information with not only a congressional committee, but with the staff that we've got dedicated. >> is your pathway open between your priorities and fbi priorities and is there any concern from both of you -- i know that you disagree on this, that a special counsel could interfere with your work? >> i don't think -- i make no judgment on whether a special counsel would interfere. this investigation will go forward and will be completed. it's a commitment that the vice chairman and i have with each other. he may have a different opinion as it relates to an independent counsel than i do, but we share one similarity. we're both committed to finish this investigation by the senate intelligence committee because that's our job. and we're going to do it right because that's what's expected of us. and anything short of that is to say to 85 other members of the united states senate and the american people we're the wrong ones to do oversight on a daily basis. we believe we're right and we're going to prove it in the

accuracy of our investigation. >> did you decide your path is clear that for instance a subpoena to flynn won't -- >> we're very comfortable. >> he understood we needed to deconflict. >> the president said in this yesterday he was not tarrgeted n this investigation. >> we can't comment on that. that's a conversation that took place supposedly between director comey and the president. our job is to make sure to follow the intelligence where it leads and hopefully make a determination. >> i would just add that i would refer you to mr. mccabe's comments about what traditional procedure would be, that that would not be something that in a traditional case would be discussed. >> are you confident in the answers you got? >> you said that this meeting was to set up the rules of the road. how would you describe what those are and did director comey come aup at all?

>> director comey did not come up. he was not the subject of it. though there are some details to workout, there was acknowledgement and understanding of the need for us to be able to pick up the phone, share with them what we were likely to do, and could get immediate clearance on whether that interfered in any way, shape, or form with what their investigation was. >> the only thing i would clarify on that is, you know, and the d.a.g. did not address it, but i raised the point of one of the reasons i fl telt th need for independent counsel was the very messy process that went through in the firing of jim comey. >> what are your shots on the disparity between the testimony today and the white house. [inaudible] >> i'd address that to either acting director mccabe or to the white house. it's not -- that's not an assessment we're going to make.

we're looking at threats from the standpoint of what went on. >> clearly, though, the amount of time that wee bo're both spending, it is a priority to get to the bottom of this. >> are you confident that mr. rosenstein can lead the russia investigation? >> well, listen, i don't think that's up to senator warner and myself to make. the president's made a determination if at any point he doesn't feel he is, then a change would be made. if for some reason the d.a.g. determined he couldn't carry out his job, hooe would make a decision. we don't have the luxury of picking who we work with. we work with who's inserted in the roles and we workout the pathways that best accommodate the needs of what our mission is. in this case this's the investigation. one last question. >> have you gotten a response here -- >> one last question. >> the president just told

lester holt that he was going to fire director comey whether or not he had that recommendation or not and he called director comey a show boat and called him a grand stander. do you agree with that assessment? we just heard something different -- >> i'm not going to speak for senator warner. i'll let him do that. i put out a statement the night of the director's firing. i found him to be one of the most ethical upright straightforward individuals i've had the opportunity to work with. he provided our committee more access to information than any director of the fbi. sure, there were fbi employees that disagreed with how he handled the clinton e-mail announcements and his interaction or lack there of with the attorney general at the time. the lion share of fbi employees respect the former director. and it shows the professionalism

that he brought to the role that he was in. and i'm sure he will at some point have an opportunity to share, if he wants to, his side of the story. but i'm confident that the vice chair and i look forward to working with acting director mccabe in the interim or whoever the president chooses, because at the end of the day, mark and i do realize whoever is president has the authority to pick their director of the fbi. we don't fault that. >> i trusted jim comey. i echo what the chairman said in his willingness to work with our committee. i thought he'd made some mistakes last fall, but i never called for his resignation. i thought he was a straight shooter. frankly, i'm offended at the president's comments today. this is a continuing pattern of disrespecting the men and women who serve in our intelligence community. and i think the president would

be better served, regardless of what his views would be supporting the i.c. rather than continually questioning and repeatedly calling into question the leaders integrity. >> thank you, guys, we've got a very busy day. >> very strong words of support for james comey. now the former fbi director from richard burr, the chairman of this senate intelligence committee and senator mark warner, the vice chairman. i'm wolf blitzer. it's 1:00 p.m., just after 1:00 p.m. here in washington. wherever you're watching from around the world, thafrpnks for joining us. as you just heard president trump is strongly defending his decision to fire the former fbi director saying it was all his idea adding he was planning to do it before he even got a recommendation from the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. here's a preview just released in this interview with lester holt on nbc news. >> has been in turmoil.

you know that. i know that. everybody knows. that you take a look at the fbi a year ago. it was in virtual turmoil. less than a year ago. it hasn't recovered from that. >> monday you met with the deputy attorney general rob rosenstein. did you ask for recommendations? >> what i did is i was going to fire comey. my decision. >> you had made the decision? >> i was going to fire comey. there's no good time to do it by the way. >> you accepted their recommendations. you had already made the decision. >> i was going to fire regardless of recommendation. he made a recommendation. he's highly respected. very good guy. very smart guy. the democrats like him. the republicans like him. he made a recommendation. but regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey. >> your termination letter to mr. comey you write i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i

am not under investigation. why did you put that in there. >> because he told me that. i've heard that from others. >> was it in a phone call? did you meet face to face? >> i had a deny winner with him. we had dinner because he wanted to stay on. >> he asked for dinner? >> the dinner was arranged. i think he asked for the dinner. he wanted to stay on as the fbi head and i said i'll consider. we'll see what happens. but we had a very nice dinner. and at that time he told me you are not under investigation which i knew anyway. >> that was one meeting. >> when you're under investigation, you're giving all sorts of documents and everything. i knew i wasn't under. and i heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level that i wasn't. then during the phone call he said it and during another phone call he said it. he said it once at denier and twice during phone calls. >> did you call him? >> in one case i call him and one case he called me. >> did you ask am i under investigation? >> i actually asked him, yes. i said if it's possible, will

you let me know, am i under investigation. he said you are not under investigation. >> but he's given sworn testimony there was an ongoing investigation into the trump campaign and possible collusion with the russian government. you were the centerpiece of the trump campaign. is he truthful -- >> i know i'm not under investigation, me personally. i'm talking about campaigns or anything else. i'm not under investigation. >> there you heard it. president trump saying he would have fired james comey irrespective of any recommendations from others inside the trump administration. lots to discuss with our panel. our chief political analyst gloria borger is with us. chief national security correspondent, jim. kimberly. senior national security correspondent for the daily beast. tom, senior law enforcement analyst, former fbi assistant director. gloria, let me start with you, the president saying it was his

decision. he made the decision. he didn't care what others recommended. he was going to fire comey. >> well, that's fine except his white house has been saying something very different. his white house has been saying that he took the recommendation of rod rosenstein and when he processed this he then decided that he had no choice but to fire james comey. here the president is saying actually what many people have suspected which is that he didn't like him, he watched him on tv. there's another quote from nbc where he calls comey a scapegoat, right? and that he didn't like him. he didn't like what he said at that hearing. his anger had been boiling inside. i was told by one source who talks to the president regularly that that hearing drove him kind of over the edge. and then he decided to get rid of the guy. so what they had was a firing in search of a rational beiyond th

fact that the president didn't like him and the president was mad about how much attention the russia investigation was getting. that's what actually the president told us today. >> elsewhere in the interview he says that comey is a show boat, a grand stander, and he wanted him out, jim, because the fbi in the president's words were -- was in turmoil. >> that's contradicted by many people inside the bureau that myself and my colleagues have spoken with. many have enormous confidence in him and were upset and shocked by his dismissal. there's another story told by people inside that building. i think it's also important to just catalog and list the number of misleading accounts that have come out of the white house. one, that the deputy a.g. memo is what led to comey's firing. that now contradicted by the president himself despite the fact that the white house made that the justification on tuesday. we were here. we were discussing it. two, the idea that comey told the president three times that he's not under investigation. misleading because, one -- two,

the president himself is not a subject of the investigation today. his advisers are. if the senate intelligence committee find that from the president, then he will be. two, the white house has said that the investigation is ending, shrinking, et cetera. we heard that from sarah huckabee sanders yesterday. we know it's the opposite. they've asked for more resources. they've issued grand jury subpoenas. the white house said repeatedly no evidence of collusion. in fact, senator burr and senator warner, i reached out to both of them yesterday. both of them said that is still an open question. >> and today the deputy attorney general called it a highly significant investigation. that's not a small thing. and what was interesting to me

is the president continuing to ask the fbi director whether he's under investigation. three times. >> and the president, you heard him say in this new nbc news interview that he totally stands by what he wrote in this letter firing comey and he wrote, while i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i am not under investigation, i nevertheless concur with the judgment of the department of justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau. and in this new sbinterview the president gave some specifics about how that conversation was saying that he specifically had asked the fbi director am i under investigation. >> which would be interfering with an investigation. which he's not supposed to do. it all goes back to the legitimacy of his election. he sees this entire investigation into possible collusion with russia and into his national security adviser mike flynn as saying that he doesn't belong in the white house. so he continues to fight it

every step of the way. even in defiance of evidence to the contrary and he read comey for being disloyal for stannidi up for the independence of fbi. he has been told by white house lawyers not to reach out to mike flynn who he feels bad about how he's being treated, it's as if he still understand the gravity of the situation. >> here's another excerpt that nbc news has just released. watch this. >> look, he's a show boat. he's a grand stander. the fbi has been in turmoil. you know that. i know that. everybody knows that. you take a look at the fbi a year ago. it was in virtual turmoil. less than a year ago. it hasn't recovered from that. >> monday you met with the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. did you ask for a recommendation?

>> what i did was i was going to fire commey. my decision. >> you had made the decision before they came in the room? >> i was going to fire comey. there's no good time to do it by the way. >> because in your letter you said i accepted their recommendations. so you had already made the decision. >> i was going to fire regardless of recommendation. he made a recommendation. he's highly respected. very good guy. very smart guy. the democrats like him. the republicans like him. he made a recommendation. but regardless of recommendation, i was going to fire comey. >> let me ask you about your termination letter to mr. comey. you write i greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that i am not under investigation. why did you put that in there? >> because he told me that. >> he told you you weren't under investigation, the russia investigation. >> i've heard that from others. >> was it in a phone call? did you meet face to face? >> i had a dinner with him. he wanted to have dinner. he wanted to stay on. >> he asked for the deny sninne? >> dinner was arranged.

i pg he askthink he asked for t. he wanted to stay on. i said we'll consider, we'll see what happens. we had a very nice dinner. at that time he told me you are not under investigation, which i knew anyway. >> that was one meeting. >> when you're under investigation, you're giving all sorts of documents and everything. i knew i wasn't under. and i heard it was stated at the committee, at some committee level they wasn't. >> so that didn't come directly from him. >> then during the phone call he said it and during another phone call. he said it once at denier and twice during phone calls. >> did you call him? >> in one case i called him and one case he called me. >> did you ask am i under investigation? >> i actually asked him, yes. i said if it's possible, would you let me know am i under investigation? he said you are not under investigation. >> but he's given sworn testimony that there is an ongoing investigation into the trump campaign and possible collusion with the russian government. you were the centerpiece of the

trump campaign. so was he being truthful when -- >> i know that i'm not under investigation, me personally. i'm not talking about campaigns. i'm not talking about anything else. i'm not under investigation. >> there is the president in that interview. tom, you spent a career at the fbi. worked your way up to become an assistant fbi director. when you hear the president say that the now fired fbi director was a show boat, a grand stander, and he left the fbi in turmoil, your reaction? >> first of all, that's insulting obviously. the way the firing was conducted was extremely insulting. most of the people i've talked to at the fbi, actually all of the them, have said it was disgusting how the firing was conducted. you take a poll in june and one in september and the numbers might not match and both could be true. last year in july when director comey had his press conference and fbi agents, former agents like me and others that i was

with heard commeyey's testimonyd all of us were the impression wow, he's going to recommend charges skp charges and were shocked when he didn't. the turmoil comes later not when she was prosecuted. but when huma abedin were completely exposed, but when they heard about hillary clinton's interview at the fbi and a lot of people, including me, questioned wait a minute, we wouldn't have done that with a gangster like john gotti or somebody else. you're the main subject of a case. by the way, drop by for an interview, bring whoever you want. that would have never happened. that main subject would have testified before a grand jury under oath. every word recorded. so that it could be used later if testifying under oath again and they contradict. so the manner in which the investigation was conducted, a

lot of fbi personnel thought wait a minute, if you hold all of the tools available for sensitive investigations that we use every day in organized crime, that we use every day in terrorism investigations, and suddenly you're conducting this extremely important case with what appeared to be one hand behind your back, there was consternation. it wasn't directed directly at comey, but it was in general how could this happen. >> go to sara murray. she is monitoring the reaction from the white house. i want to remind our viewers we're standing by for sarah huckabee sanders, the she's going to be answering reporters questions fairly soon. what's the latest you're learning. >>. i think what sarah huckabee will say is the white house account of why donald trump made this decision to fire the fbi director has suddenly changed. every one of these white house officials, including the vice president, was there out

publicly saying that the president made the decision to fire james comey at the recommendation of rod rosenstein. mike pence said this eight times yesterday when he was speaking on capitol hill. now we're seeing the president out there today saying, no it actually wasn't at their recommendation, i had already made the decision to fire james comey and then i took their input. the other things we know through my colleagues reporting at cnn is rod rosenstein is not particularly happy with the way this firing went down. he's certainly not happy that the white house is pinning the blame on him. i think that sarah huckabee sanders is going to face a lot of questions about sort of this timeline. when did donald trump meet with james comey. when was he assured by the president's account that he was not under investigation and why did the white house give a totally different explanation as to how the president came to the conclusion to fire james comey just yesterday. then the president himself is giving today. >> the stories clearly have changed over the past 48 hours and the latest account clearly from the president of the united

states. we're going to get back to you shortly. we'll get to that news conference shortly as well. the president today contradicting the official white house position on the firing of james comey, the now former fbi director. up next we'll go live to capitol hill. james comey's replacement has just testified before congress. the acting fbi director. he added another contradiction to this changing white house story. once again, take a look at live pictures coming from in the white house briefing room. we're going to hear a lot more. that's coming up from the deputy white house press secretary, sarah huckabee sanders. much more right after this. it's not a quick fix.

it's my decision to make beauty last. roc® retinol started visibly reducing my fine lines and wrinkles in one week.

and the longer i use it, the better it works. retinol correxion® from roc methods, not miracles.™ the new comments from president trump on his reasons for firing fbi director james comey will be a huge topic at the white house press briefing. you're looking at live pictures coming from the briefing room in the west wing of the white house. we'll go there live once the deputy press secretary, sarah huckabee sanders begins this briefing. first the senate intelligence committee wrapped up its

hearing. we had our first chance to hear directly from the acting fbi director andrew mccabe as he took questions from members of the committee. our congressional correspondent sunlen serfaty is up on capitol hill. take us through what we heard from the acting fbi director. >> it was very interesting to see andrew mccabe really trying to be very deliberate and trying to express the notion that the investigation is in his opinion unaffected by the firing of fbi director james comey. that it continues to move forward and continues to be very focused. it was interesting the way he described the extent, the exact extent of this probe. he described it as a highly significant investigation. that in contradiction to the way the white house has been chosen -- choosing in the recent days to describe this investigation. it was only 24 hours ago we heard from white house spokesman behind the podium calling it probably one of the smallest things on the fbi's plate. but it was notable that was not the only contradiction today

coming out of the testimony of andrew mccabe and perhaps the biggest one was that he really seemed to shoot holes into the core and central part of the white house argument for why they fired director comey. they claim that he had lost confidence and support of those within the fbi. that is something that mccabe today said is false. here's his opinion of that today and what the white house was saying only 24 hours ago. >> in your opinion, is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported director comey? >> no, sir. that not accurate. >> i think it's been an erosion of confidence. i think that director comey has shown over the last several months and frankly the last year a lot of missteps and mistakes. >> certainly another notable moment from today's hearing, mccabe was asked about the request that cnn has reported on and others that fbi director

james comey before he was fired made a request for more resources in that investigation. this is something that andrew mccabe today said he was not aware of and he believes the resource level is adequate. here's what he said moments ago. >> sir, if you're referring to the russia investigation, i do. i believe we have the adequate resources to do it and i know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. if you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter intelligence threats that we face, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. but in terms of that investigation, sir, i can assure you we are covered. >> now mccabe's role right now might be short-lived in that acting interim fbi director role. we know that they are actively interviewing replacements right now for an interim fbi director. but that said, he did vow when

he was pressed by many democrats on the committee today, he vowed that he will not update trump or anyone in the white house on the status of that russia investigation. he also said that he would alert the senate intelligence committee if anyone tried to interfere or influence the probe. sunlen, quickly, the senate intelligence committee is running their own investigation. do we know what's next as far as that's concern s? >> we know there is an outstanding invitation for the former fbi director james comey. they have on a bipartisan basis invited him to appear before the committee and they have not at this point heard back yet. they said they expect to very shortly, but we also heard from the ranking member on the committee today, senator mark warner. he said our work continues on. i believe we should have a special counsel. we should take this out of the fbi's hands, but we've got to continue the work we're doing up here on capitol hill. >> sunlen, thanks very much. the chiefs of the senate intelligence committee have met now with the deputy attorney

general rod rosenstein, the man the white house says recommended comey's firing. we heard just -- we heard from them just a little while ago up on capitol hill. let's to our senior congressional reporter manu raju. what did he learn about this meeting? do we know if other lawmakers ares also wanting to hear directly from rosenstein. >> at this meeting roughly about 45 minutes chairman richard burr of the intelligence committee and the vice chairman mark warner did meet behind closed doors but not just rod rosenstein but also dana, a senior official at the justice department. this meeting was scheduled before the firing of james comey. it just happened to come right after rod rosenstein has been in the center of controversy. after writing that memo about raising the concerns about comey's handling of the e-mail investigation and also being

pointed to by white house f officials as the person who kind of led to the firing of james comey. of course now the president and white house's story has changed on that front. but we're told that at this meeting that just occurred that comey firing did not come up with great detail. at least that is according to chairman richard burr and mark warner. they said that they didn't really discuss the firing. it was not really the purpose of the meeting. i asked whether or not mr. rosenstein had any concerns at all about the way the firing happened. we know that from our reporting that may be the case. the members burr and warner side stepped that question saying that this was not actually the point of the meeting. the point being that they wanted to talk about how to make sure that their investigation, the senate intelligence committee, does not conflict with what the fbi is doing, its own probe over russia and those ties that may have occurred with the trump campaign. both warner and burr emerged from this meeting, wolf, feeling confident that they're not

conflicting with one another and they can move forward and one other point, both burr and warner took strong exception to the criticism the president just leveled against director comey, both saying that he's praising his service and mark warner even saying he was offended by the president's remarks, but it sounds like rod rosenstein at least is continuing in this role as the deputy attorney general even if there is some reports that he may have been thinking about quitting. it sounds like he's at least pressing forward and alleviates some concerns that their investigation will not conflict with the senate intelligence committee. >> still a very fluid situation. manu, thanks very much. as we learn new details about what led up to the decision to fire the fib director james comey, the white house continues to shift its story including today. here's what was said on wednesday. >> mr. vice president, did the president ask the deputy attorney general to conduct a review of director comey? >> he brought that recommendation to the president.

the attorney general concurred with that recommendation. >> he did have a conversation with the deputy attorney general on monday where they had come to him to express their concerns. the president asked that they put those concerns and their recommendation in writing which is the letter that you guys have received. >> so did the white house assertion that rod rosenstein decided on his own after being confirmed to review comey's performance. >> absolutely. >> that was yesterday. but this morning the deputy white house press secretary sarah huckabee sanders said this. >> he asked for their feedback. they gave that to him orally. and he asked them to put that recommendation which was a very strong recommendation and very clear reasons why they also felt that the director should no longer be in that position. >> and of course as we just showed you, the president now telling nbc news he was going to fire comey irrespective of what

any of his advisers were recommending. he wanted him out. cnn tom foreman is joining us with a deeper dive into the trump/comey timeline. >> looking for like a tangle t.'s hard to reconcile all these positions with what we saw. go back to july 5th. this was when comey came out and said hillary clinton had badly handled these e-mails but he wasn't going to charge her with a crime. that infuriated democrats. it didn't make republicans too happy but they knew it helped donald trump. he went on and testified for the house oversight committee. late in october is when he came out and said there were new e-mails. again a few days later he said nothing there to change his opinion. bottom line is, though, many democrats believe that was helping donald trump the whole way and donald trump was not saying james comey should go away during this process. indeed as we got into january here, that's when he went to the white house. he met with donald trump. the president shook his hand and

said i think you're more famous than i am right now. arguably during this entire period of time there wasn't a word out of donald trump saying that james comey really had to go, that he wasn't doing a good job. this was all just fine. and then a big change happens right about here. in march comey confirms the fbi's investigating the trump team and these ties to russia. he then testified not along ago before the senate judiciary committee and there's a sense that maybe he overstated some of the things he said about hillary clinton and huma abedin and the e-mails and there's this claim that he asked for more resources. the justice department said he did not do it. s and now it leads right up to the firing right here. the white house as you know is now trying to say all of this time, the plain spoken candidate

who also gsaid what he spoke never really liked james comey. but if you listen to some of the skeptics out there they're saying no. this is the issue. right in here. this period of time. what was on the table then? russia. the russia investigation. that's why it's so hard to sort out a timeline here because all these conflicting events are colliding with each other and suggesting really separate versions of reality. >> tom foreman, thanks very much. let's talk about all of this and more. once again as we're standing by for the white house press briefing. gloria, she's going to have a tough time, the deputy white house press secretary, explaining all of the contradictions, the changing stories over the past 48 hours, why the fbi director was fired. >> in fact, she was asked yesterday directly, isn't it true that the president had already decided to fire james comey and her answer was no. so now she's got to reverse course. i would have to say this is a pattern of the staff being the

shovel brigade that we have seen time and time again. whether it started from his first full day in office when he was tweeting about the crowd size at the inauguration or voter fraud or being wire tapped by barack obama. this is just another instance of it. he gets mad. he sees this on tv. james comey angers him. he decides he wants to fire him because he can. keeps it in a close circle. gets a rational for it. perhaps from rod rose instein. handed it to the president. the white house then says oh, here's our reason. and puts it out there. then the president comes out. they change their story. and now they're stuck holding the bag here. >> there's a word for the white house account of the comey firing on tuesday. that's false. as simple as that. it was false. and that's not an opinion. that's based on statements from the podium on tuesday and now from the president today.

>> you confirm today all that earlier the discussion was false. >> president said it was not the letter he'd already decided. the white house story on tuesday was false. now, you heard sarah huckabee this morning trying to change the words a little bit. she said well, we asked for feedback from the fbi. that's not true. they asked for a recommendation. two, she said whether the fbi also thought that he'd lost the confidence. not remember the original story was the fbi came to us and said you fire him and we followed that. this is -- as you said, this is not the first time the white house has reversed course. it gets to the essential credibility for the spokes person for the president of the united states. and that is a really problem. >> it's as if he didn't get the spend control memo or he did but got angry and said i'm going to say what i think. we've seen this time and time again where i've had senior administration officials try to explain to me oh, well you see the president goes out and puts

the left and right limits of what our new policy is going to be in a tweet or interview and then we roll out the actual policy. but more often it's they find out what the left and right limits are going to be and then they have to respond and dig out. here they are again. i'm going to have a real hard time trusting the next time somebody tells me this is what the president thinks. are you sure? i don't know. >> it's a problem. >> false stories could be true. trump could have decided he's got to go and just been, you know, wanting more, wanting more. then the final straw was when the deputy attorney general say okay, we've lost count. >> that's not what the white house said. they said it came from the deputy attorney general. >> that recommendation may have been the last straw. now we're going to do it. >> what if the president asked for a moem memo. >> you don't believe what the p president just told nbc news? >> that could be true.

he had decided it wasn't just -- >> but that's not what the white house said. the white house said he was reacting to this memorandum from the deputy taerattorney general. >> you also have the fact that after director comey's left visit to the hill, his last testimony that he put out an inaccurate statement about the number of e-mails and he characterized it as huma abedin forwarded the forwarded tens of thousands of e-mails. and it wasn't that many. it was an automatic back yuup. >> tom, let's talk about the current acting director of the fbi andrew mccabe. you heard his testimony today. which certainly will not endear him to the president of the united states and others in the white house when he said several points that this investigation's going forward. if anyone tries to hamper it, i will notify you. the senate intelligence

committee. there was -- that the ousted fbi director was highly regarded. there was no turmoil. those kinds of statements will irritate the president and others in the white house who are saying the opposite. >> the aegents i talked to last sumner july were very upset. i wouldn't call it turmoil. >> is this status do you believe tenuous right now based on his testimony this morning? >> i don't think so. but i think that what he was -- what mccabe was referring to recently is now the same agents are saying we're busy, we're working counter terrorism, organized crime, serious crime. we just decided we're going to move on and go forward with what we're doing. no, the fbi is not currently in turmoil, but there was great frustration last year and they look at this and go well, it appeared to many of them that hillary clinton was too big to be prosecuted. they just let her off the hook.

when the president of the united states says that comey was a show boat, a grand stander, and the fbi was in turmoil, that's going to anger a lot of folks inside the fbi. >> what's changed since last july, if i could just remind folks, is that russia interfered in the u.s. election. the u.s. intelligence community called them out for it. the fbi has beginning last summer started an investigation as to whether there was communication and collusion between trump advisers and russians during that election interference. that's what's happened since then. which involves if not the president, the president's advisers, which raises the conflict of interest issue. so whatever happened last july is an issue no question. i agree with tom that there were folks who were not very happy with that. in the meantime, a foreign power intervened in the election. it's an open question as to

whether trump advisers co ludll with them. >> we've covered washington a long time. the president has now gone after law enforce, gone after the intelligence community to a certain degree irritating those people big time. you know what happens. they want to get even, so the leaks, the anti-trump leaks will be coming out. stuff the president doesn't want to be reported and you're going to be hearing presumably a lot more of that as a result of all of these latest comments and the way he treated comey. >> we'll see. we'll see if the president makes a trip to the fbi the way he did to the cia right after his inauguration because he had taken on the cia. now he's taken on the fbi. i have to say there was a couple of words that really struck me. when the president called comey a show boat and a grand stander. in donald trump's constellation,

there is only one star and that is donald trump. it seems to me he was watching comey on television and comey was saying things not only that he didn't like, but he was getting an awful lot of respect there and i think it just drove, as i reported, it kind of drove the president over the edge. why is this guy getting so much attention and why is his russia investigation getting so much attention? the leaks ought to be getting the attention. >> and that also made a lot of people in the fbi very unhappy with the fact that director comey had put himself out there so often, so publicly, and going back to july he has made the fbi in the middle of this political firestorm. part of that had hillary clinton's fault. she stalled off the e-mail investigation to the point that it was coming to fruition during the campaign but they were saying the amount of public statements he made about the

investigation -- >> hold on one second. aides are walking out. that means that sarah huckabee sanders will be heading over to the lectern momentarily as well. here she comes. let's hear her opening statement. another light crowd today. good afternoon. first off before we get started i'd like to bring up homeland security adviser to tell us about an executive order on cyber security that the president just signed. he'll take a few of your questions and respectfully i ask that you keep your questions on the topic of the executive order and don't worry, i'll come back and answer all of the rest of your pressing questions as soon as he wraps up. with that i'll turn it over to tom. >> thank you, sarah. a couple things positive to report today. the first is that president trump about an hour ago signed an executive order on cyber security. that executive order among other things is going to keep his promise that he has made to the

american people to keep america safe, including in cyberspace. i'd like to do a few things. i'll promise you that we distribute the executive order, but i'll preview the executive order through you. walk you through the three primary sections and then take your questions. among other things at least as an observation for me, i think the trend is going in the wrong direction in cyberspace and it's time to stop that trend and reverse it on behalf of the american people. we've seen increasing attacks from allies, adversaries, primarily nation states but also nonnation state actors. president trump's action today is a very hart heartening one. the first is protecting our federal networks. i think it's important to start by explaining that we operate those federal networks on behalf of the american people and they often contain the american people's information and data. so not defending them is no longer an option. we've seen past hacks and past

efforts that have succeeded and we need to do everything we can to prevent that from happening in the future. so a few things on federal networks. we have practiced one thing and preached another. it's time for us now and the president today has directed his department and agencies to implement the risk reduction framework. it is something we have asked the private sector to implement. from this point forward departments and agencies shall practice what we preach and implement that same framework for risk management and production. second of note point in protecting our federal networks and that we spend a lot of time and money protecting out dated systems. we saw that with the opm hack and other things. from this point forward the president has issued a preference from today forward in federal procurement of federal i. t. for shared services. move to the cloud and try to protect ourselves. third point i would make is that the executive order directs all

its departments and agency heads to continue its key roles but centralizes risks so we view our federal i. t. as one enterprise network. if we don't do so we will not understand what risk exists and how to mitigate it. a number of thoughts on. that among other things that is going to be a very difficult task. so modernizing is imperative for our security, but modernizing is going to require a lot of hard good governance. responsible for that is the president's technology council. going to run that effort on behalf of the president here at the white house. we have great hope that there will be efficiencies there but also security. i would probably note to you that other countries have taken two or three years to learn what we just came up with in two or three months. so doing that together is a message that we've learned but doing it together is a message we'd like to encourage private sector folks to adopt.

.2 in the executive order is our critical infrastructure cyber security effort. the president has directed the president's cabinet to begin the hard work of protecting the infrastructures. utilities, financial and health care systems, telecommunication networks. he's directed them to identify additional measures to defend and secure our critical infrastructure. and he's continued to promote the message that doing nothing is no longer an option. the executive order not only requires his departments and agencies to help those critical infrastructure owners in but to do it in a proactive sense. we've seen bipartisan studies over the last eight years, both parties have made powerful recommendations. they have not been adopted for various reasons. this executive order adopts the best and brightest of those recommendations, in my view.

i'm going to stop with those three and take questions. >> first -- >> if i could. >> first, was the russian hack in any way responsible or an impetus for this? number two, i've talked to i.t. people who say putting stuff on the cloud actually can be problematic as far as security. so what additional security members would you apply to the cloud to make sure that it's not as risky as some of the i.t. people tell us it would be. >> a couple questions there. so let me say three things, first. the third section of the executive order may be the one i skipped over here a moment ago. it speaks to two halves. it speaks to not only the need to develop the norms and the interoperable open communication systems that is the internet. the united states invented the internet and it's time to maintain our values on it, but it also speaks to a deterrence policy, that has long been overdue. the russians are not our only adversary on the internet and the russians are not only people who operate in a negative way on

the internet. other states rl motivated to use cyber capacity and cyber tools to attack our people and our data. that's something we can no longer abide. we have to establish the rules of the road for proper behavior on the internet, but also deter those who don't want to abide by those rules. to answer your first question is, no, it was ant russian-motivated issue, it was an united states of america motivated issue. >> the second issue with the cloud? >> we have 190 agencies that are all trying to develop their own defenses against advanced protection and collection efforts. i don't think that that's a wise approach. there's always going to be risk, so your question is, are we still at risk? yes. i'm not here to promote for you that the president has create and executive order. that's not the answer. but if we don't move to secured services and shared services, we're going to be behind the eight ball for a very long time. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> you said sitting around doing nothing. is it your contention that the

obama administration, that was its approach to cybersecurity? sitting around and doing nothing, question number one. and two, you talked about one enterprise network. does that mean every system throughout the federal government, under this executive order, the admission is to make them all the same or protected in the same way? >> though. we need to view the federal government as an enterprise, as opposed to just viewing each department and as its own enterprise. the department of homeland security and secretary kelly will play a large and leading role in effort implementing the president's executive order. that enterprise network covers 340 or so thousand employees and their contractors and so forth. they are responsible and that secretary of each department and agency will remain responsible for securing those networks. we need to look at the federal government as an enterprise, as well, so we no longer look at opm and think, you can defend your,or p massacre network wit the money commensurate for

responsibility. opm heads the crown jewel of our information and security clearances. what we would like at that and say, that is a high-risk, high cost to bear. we would put more information in collecting them than we would otherwise put into opm. not just their budget, but based on what they do peach department and agency has a responsibility to protect their own networks, but they now have a responsibility to identify their risks to the white house, to the president, so we can look at what they've done, and just as importantly, what risks they know they're accepting, but not mitigating. there's a lot of unidentified risk, but also a lot of identified and not remediated risk. we've seen other countries that have adopted a centralized view of risk management and risk acceptance decisions. that's the answer to your question. the second question, though, maybe, is that -- >> is that the previous administration's approach from

your vantage point? >> no, i think that the observation is that we have not done the basic block and tackle, right? of thinking of the internet of something that the american people benefit from. i think what we've done is focus on the federal i.t. portion of it. i think that a lot of progress was made in the last administration, but not nearly enough. i think we're going change that. and i think looking at this from the perspective of a deterrence strategy, to be honest, yes, i think the last administration should have done that, had an obligation to do it, and didn't. >> i was wondering if the administering has a view on what might constitute an act of war with regard -- you know, what kind of cyber attack might constitute an act of war? >> there's a whole lot that we'll talk about in terms of what constitutes a cyber attack, what's war and what's not war. the manual and other things are important. but i think the most important answer to your question is, we're not going to draw a red line on cyber war at this point today. it's not within the direct scope of the executive order, but it

also would violate, i think, the president's primary mission he made to not telegraph our punches. if somebody does something to the united states of america that we cannot tolerate, we will act. >> sir -- >> you said that the goal is to secure the internet, you talk about the internet as something that americans use and enjoy. well, the technical standards for pomost things on the intern are put together by many, you know, international standards organizations and engineers and things like that, that often aren't in the united states. has there been any talk of jute reach to these sorts of bodies to try to build security into the next generation of protocols? >> the message here is not just protecting the people of america. we have an america first perspective, but the idea of having like-minded people with similar viewpoints, like our allies, developing with us, the open, operable internet, is something key to figuring out how we will define what is and

what is not centennial. we can't cut off the internet at our borders and expect it to operate in a viable way. if there are good ideas coming out of germany, we'll take them. if there are good ideas peoria, as well. >> we don't have much indication if there are going to be significant silicon valley tech leaders coming here. there are reports that the president has had a few phone calls with people like mark zuckerberg. can we expect to see someone like mark zuckerberg working closely with the administration when it comes to that counsel. >> instead of telling are you who the president did and didn't talk to, i'll tell you there's a lot to be learned from private industry. among other things, that stuff needs to come into the white house in the appropriate way. we talk on a regular basis to leaders, some that are technical leaders, some that are business leaders. my point of calling out the american technology council was to point out their going to have a leadership role in modernizing our federal i.t. and that has a lot of reasons.

there's fishefficiencies and co savings that are beyond just securities. this executive order speaks to the security component of it. and i would direct you to the american technology council and their efforts to think about those other efficiencies is. as an example, we've had numbers that suggest the federal government spends upwards of $40,000 per employee on their i.t. service costs and that ises so out of line with the private industry that secretary ross and others would probably have a very easy time buying and making money off of a company that's so poorly invested their dollars. and so i think you'll see that innovation come from that group of leaders and thoughtful people. and in terms o of what you'll see over the next month, i would say, i don't know how to answer that specifically, but i would like to take the opportunity in the opening before sara pulls me to thank one or two people and one of them high on my list is mayor giuliani. i would like to thank him for the advice he's given me and the president as we formulate this thinking. i would like to thank representative ratcliffe and

herd, representative nunez, senator collins, senator burr in the white house. there's a number of people who provided well-thought leadership and taken action to pass legislation, all of those things we've liked and that has improved our cybersecurity over the last eight years. i don't want to be critical of things that have happened over the last eight years, but i want to look forward to improvement. >> as you look forward, sir, a former obama administration official who dealt with other countries and other entities in other countries, he said that there were tens of thousands of attempts to hack into government systems daily. can you quantify? can you con fillfirm or deny th? >> no. >> the answer for no is that we see th see that happen and get into a numbers game. the better answer is for us to figure out how we can provide a

better collective defense of our federal i.t. and those networks and data we operate. if we do it based on an individual attack base, you're probably looking at it in the wrong way. >> was this person correct when they said, from entities around the world -- >> i would say this way, without numbers, the trend line is going in the wrong direction. we see it in additional attacks, additional numbers, additional volume, and occasionally, additional successes that trouble us. and that's the best way i can quantify that for you today. thank you. >> can you just say why the cybersecurity order was delayed? this was going to come out one day early in the administration, and there have been a lot of talk about concern from silicon valley and tech leaders with the direction that it was going in. so are those -- do you have some sense of kind of support that this order has, support or not from the tech world? >> i want to answer you and reject part of your question, if you can. and i think that i'll be clarifying? so first, i'll reject one part of your question. we did see some concerns, but i

don't think they'll remain and i look forward to their response after they read the president's executive order today. one of those concerns, for example, arose when they read the voluntary call in the president's executive order, which i applaud today, that we reduce greatly the number of bot net attacks in the united states. that's going to require voluntarily cooperation. from service providers to manufacturers of goods, and those things are going to have to happen voluntarily. what the president calls for is the government to provide the basis for that coordination. without defining who's in and who's out, it's a voluntary operation. but we know that they have the technical capacity if they have the will to come together on behalf of the american people and reduce those botnets dramatically. and the president is calling for him to do that. he's asking for his homeland security secretary to facilitate that. and we saw reflections of a concern, and i think that's something we can put to rest today. and that's why i poked on your question a