pay for the wall? they will scream out mexico. now, reports went out last week, oh, mexico is not going to pay for the wall because of a reimbursement. what's the difference? i want to get the wall started. i don't want to wait a year and a half until i make my deal with mexico. we probably will have a deal sooner than that. by the way, mexico has been so nice, so nice.

i respect the government of mexico. i respect the people of mexico. i love the people of mexico. many people from mexico are working for me. they're phenomenal people. the government of mexico is terrific. i don't blame them for what's happened. i don't blame them for taking advantage of the united states. i wish our politicians were so smart. mexico has taken advantage of the united states. i don't blame the representatives and various presidents, et cetera, of mexico. what i say is we shouldn't have allowed that to happen. it's not going to happen anymore. in order to get the wall started, mexico will pay for the wall. but it will be reimbursed. okay? it supreme court judge. so as you know, i have a list of 20. i have gone through them. we've met with numerous candidates. they're outstanding in every case. they were largely recommended and highly recommended by

federalist society. jim dimint was involved, and he is a fantastic guy. between leo and jim dimint and senators and congress people, we have a great group of people, i'll be making the decision on who we will put up for justice of the united states supreme court. a replacement for the great, great justice scalia. that will be probably within two weeks of the 20th. within about two weeks. probably the second week. i consider the first day because we'll also be doing some -- some pretty good signings, and i think what we'll do is we'll wait until monday. that will be our really first business day as opposed to doing it on friday because on friday people are going to have a very good time at the inauguration, and then saturday, as you know, we're having a big church service and lots of good things are happening. our first day -- and you'll all be invited to the signings, but

we'll be doing some pretty good signings on monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday, and friday, and then also the next week. you're all invited. on the supreme court, i'll be making that decision, and it will be a decision which i very strongly believe in. i think it's one of the reasons i got elected. i think the people of this country did not want to see what was happening with the supreme court, so i think it was a very, very big decision as to why i was elected. >> the tweet that you had this morning about are we living in nazi germany, what were you driving at there? what are you trying to tell the -- >> i think it was disgraceful. disgraceful. that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out. i think it's a disgrace, and i say that -- and i say that. that's something that nazi germany would have done and did do. i think it's a disgrace that information that was false and fake and never happened got released to the public. as far as buzz feed, which is a

failing pile of garbage, writing it, i think they're going to suffer the consequences. they already are. as far as cnn going out of their way to build it up, and, by the way, we just found out i was coming down. michael kohn is a very talented lawyer. he is a good lawyer in my firm. it was just reported that it wasn't this michael cohn they were talking about. all night long it's michael cohn brsh i said i want to see your passport. he brings this passport to my office. i say, hey, wait a minute. he didn't leave the country. he wasn't out of the country. they had michael kohn of the trump organization was in prague. it turned out to be a different michael kohn. it's a disgrace what took place. it's a disgrace, and i think they ought to apologize to start with michael kohn. >> since you're attacking us, can you give us a question? mr. president-elect -- >> go ahead. >> since you are attacking our news organization -- >> not you. >> can you give us a chance? >> your organization is terrible. >> you are attacking our news organization, can you give us a chance to ask a question, sir? sir, can you -- >> quiet.

>> mr. president-elect, can you say -- >> don't be rude. >> can you give us a question since you're attacking us? can you give us a question? >> don't be rude. no, i'm not going to give you a question. i'm not going to give you a question. >> can you state -- >> you are fake news. go ahead. >> can you state categorically that nobody -- now, mr. president-elect, that's not appropriate. >> go ahead. >> do you think president obama went too far with the sanctions he put on russia after the hacking? >> i don't think he went too far. no. >> will you roll them back? what do you think of lindsey graham's plan to send you a bill for -- >> send me a bill for what? >> tougher sanctions. >> i hadn't heard lindsey graham was going to do that. lindsey graham. i've been competing with him for a long time. he is going to crack that 1% barrier one day. i didn't realize lindsey graham is still at it. that's all right. i think lindsey graham is a nice guy. i've heard that he is a nice guy, and ai've been hearing it. go ahead.

>> go ahead. you've been waiting. >> as far as we understand, the intelligence community -- >> stand up. >> from bbc news. ian panel from bbc news. >> bbc news. that's another beauty. >> thank you. thank you. as far as we're understanding the intelligence community are still looking at these allegations, this false news as you describe it. if they come back with any kind of conclusion that any of it stands up, that any of it is true, will you consider your position? >> there's nothing they could come back with. >> can you -- >> all the problems that we've seen throughout the media over the course of the election, what reforms do you recommend for this industry here? >> well, i don't recommend reforms. i recommend people that are -- that have some moral compass. i've been hearing more and more about a thing called fake news, and they're talking about people that go and say all sorts of things. i will tell you, some of the media outlets that i deal with

are fake news. more so than anybody. i could name them, but i won't bother, but you have a few sitting right in front of us. they're very, very dishonest people, but i think it's just something we're going to have to live with. i guess the advantage i have is that i can speak back. when it happens to somebody that doesn't have this -- doesn't have that kind of a megaphone, they can't speak back. it's a very sad thing. i've seen people destroyed. i've seen people absolutely destroyed, and i think it's very unfair. all i can ask for is honest reporters. yes. >> president-elect trump, i wanted to follow-up on the questions about the u.s. intelligence community. to be very clear about what you are saying, do you trust your u.s. intelligence officials, and what do you say to policy experts who say you're actually weakening national security by waging this war of words against that community? >> intelligence agencies are vital and very, very important. we are going to be putting in,

as you know, mr. pompeo and others. we're going to be putting in outstanding people. within 90 days they're going to be coming back to me with a major report on hacking. i want them to cover this situation. i also want them, however, to cover maybe most importantly because we're hacked by everybody. you know, the united states, our government, out of a list of 17 in terms of industries, is the worst. it's number 17 in terms of protection. if you look at the retail industry, if you look at the banking industry, various industries, out of 17 industries, they put this in a category of an industry, the united states is last in terms of protecting, let's say hacking defense. we had a great hacking defense at the republican national committee. that's why we weren't hacked. by the way, we were told they were trying to hack us, but they weren't able to hack, and i

think i get some credit because i told reince and reince did a phenomenal job, but i said i want strong hacking defense. the democratic national committee didn't do that. maybe that's why the country runs so badly that way. i will tell you -- wait, wait. let me finish. within 90 days we will be coming up with a major report on hacking defense. how do we stop this new phenomenon -- fairly new phenomenon because the united states is hacked by everybody. that includes russia and china and everybody. everybody. okay. go ahead. go ahead. >> mr. president-elect, you said just now that you believe that russia, indeed, was responsible for the hacking of dnc and emails, et cetera. >> you know what, could have been others also. >> why did you spend weeks undermining the u.s. intelligence community before simply getting the facts and

then making a public statement? >> i think it's pretty sad when intelligence reports get leaked out to the press. i think it's pretty sad. first of all, it's illegal. you know, these are classified and certified meetings and reports. i'll tell you what does happen. i have many meetings with intelligence, and every time i meet, people are reading about it. somebody is leaking it out. i said maybe it's my office. maybe my office. i have a lot of people, a lot of great people. maybe it's them. what i did is i said i won't tell anybody. i'm going to have a meeting, and i won't tell anybody about my meeting with intelligence, and what happened is i had my meeting. nobody knew. not even rona, my executive assistant for years. she didn't know. i didn't tell her. nobody knew. the meeting was had. the meeting was over. they left. immediately the word got out that i had a meeting. i don't want that.

i don't want that. it's very unfair to the country. it's very unfair to our country what's happened. that report should have never -- first of all, it shouldn't have been printed because it's not worth the paper it's printed on, and i thank the "new york times" for saying that. i thank a lot of different people for saying that, but i will tell you, that should never ever happen. okay. >> mr. president-elect -- thank you, mr. president-elect. can you stand here today once and for all and say that no one connected to you or your campaign had any contact with russia leading up to or during the presidential campaign and if you indeed do believe that russia was behind the hacking, what is your message to vladimir putin right now? >> he shouldn't be doing it. he won't be doing it. russia will have much greater respect for our country when i'm leading it than when other people have led it. you will see that. russia will respect our country more. he shouldn't have done it. i don't believe he will be doing it more now.

we have to work something out, but it's not just russia. take a look at what's happened. you don't report it the same way. 22 million accounts were hacked in this country by china, and that's because we have no defense. that's because we're run by people that don't know what they're doing. russia will have far greater respect for our country when i'm leading it, and i believe -- i hope -- maybe it won't happen. it's possible. i won't be given a little reset button like hillary. here, press this piece of plastic. a guy looked at her like what is she doing? there's no reset button. we're either going to get along or we're not. i hope we get along, but if we don't, that's possible too. but russia and other countries -- and other countries -- including china, which has taken total advantage of us economically, total advantage of us in the south china sea by building their massive fortress, total. russia, china, japan, mexico.

all countries will respect us far more, far more, than they do under past administrations. i want to thank everybody. so this is all, just so you understand. these papers -- i'm not sure that was explained properly, but these papers are all just a piece of the many, many companies that are being put into trust to be run by my two sons that i hope at the end of eight years i'll come back and say, oh, you did a good job. otherwise, if they do a bad job i'll say you're fired. good-bye, everybody. good-bye. >> the president-elect of the united states at his first full scale news conference in, what, about six months. wrapping it up. going through a lot of news. you see the vice president-elect of the united states, mike pence, with him. other aides, jake tapper. we've got a grat panel here to assess. your immediate thought on what

we just heard? >> well, there are two categories of news. let me take on the first one that has to do with us. cnn. at the beginning of the press conference sean spicer, who is going to be the white house press secretary, suggested that both buzz feed and cnn publish this dossier full of uncorroborated rumors. that's not true. that's false. cnn never did that. we never provided even one detail from that dossier except this morning when i said that there was reason to believe that one detail that had been out there because of buzz feed was false involving trump's attorney michael cohen. that conflation whether it's because sean spicer misunderstood or some other reason, that's not true. cnn did not do that. what we did was say in our reporting yesterday that broke the story that the intelligence chiefs of the united states when they briefed president obama

thursday and president-elect trump on friday provided in their briefing to these two leaders about russian hacking into the u.s. 2016 election two pages of a sinopsis, and it was based in part on information uncorroborated and the intelligence chiefs had not yet run to ground, but they believed that the source of the dossier were credible and they believed that, a, the president-elect and the president should know that the russians were claiming they had compromising information on him and, two, that the russians were claiming that there were contacts between the trump camp or trump orbit and the russian government or the russian orbit during the campaign. that information was provided. no one has dispute thad that two-page dossier was in the presentation. i'm sorry. that the two-page synopsis was in the information by the intelligence chiefs to president-elect trump, to president obama. we have been asking now for more

than half a day for several, several hours before we went with the story for a comment from the trump campaign. that's one. when mr. trump went after our own jim accosta saying he is fake news and he isn't going to call for him, what i suspect we are seeing here is an attempt to discredit legitimate, responsible attempts to report on this incoming administration with irresponsible journalism that hurts us all and the media going forward should keep that in mind. that's one. just to get that out of the way. >> you're rerng every referring specifically to buzz feed. >> it's irresponsible to put uncorroborated information on the internet. i can understand why president-elect trump would be upset about it. that's why we did not detail any specifics from it because it was uncorroborated and that's not what we do. we are in the business of sussing out what is true and false. >> the other news that came out is that donald trump flatly said russia was responsible for the cyber attacks for the hacking of the dnc and the hillary clinton campaign.

i think we have that clip. let me play it. >> as far as hacking, i think it was russia, but i think we also get hacked by other countries and other people, and i can say that, you know, says when we lost 22 million names and everything else that was hacked recently, they didn't make a big deal out of that. that was something that was extraordinary that was probably china. we had much hacking going on. >> but at the beginning when he said as far as hacking, i think it was russia. that's the most definitive statement he has made on that issue so far. >> absolutely. we have yet to hear him say something so clear cut that he thinks it was russia that was involved in the hacks of john podesta or if you want to call that a fishing expedition or the hack of the democratic national committee. he did then go on to say a couple of things that are true and don't change, fact number one, that russia was behind the hacks, according to the intelligence community. one, there are other countries,

including china, and others that are also in the business of conducting cyber attacks against the united states and this is a much bigger issue in terms of cyber security going forward than just russia and, two, that there were attempts to get into the rnc, and they were not able to get into the rnc. hackers. whether it was russia or otherwise. and that the dnc hacking precautions, guards, were insufficient, and they did a bad job. he then went on to quote or paraphrase some of the wikileaks that are the results of allegedly these russian intelligence hacks, which does suggest that he likes leaks from some intelligence agencies but not necessarily from our own intelligence agencies, so that was the russian hacking that was significant. absolutely, of course, the main reason that there was this press conference called for several weeks ago was for president-elect trump to explain to the american people how he was going to wall off his presidency from his global business empire, and i believe we have -- >> we do have that clip.

let's play the clip. he explained in detail how he was going to make sure that the conflicts of interest between big business and being president of the united states could be at least reduced. >> and what i'm going to be doing is my two sons who are right here, don eric, are going to be running the company. they are going to be running it in a very professional manner. they're not going to discuss it with me. again, i don't have to do this. they're not going to discuss it with me, and with that i'm going to bring up sheri dillon. these are some of the papers that i've signed turning over complete and total control to my sons. >> this is obviously important because there have been much -- there's been much debate in washington about whether or not handing your business over to your sons, especially a business that is so branded with your

name, whether that is truly a wall off in any sort of concrete form. i do want to point out one thing that she did point out, and we'll get to our campaign expert on this, our finance expert in a second. he did say -- his attorney said that any foreign country that rents rooms, stays at his hotels, those profits will go to the u.s. treasury. that was an interesting way to get around a clause of the constitution. >> let's bring in larry noble, cnn contributor, former fec general council. general counsel for the campaign legal center as well. what was your reaction? because we heard the lawyer for morgan lewis, the private law firm, who was retained to go ahead and explain and spell out how he was going to wall off his business from being president of the united states. did it make sense to you? >>

disappointed and what i really think is gets that they don't get the conflict. he talks about getting out of the business operations, but he still has a tremendous financial interest in the businesses. what he does as president is still going to affect his business, and he knows that, and also other people he is dealing with know that what they do with his businesses will affect him. will give him financial benefit. he talked about not having any new foreign business deals, but he has a number of foreign business deals already going on, and the perception there is going to be that if we give him new business,ing that he will be -- >> he said he canceled all this. he said that in the statement that all of those were canceled where. >> the ones that -- since the election. like the $2 billion with -- >> he said all pending deals were canceled. >> all pending deals. i'm not sure -- well, if that is -- >> he said he would do no further deals. >> if that means that he is cancelling all ongoing arrangements he has, including licensing of his name and all the -- >> that's his business. >> so he is not cancelling his

contracts that he has now. his business that he has now. what he is doing presumably is cancelling new deals or deals that were in the works or just done. he still has the problem that he owns a lot of businesses that people can benefit or hurt depending on what they want to do, and they know that that will financially help him. >> so if he would have said i am not going to benefit financially. i'm giving the business over to my children. they run it, and they make the profits from it, don and eric, and i'm not going to take one penny from the trump organization going forward, would that have satisfied the conflict rules? >> no, and i have to say i know what -- >> there are no conflict rules. >> no, i know what you are going to say, but, okay. >> that's the law. >> but section 208 does not apply to the president. that is true. as the office of government -- >> that's a conflict of interest. >> that's a conflict of interest. >> as the office has pointed out in recent times all presidents

have basically followed those rules. i is not following those rules. >> but it's not the law. >> let's -- there are other laws. >> no presidential candidate or president had anything like what donald trump is dealing with. >> that's true. that's the problem. >> we need new laws. >> the problem is that his holdings are so extensive that it puts him in a position and it puts the united states in a position where so many issues can be called into question. so many deals can be called into question. you know, one of the things i find so disturbing about this is that i suspect in the future we're going to see foreign countries or others alleging that they did something to get something out of the united states or alleging that he made a decision because of his foreign interest. even if it's not true. that's been raised. >> but what about the idea -- >> the children. >> -- that he is going to donate the money that he gets in these businesses from foreign governments and foreign entities from hotels where. >> from hotels. >> thank you. to the u.s. treasury. >> it's something.

i don't know if he gets a tax break for that, but it's something. >> no, you don't. >> but it is something. again, it still doesn't correct many problems. i want to address the one about his children. giving the -- turning the running of the businesses over to the children doesn't help. first of all, he still has the financial benefit, and, second of all, it's a tradition in a lot of other countries, a lot of nonfunctioning democracies, that when you want to help the leaders, what you do is you help your family. you financially help their family. there is no real division between the family and donald trump where. >> even though they said specifically that there will be an ethics advisor who will make sure he doesn't speak to his sons about the business. you don't buy it? they are saying that they're putting those steps in place to try to avoid what you just described. >> i'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that is possible that he will not -- that he will not talk to his sons about the business, but everybody is still aware those decisions that help the business, help his bottom line. he will leave the presidency at

some point. he still controls these businesses. he will still have a financial interest. when he makes a decision on taxes, when he makes a decision on labor issues, he knows that that is going to affect his business. >> let me ask you, larry, because one of the things his attorney said was -- and i'm paraphrasing here -- was something along the lines of this is -- has been mr. trump's life's work, his business empire. he should not have to give it up. >> it a fire sale. >> because of his presidency. presumably you would disagree with the principle, but assuming that he is not going to sell off his entire company, okay, that he just won't do it, what would you want him to do? what is -- if not the best thing, what is the second or third best thing you would want him to do from your point of view? >> i really think there's no way around getting him out of the financial interests that he has brsh this wouldn't be tot

brsh. >> putting his investments in a real blind trust would be better than what he is doing now, but he is not even doing that. this is not a blind trust. i want to address the issue about his sacrifices that he has to make. he decided to run for president, and one of the things he held out that he was a businessperson and a successful businessperson. when people go to work for the government, there are sacrifices they make. i worked for the government for 23 years. i knew that i couldn't do certain investments. there are things i could not do. people make those sacrifices. a lot of good people don't come into the government because they're not willing to make those sacrifices. it is a question of his -- the complication from his business, his own personal interests versus the american public. >> is there a question about the ethics advisor. this person apparently would work for the trump organization and not at the white house. do you need someone at the white house specifically now to make sure that there is this wall? that there's no communication?

or is an ethics officer who works for the trump organization enough as far as you're concerned? >> i don't think it's enough. as he said, i think towards the end, i'm not sure what he was referring to. you're fired. i mean, he can fire the person at any point. he is known to require confidentiality agreements. i'm not really satisfied with the fact that someone that's going to work for me will make these decisions. i know you very assertively tried to get a question in. he pointed at you and said he didn't want to take your question. he said fake news. tell us what it was like for you when you saw what was going on. >> well, wolf, at the beginning of that news conference donald trump indicated that he was not going to call on me or call on cnn. he sort of pointed at me at one point and then waved his hand as if you're not going to get a question. then as the news conference went on, as you heard, he was attacking this news organization repeatedly, and i felt it was

only fair that if our news organization is going to be attacked that we get a chance to ask a follow-up question about what donald trump was talking about and, fortunately, my colleague cecilia vega over at abc did ask a question that i was going to ask, which is did donald trump have any contacts who were in contact with the russians in the context of this campaign? she actually did not get an answer on that question. i don't know if you noticed that at the podium. as he was going to the elevators, we all were asking him again to answer that question, and he said, no, that nobody associated with him or his campaign was in contact with the russians during the context of that campaign. i do want to pass on that little bit of news along because he did not answer that question formally during that news conference. i should also tell you that at one point during this news conference just in the interest of full disclosure and so everybody knows what's going on and what was happening in the room, after i asked and i guess

demanded that we have a question, sean spicer, the being inning press secretary did say to me that if i were to do that again, i was going to be thrown out of this press conference. of course, wolf, i had to persist there and try to get that question asked, but in the end the question was asked, and a lot of questions were asked during this press conference. donald trump did provide some answers. as you said, wolf, he is taking the position that this report that the intelligence community warned him that the russians might have compromising information on him, he is describing that as fake news, says and he is holding to that position, but at the same time, wolf, because of, you know, the need to go back and forth with donald trump on these key questions, a lot of policy questions did not get asked. some policy questions did. about obama care. it was interesting to hear president-elect say that he is going to have some kind of replace package ready to go in fairly short order after a repeal bill. he talked to republicans up on capitol hill, though. that is not what they're saying. as is always the case with

donald trump news conferences, questions are asked, but more questions remain. wolf. >> all right, jim acosta. >> he also said he would nominate someone to the united states supreme court within two weeks. there's a statement that cnn has now released responding to the charges levelled by sean spicer and the president-elect of the united states against cnn. >> that's right. let me read this clearly. cnn's decision to publish carefully sourced reporting about the operations of our government is vastly different than buzz feed's decision to publish unsubstantiated memos. the trump team knows this. they are using buzzfeed's decision to deflect from cnn's reporting which has been matched by the other major news organizations. we are fully confident in our reporting it represents the core of what the first amendment protects, informing the people of the inner workings of their government, in this case briefing materials prepared for president obama and president-elect trump last week. cnn made it clear that we were

not publishing any of the details of the 35 page document because we have not corroborated the report's allegations. given that members of the trump transition team have so vocally criticized our reporting, we encourage them to identify specifically what they believe to be inaccurate." that is a statement from cnn, and i would just underline having worked on this story with carl bernstein, jim schudo here with me and many other reporters at cnn, we were very careful to not even mention one of the allegations in the uncorroborated document, and anyone who suggests we did is not telling you the truth. jim. >> if i could just add this. a lot of charges were levelled at cnn, including my brave colleague there, jim acosta. if i could say, what donald trump in that press conference and his surrogates, sean spicer, including that press conference, including in our attempts to reach out to them, have not answered are the essential facts of our story.

one, that the intelligence community chose to include these allegations in briefing materials to the president-elect and to the current president of the united states, barack obama. two, that the fbi is investigating these allegations. they have not determined them to be true, but they are investigating this, and they are taking them seriously. three, that both democratic and republican lawmakers, senators, are taking these allegations seriously and pursuing them. that was the essence of our story. now, donald trump did not mention or was not asked about the fbi investigation or republican and democratic lawmakers pursuing it. his camp nor he have addressed that. two, the one thing he did address was the intelligence briefing. when he was asked directly about that he says he could not comment. >> they said he could not comment of the declassified nature. >> i would say he did address something that was in the buzzfeed printed memo that we're not going to go into, except to say it has to do with allegations of how anybody would

get personal damage -- personally damaging information. he talked about at quite some length how when he travels abroad with his security team, he tells everybody be careful how you behave, there are cameras everywhere. so that would seemingly disprove the idea >> there was any personally damaging information. >> he mentioned regarding the personal behavior that we are not describing that was contained in this report. one, he seemed to be saying i wouldn't do that because i know there are cameras there that might catch you. he then made a comment that he is a germophobe, a well known germophobe. he did not at any point describe the behavior as bad or rep rehencible. those were his -- >> the question was about blackmail, i think, and that was -- that was his response to that. he also went out of his way over and over again to say that he has no dealings with russia. he is not doing any deals. he hasn't donne any loans.

the question then is why not release your tax returns where. >> he said they're still under audit. >> the other thing that still is not resolved is his relationship with the intelligence community. it certainly didn't get better with this press conference because he was blaming them for releasing what they released without actually confirming that what was released was true or not. that was not resolved. it is still -- i will say again -- a very, very big problem for an incoming president to have this issue regardless of whether or not he will have his own people at the helm of some of the agencies because it is the rank-and-file who do the work. >> his implication was that once my guys, in effect, are in there that i will get intelligence that i trust more and that is -- that could be concerning because you could set up circumstances where -- the truth is any president, republican or democrat, wants an unvarnished, unbiassed view of the intelligence. they don't want to give the

impression and the intelligence community doesn't want to give the impression that they are on someone's team as they make these assessments. >> you can't ignore the reality of the politicization of this intelligence right after the election. that the president of the united states asked for a report that we've been hacked as donald trump has mentioned repeatedly, c constant constantly. >> let him finish, and then you can -- >> we have been repeatedly hacked. opm and others. barack obama has done nothing. he has done nothing. he basically said don't do it again. they've done no reporting -- >> issued charges against named chinese individuals for that hacking. >> the bottom line is nothing of this profile has been done in response to hacking, until this moment, which was conflated with the legitimacy of the election of donald trump. the way donald trump is viewing this and the way many republicans are viewing this -- >> hold on. >> -- the way the intelligence community -- the intelligence community acted first by cooperating with barack obama in this politicization of intelligence and so now you are

abhorred that he being politically backed where. >> donald trump politicizes information when the information was leaked from wiki leaks and he used it in his campaign. he used it again today in his press conference. if we want to talk about politicization, you also have to hold donald trump accountable. something that many people in the republican party are not currently doing, and i would hope that folks would step up and do so. look, the fact of the matter is russia meddled in our democracy, in our elections. that is not a partisan issue. if you want to talk about that you know, donald trump doesn't necessarily agree with some of the folks in the intelligence community, i think it goes back to dana's point in which this is -- this is much more about -- much more than his ego. this is about the future of our democracy, what is happening in the streets across america, and it is incorrect to note that, you know, it's president obama and obama's administration officials that politicize this. donald trump has rebeepeatedly d this information. >> just added context, we should

note and just acknowledge, that the accusation that the intelligence agencies are politicizing intelligence is not new to the obama administration, the bush administration faced in. i could name every president as far back as george washington, probably. there's always an accusation that people are getting information that comports with a certain political world view and the other side is always talking about how they want to get in there and depoliticize the intelligence. let me go to david axelrod who i know has a thought. >> well, look, you know, when you -- i hear senator santorum talking about the political nature of these agencies. the people who lead these agencies have served for decades and decades and decades under republican administrations, democratic administrations, some in prominent roles under republican administrations. they pride themselves on that, on serving the country and not a particular political party. as do the people who work under them. you know, john brennan, the cia

director at the university of chicago, at our institute of politics and on my podcast last week, he said he hoped that things would improve under -- when the president takes his oath of office, but he said if he persists in this line of attack, you're going to see a lot of very, very good skilled committed and experienced people leave the service, and it's going to leave the cuountry exposed. these are not political issues. these are security issues, and when you compare the intelligence community or the intelligence chiefs to nazi germany or accuse them of nazi tactics, that is a very, very serious thing to do when you are the president of the united states and you're going to be reliant on them for help keep the country safe. >> i would ask the question whether -- you have to assume this information would have been

around. whether it wouldn't have been more predict to do this during the campaign. i mean, the campaign is over. donald trump is the president-elect of the united states. it would have been easy to -- for the president to have these -- have these briefings during the campaign to be used to the benefit of a democratic candidate. >> the whole point is they acted in a way that was in confluence with all sorts of other activities that were trying to delegitimatize trump. you mention other times when the intelligence community politicized intelligence. >> right. >> but this is the first time that it personally attacks the president of the united states or president-elect.

this was much more personal than what we've seen in the past, and that's -- i think that's -- >> what was personal? >> well, the idea that the -- that donald trump won the election, the narrative -- that donald trump won the election because the russians participated. >> they say they couldn't make a judgment on that. >> i understand that, but the whole -- >> again, it's the trump folks that are concerned about the legitimacy of donald trump as the president. >> let's say for sake of conversation that there are 1 00 reasons why donald trump won, okay? one of them might be the russians. one might be hillary clinton not going to wisconsin after the -- let's take that off the table because i have not heard anyone in the intelligence community or even in the u.s. senate say that the russians are why donald trump is the president-elect. what is the opposition to the -- >> you can't take that off the table. >> is it not true that the russians interfered? >> it is true, but it's probably true four years ago the russians interfered and foush degrees before that. the idea that they're not using -- they do this all the time. >> they did it successfully this time. they -- >> okay.

so they're successful. that doesn't mean that there's anything different in what they're doing. >> senator, if you -- >> it's what the american public perceives. >> you were a member of the republican leadership and george w. bush was in the white house, and if this would have happened then, you guys would have been screaming from the roof tops, rightly so, that how dare another country, especially one like russia, interfere in our most precious democratic process, which is the elections. you wouldn't be, right? you think it's appropriate for this investigation to be ongoing and even for they've been reporting for the intelligence agencies, the heads of the agency to report to the president-elect now that he is president-elect. you should know, sir, that this is what they have been working on, which is all they reported. >> all i'm suggesting is that the nature of this investigation and the public nature of it at the time it was taken place is suspect, and there's -- there are better ways to do this.

>> do you think hillary would be tougher? give me a break. we don't make good deals anymore. these companies are getting away with murder. nobody has ever got crowds like trump. he still has his same things that he brings up so it's going to -- people who voted for him will love this press conference. they're also going to love the fact that he is standing tough against the media and blaming them for fake news, including -- you know, despite what cnn is saying. i know he is trying to come after the media still.

then the other thing that i just wanted to note from listening carefully is i followed a lot about trump business and trump's organization. he is going to put his interests in a trust, but the one thing that i know they said ivanka -- she's not going to be running it, which she did with her two brothers. i know they said she will be, you know, relocating her family. it's more than that. ivanka has, i'm told, converting all the equity that she has in trump organization, she's actually converting it into fixed payments and, therefore, she will get no chance for any up side. she can't make any profits. if the businesses do well while her father is president. she wants to go beyond what her father did because she doesn't believe he has to deal with conflicts. she wants to. the reason she wants to? she plans to be a "modern day first daughter," and she's not going to be just relocating the children. she's going to be in the west wing and be one of his top

advisors, the way she was during the entire campaign. >> fascinating. monica, let me ask you as somebody who has covered donald trump for so long, this is somebody who talks about the national enquirer being a reputable news source. he obviously used the tabloids in manhattan for years to get out his personal stories that he wanted to get out or professional stories he wanted to get out. what is real news to donald trump? >> well, if he likes it, i think it's real news. let's be frank. i also think that he always picks and chooses the facts that he likes and he works those really hard, and then when he comes up with one of his lines, like i just went through a bunch of the lines with you guys, that's the way he operates. i mean, he will get facts to support his position, and he will pick the news that he likes. today he was citing the news organizations who didn't repeat

what he thought was fake news. this is the way he works, and i haven't seen him changing in today's press conference. >> thanks very much. don't go too far away. i also want to point out referring john mccain put out a statement a little while ago as well as we reported. he submitted some information to the fbi. let me read -- >> just to be precise, it was this dossier, this dossier of uncorroborated charges that we have not reported that others have. he got a copy of it from government officials from other countries, and then he explains here. >> then he put out this statement a couple of hours or so ago. "late last year i received sensitive information that has since been made public. upon examination of the contents and unable to make a judgment about their accuracy. i dlid the information to the director of the fbi. that has been the extent of my contact with the fbi or any other government agency regarding this issue." he was concerned enough when he

saw the information that he gave it to the director of the fbi. >> we did get a response earlier in the day from the kremlin as to the information presented to president-elect donald trump. let's go to clarissa ward who is in moscow. clarissa, obviously just to set the table here, this is the kremlin. they say things that are not true. people in the u.s. government say things that are not true, but i would argue that they do it in the kremlin to a greater degree. what did they have to say today? >> well, i think, jake, that the kremlin has been really very consistent in its messaging with regards to allegations of hacking and now with this specific report. we heard from the kremlin spokesperson dmitri paskov who has reported and called these reports in the past ludicrous nonsense. today he also was prone to several rhetorical flourishes. he said it was a clear attempt

to harm our bilateral relationship. the fabrication of such lies in terms of the previous open part of the report and this one, which is a comparable lie, it's called pulp fiction in english. he then went on to address the allegations that russia may have so-called compromise on president-elect donald trump. it's obviously a russian tactic that has been used for decades by the kgb, now fsb. it involves gathering compromising material on potentially targets of blackmail. with regards to that, he said no, the kremlin does not have compromat on trump. it does not correspond to reality, and it is complete fiction, and that is basically what he said as well with regards to allegations in this report that information may have been gathered also on hillary clinton. he said we have no compromat on clinton. the kremlin does not collect

compromat. they say they are only interested in trying to foster better relationships and create stability and security in the world. take it with a pinch of salt, jake, but one thing that we can say for sure is this is their story, they're sticking to it, and it's the same song they have been singing now for several months. it has not changed. as long as there is plausible deniability and often with the kremlin when there is not plausible deniability, this is their version of events. jake. >> clarissa, before i let you go, just to undermine the fact, not getting to any specific charge about anyone, the claim by the kremlin that the russian government never gathers compromising material on anyone, true or false? >> well, there could be a clever bit of -- by using the word kremlin, the kremlin does not gather. well, maybe because technically it would probably fall under the perview of the kgb as it used to be called or fsb as it now is called. that could be a semantic game,

if you will, but certainly the whole issue of whether russian intelligence used compromat as a tool is not one that i would say is up for debate. >> clarissa ward in moscow. >> it's interesting because all of this is taking place as rex tillerson, who has been nominated to become the secretary of state of the united states has been testifying before the senate foreign relations committee as t. the exxonmobil ceo has been with exxonmobil for about 40 years or so. aaron david miller is with us, former state department official, cnn contributor. you have been listening closely to the hearings right now. i want to play an exchange he had with senator marco rubio, the republican senator just reelected from florida. a very tough exchange on russia. watch this. >> you have engaged in significant business activities in russia, so i'm sure you're aware of very few things of a major proportion happen in that country without vladimir putin's

permission. i ask your view on youran politics, is it possible for something like this involving the united states elections to have happened without vladimir putin knowing about it and authorizing it? >> i think that's a fair assumption. >> that he would have? >> yes. >> if congress passed a bill imposing mandatory visa bans and asset freeze sanctions on persons who engage in significant activities undermining the cyber security of public or private infrastructure and democratic institutions in the united states, would you advise the president to sign it? >> i would certainly want to examine all the corners, all four corners of that. >> he also pressed -- he also pressed him to say that russia was engaged and putin specifically, in war crimes. tillerson refused to go that far. >> yeah. i think the purpose of the confirmation hearing is to get confirmed, but it's also to try to maintain your personal credibility and also your functional role because tillerson knows he is going to

have to be dealing with putin. he has a boss who is clearly inclined that way as well. what he is trying to do, i think, is juggle and balance a lot of equities. he is not going to go ahead and call vladimir putin a war criminal. i'm not even sure barack obama did that, even though john kerry did press for war crimes investigations as a consequence of russian and syrian bombing policy and artillery shelling in aleppo. tillerson is dancing, and i wouldn't have expected, frankly, anything else right now. >> he said earlier in the hearings as well, in response to questions from democratic senator gejeanne shaheen that russia does not share our values. they don't share our values, their system. he went on to say that there's a way, in his words, to lower the temperature with russia. he seemed to be laying out in a nutshell what promises to be the trump administration approach. to being aknowledge, yes, russia hacked the election. we have differences here and there, but that there's a way forward here that we don't have to be at lawinger heads, right? we don't have to be in an

escalation of tension and so on, where obviously, donald trump has gone further than that saying we could be friends and even question up until really the last 24 hours that russia did the hack, but that approach is not -- >> it's from the democratic party. it's not from the republican -- >> democrats and republicans. point being that there is a change in russia policy that is a position that many disagree with, including gop senators, that he seemed to be articulating there. >> then there's a question of these pending sanctions right now that republicans want and democrats want to place on russia and, you know, there were questions raised to tillerson about whether, in fact, exxon had lobbied against sanctions, and he said not to his knowledge, but in fact, they were registered on that very issue. >> everybody, stand by for a moment. we have a transition of power alert. the president-elect announcing his pick to head the department

of veterans affairs. it's david shulkin, who is the current undersecretary for health at the v.a. he has been with the vchlt .a. almost two years. he is the former -- beth israeli. was the chief medical officer for the university of pennsylvania health system as well. very busy day on capitol hill. our special coverage continues right after a quick break. ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox.

and my life is basketball.west, but that doesn't stop my afib from leaving me at a higher risk of stroke. that'd be devastating. i took warfarin for over 15 years. until i learned more about once-daily xarelto®... a latest-generation blood thinner. then i made the switch. xarelto® significantly lowers the risk of stroke in people with afib not caused by a heart valve problem. it has similar effectiveness to warfarin. warfarin interferes with vitamin k and at least six blood-clotting factors. xarelto® is selective.

targeting one critical factor of your body's natural clotting function. for people with afib currently well-managed on warfarin, there is limited information on how xarelto® and warfarin compare in reducing the risk of stroke. like all blood thinners, don't stop taking xarelto® without talking to your doctor, as this may increase your risk of a blood clot or stroke. while taking, you may bruise more easily, and it may take longer for bleeding to stop. xarelto® may increase your risk of bleeding if you take certain medicines. xarelto® can cause serious, and in rare cases, fatal bleeding. get help right away for unexpected bleeding, unusual bruising, or tingling. if you have had spinal anesthesia while on xarelto®, watch for back pain or any nerve or muscle-related signs or symptoms. do not take xarelto® if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. tell your doctor before all planned medical or dental procedures. before starting xarelto®, tell your doctor about any conditions, such as kidney, liver, or bleeding problems. to help protect yourself from a stroke, ask your doctor about xarelto®. insurance changes? xarelto® has you covered.

you knmegared omega-3s... but did you know your eyes, your brain, and your joints really love them too? introducing megared advanced 4in1... just one softgel delivers the omega-3 power of two regular fish oil pills... so give your body mega support with megared advanced 4in1. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> hello. i'm wolf blitzer. we're live right outside of the united states capital. wherever you are watching from around the world. thanks very much for joining us. you're witnessing the most significant day in washington since the presidential election. today three of the presidential-elect's cabinet picks are being grilled by

senate members who will have to decide whether they are qualified to lead the country and serve as the incoming president's closest cabinet advisors. it's day two of confirmation hearings for senator jeff segments, donald trump's pick to become the next attorney general of the united states. any in a moment now in an unprecedented move senator cory booker and representative john lewis will testify against his nomination. we will bring you that live once it happens. the president-elect's pick for secretary of transportation, elaine chow, also on capitol hill today as well as the former exxonmobil ceo rex tillerson who has been nominated by the president-elect to take over john kerry's post as secretary of state. he has faced some tough questioning from both sides this morning. his hearing is set to pick up a little bit later this hour after a short break. we'll have live coverage of that as well. the president-elect finally says russia was behind the hacking during the