fees and smaller seats. all i have seen today is thousands and thousands of job losses, we should be concerned. >> thank you senator klobuchar. senator fisher joining us remotely. you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, can you hear me okay sf. >> absolutely. >> chairman, nebraska is one of the several states with their own universal service and i think the communication here -- we go live now to the white house for today's white house briefing. the front page of the "new york times" is not the venue for discussing classified investigation. the white house podium is not the venue for discussing classified investigatioformatio. we're here having a conversation

because of an irresponsible anonymous leak to the note. there is no good scenario as a result of this report. who will want to cooperate with the united states intelligence community. who will want to be united stat intelligence community? who wants to be a source or an asset if they know their identity will be disclosed. which allies want to share nifx with out if they are going to be splashed on the front page of a u.s. newspaper. there are two bad scenarios that emerge from this report. number one, this report makes it difficult to come to a consensus on this matter to verify intelligence. and number two, this level of controversy and discord plays correctly in the hands of russia and unfortunately serves their interest. since before president trump assumes office, dangerous leaks

seeking to under mine the elected president have been published. according to the doj, classified leaks surged in this administration. under president obama, just 39 on average criminal leak referrals in. this administration, we have seen 100 leaks in 2017, 823482018 and 100 per year an average. we have seen targeted leaks of classified information against this president, and it is irresponsible. phone calls with foreign leaders and reports of alleged intelligence. make no mistake, this damages our ability as a nation to collect intelligence. as the national security council noted yesterday, to those government officials who detrayed the trust of the people of the united states by leaking classified information, your actions endanger the national

security. the odi saps leaking any classifies information disrupts the work to collect and mitigate threats. it's also simply put a crime. and finally, the cia said this. that leaks compromise and disrupt the critical work to assess, describe culpability. to the sources, you may seek to undermine our president. but in fact, you under mine the country's safety and security. with that, i will take questions. christianen? >> thank you, kayleigh. when this white house officials first learn that it existed? >> i will say, the president was never briefed on this. the intelligence has not been verified. >> does the president wish that he had been briefed sooner? today, joe biden called it a

dereliction of duty? >> this is a piece of information that had not been verified. still to this day, has not been verified. there are several intelligence agencies saying -- the department of defense saying they have no evidence to validate the allegations in recent press art kms, they have not been verified, and the odni, we are investigating the intelligence in recent reporting. but that don't stop "the new york times" from putting it on the front page of the newspaper and stopping us from having a consensus on the intelligence. >> you said that -- if this intelligence does turn out to be true, is the president prepared to take some serious action against russia and russian president putin? >> the president has always

taken tough action against russia. we saw there is no diplomatic presence on the west coast of the country of russia because the president closed the consulates. he sanctioned hundreds of targets, withdrew from the treaty, the open skies treaty. trying to halt -- impose visa sanctions. make no mistake. this president is prepared to act and will always act in protecting the american troops. we saw in syria that dozens of russian mercenaries were killed. he will always act to protect the troops. nap is his track record. darlene. >> there is a briefing on the president's schedule today. will it matter this afternoon? >> the president has been briefed on what is unfortunately in the public domain because of "the new york times," and the irresponsible leaks, yeah, he has been briefed. but there is no con sun sess --

consensus on it. >> republican allies said that it will be great if the be the would wear a mask in public sometimes to set an example. how much weight for mccarthy, with the president. >> the president has said he has no problem with masks. that he encourages people to make whatever decision is best for their safety and to follow the jurisdictions. cdc guidelines are recommended and not required. the president has a decision wlmpbt to wear a mask. >> what about to set an example? >> justin? >> i want to look back on the president never being briefed. i think is dispute whether in february his pob included the information. i'm wondering if you can say, he may not have read the book but

was he given the access? >> the pdb is something that is given to several people, a top secret document. one thing that i will say that is routine, when there is intelligence, i was talking to folks from ncs about this ermier, and folks around the white house. when we get intelligence, verified or unverified, we deem credible of incredible, if that information any way impinges on the safety of the troops, the information goes to the troops on the ground so they can take measures. what is briefed up to the president was not the case. it was never briefed to the ptd of the united states. when there is a decision to be made, if there is a decision to

be made vis a vis rush shall, there is no consensus, it's not credible. but this president will always protect american troops. >> zwrours follow on that. two points, i would say that press secretaries in the past have disclosed what is in the pdb. but secondly, this is a relevant issue because i think that credit has seized on this and said if the president is not reading his pdb, he may not know the policy decisions need to be knead. if a president is presented with the information, it's unverified. he can be alarmed, change his posture with russia, ask intelligence officials to work harder to determine whether or not this is true. make a series judgment. so i guess more broadly, you know, i would re-ask the

question whether it was in his material. but defend why the president isn't reading his pdb when there are these issues. >> the ptd does read it. he consumes intelligence per dally. this president is the most informed person on planet earth when it comes to the threats we face. you have ambassador o'brien who sees him in person twice a day. he takes upwards of half a dozen calls with the president. he is informed and briefed on intelligence matters. i'm not going to allow "the new york times" to dictate when we give information. yes? >> thanks. does the white house have any comment on bruce orr testifying on the hill today? >> no comment on that specifically. but what i will say more generally, what bruce orr and others and the obama era government have to answer for is

quite substantial. you have a dossier of lies, and bruce's wife involved and the creation of the dossier, that is funded by the democratic national committee with the hillary clinton campaign and was used to spy on the trump campaign, to launch an investigation in the russian collusion, and a waste of taxpayer dollars, mr. orr and others have a lot of questions to answer for. >> why was it behind closed doors? why wasn't it televised given the public interest? >> that would be a question for congress. but i think the public deserves to know mr. orr's answers on that matters. >> one thing about leakers, democrat lawmakers are calling for a -- white house personnel today. is there a concern to brief democratic lawmakers given the

leaks out of his committee? >> i think that democrats should come forward in good faith. if anyone has politicalized intelligence, the norkt noshlgt is acting irresponsible i and the democratic party is disgraceful. >> hey, senate majority leader mcconnell said today that russia should not be allowed back in the g summit. does the president agree with mitch mcconnell? >> i haven't spoken to him on that matter. the president believes we have to have relationships with the top economies in the world. no one is tougher on russia than this president. i would note when it comes to acting on viable actionable, credible intelligence, there has been no one who has acted more forcefully than this president. he has a track record of that. he has made protecting the troofs overseas his highest and

strongest priority. as you know, mani was responsible for the deaths of 600 americans from explosively formed penetrators, rocket assisted munitions, rocket mortars, rocket propelled grenades. this is what ammani did to our american troops. you have president bush who declined to strike him. you have obama/biden who never made an effort to strike. but you have this president, when he had actionable intelligence to protect american troops, he did it. he took that option. he was criticized by democrats. they criticized. nbc said that democrats demand answers on amani killing, and

why kill him now? we removed him from the battlefield. president trump did to protect our american troops based on credible evidence. he did the say with al baghdadi who killed thousands of prison nors of war. he took action, criticized by democrats for it but that is what the president does. he acts in defense of the american troops. >> you said it was targeted in "the new york times." who is doing the targeting and why are they doing it? >> it's a great question. they are rogue intelligence officers who are imperilling the troops' lives. we will likely not be able to get a consensus on the intelligence because of what is looked to the "new york times." you have those noting which damage the leaks does, not just to the safety of the troops, but

the ability of the united states to have assets and get the valuable information. who's doing it -- >> the members are going after sflump is that what you're saying? >> possibly could be. if that is the case, that is absolutely despicable. yes? >> is the trump administration doing anything or taking action like an out audi of the ic? what steps are you taking? >> make no mistake, the doj has done the criminal referrals, 100 on average per year under president trump. we do take those things. we do have a president who ultimately, when it comes down to the safety of our troops, he doesn't take that -- action. and when you had iran who shot down a drone, he chose not to strike back in that instance.

he chose to protect civilians, the troops. it was a measured response, and ultimately, the the mat way to protect american troops is not get in needless foreign wars. this is a president on record for decades and decades opposing foreign wars. iraq is a great example. nearly a two decade war. when washington was unanimous said we're going in iraq, this president said no, that's not the right decision. he has wound down our troop presence in afghanistan and iraq, and he has protected troops and kept america safe. he has a strong record to be incredibly proud of. thank you. >> really?