>> thanks for joining us, great show, "varney & company" begins now. charles payne in for stuart. >> good morning, it's a big, big week for the trump administration. i'm charles payne, stuart is back tomorrow, but here are the big stories for the day. the house votes on obamacare on thursday and paul ryan says he has the votes, but the plan is still a work in progress. ted cruz says if premiums go up under the new plan, the republicans will be tarred and feathered. but before we get to that we're going to see some serious drama unfold on capitol hill a little under an hour from now, fbi chief james comey and head of nsa testifying on russia's interference in the election,

the alleged wiretapping, and inlligence leaks and president trump tweeted, they've pushed the story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. big advantage in electoral college and lost. a hearing for the supreme court nominee judge gorsuch. it's a big day, we've got it all for you. "varney & company," we're about to begin. ♪ >> first want to take a look at the equity futures. you can see stocks drifting a little bit. not a major retreat, but let's face it. they're waiting for the trump agenda to move on and shenanigans out of washington d.c. and oil, analysts are blaming

on g20 refusing to remove language over the weekend. breaking key support points. however, gasoline at $2.29. that's your national average for regular gas. regular agenda item today, tax cuts, president trump says building the biggest since ronald reagan. >> it will be the biggest tax cut since reagan and probably bigger than reagan. >> well, tammy bruce is here. tammy, the biggest, perhaps bigger than ronald reagan? >> yeah, considering we've had big government government since reagan, right? you've had the bushes, really, george w. bush, nature of spending more than johnson did on the great society, which also failed. i think any major tax cut is going to be as big as reagan if not more. trump is reformer, he understands is especially as a businessman. politicians understands the rhetoric and how it impacts americans emotionally, donald trump understands it at a core

level of business. when we're taking not just the individual rate down, but small business rates down and it also into the whole of his agenda, which is job creation, more money into the pockets of american, smaller governments, which means additional personal liberty which is what we want. liz: talk about timing, too, sean spicer says it could come late spring. >> isn't august sort of the time they have it done and a lot of people are skeptical about that, but of course, the markets kind of want to ear this, i think. i'm not so hung up on the 100 days i think as long as we know what happens and as long as it retroactive-- >> it has to be tied into obamacare, the nature of fines and affecting the individual, you can't do one another the other. everything is tied in here. >> having said that, if the vote thursday falls short, i personally, if it did fall short for whatever reason, i would love to see the

administration quickly pivot in cutting taxes. remember, ronald reagan cut taxes first and waited three or four years, four years to do full reform because the tax code in the building, cut taxes because president obama raised them almost immediaty. >> it's one thing to cut taxes, that's important, but we also heard discussions during the campaign of just having to file a post card size piece of paper for our taxes. we want the system to change at a core fundamental level and donald trump understands that, but in this first year, low hanging fruit of making sure americans get moving and the basic elements that we need to be able to do that. >> my post card is going to say gave at the office. [laughter]. stuart: as we await fbi chief james comey's testimony before

the house intelligence community. listen to what the chairman of the committee said about intelligence leaks. >> do you believe that there are elements inside the intelligence community or the fbi that are leaking information, like the name of mike flynn, like perhaps the fact that attorney general sessions met with the russian ambassador, to undercut the trump presidency? >> i think that's pretty clear. in fact-- >> pretty clear what. >> pretty clear that that's happening. >> joining us now, former cia covert operations officer mike baker. you heard that sound. what do you have to say about that? >> yeah, i'm not quite sure where everybody's getting their intelligence on the location for these leaks. look, if they want to find the leaks and that's really one of the two important parts of what's happening with this hearing.

the rest of it is kind of noise, but if you want to find the leaks, typically go where they happen. look at the staffer onapitol hill who has access because they're sharing information up with select members or look to the white house where there's somebody who is inclined to provide that information for whatever reason. but i have yet to see any actual information other than just hearsay coming out of the intel community. there's a fairly-- i know we want to think there are one or two people who have access to this information, but it gets disseminated and spread out and also gets provided to staffers. and other individuals, so you wouldn't necessarily think about. >> considering how quickly some. information got out, mike flynn or conversations with foreign leaders such as australia, it would seem that that would seem to narrow the possibilities and to your point, it would have to be someone left over from the

obama administration or some sort of die-hard bureaucrat who may be apolitical for protecting his or her turf and you can narrow it down swiftly, can't you? >> you certainly can and that's the case with any leak and even if you're talking counter intel again issue, you identify the information leaked, who had access to it and start working with there, but you don't build your investigation on this noise and here say and again, everybody speaks from their experience. my experience over a lot of years, woulding behind the curtain from inside the bureau even though it makes for a good headline. this hearing today shifts direction just a little bit. i think it's going to leave a lot of people unsatisfied and by that i mean on both sides. >> to which topic would that be? it looks like they're going to get some clarity on russians not interfering with the election and maybe get clarity onhe obama--

certainly president obama no perhaps ordering wiretapping and to me, the big headline coming out of this is that these leaks are real and there should be consequences, considering especially the low level of the confidence that the american people have in the intelligence community these days. >> yeah, exactly and you've identified the two real key things to come out or hopefully come out of this, that is the leaks, discussing the leaks and pursuing that and that affects both sides, right? i mean, nobody wants the release of classified information for the most part. and then the other part of it is is the russian meddling in the election, but, when you look at, you know, the way that the progressive liberal side on the left has been whipped into a frenzy, but some of the folks up on capitol hill and by others, about this idea of fef -- nefarious collusion both before and after and the russians,

it's just smoke. they're not going to find anything, it's going to leave the base on the left very unhappy and the wiretapping, somehow president obama was involved in a nefarious efforts to wire tap trump tower. i don't think there's anything there. leaving the people on the right who are pursuing this unsatisfied. in the center, they've got to go after the leaks and the russian meddling issue. >> i think that's one of the big headlines. another one for you, mike, north korea test firing the rocket engines and they've been test fire rockets, and this engine proves they've made leaps moving the rockets around the world hitting in japan and eventually in america. and this happened while secretary of state rex tillerson was visiting asia. is this going beyond your typical sabre rattling? >> it is and ng he it's

important for people to note that this is not something just developed since president trump has taken office. what we're watching with north korea is a gradual progression over the years of them pursuing what they've been stating they want to pursue for quite some time now. intercontinental capabilities, delivering to the continental united states, they have been talking about this for long time. i guarantee we'll look at this as somehow it happened in a bubble and now it's just president trump's fault, but this has been happening for a while and we're getting to a point-- >> mike, i'm not as concerned with fault as what do we do about this? we heard secretary of state tillerson saying that everything is on the table. and maybe a preemptive strike, like israel had to do, set it back to the stone age and make them start from scratch? because it seems to me the danger with the nut job in charge of this country is that

he will actually get the capability and use it one day. >> the reason i point out the progression of this over the years is because it's happened, because we have been willing to kick the can down the road and try a series of fairly inif he can actual sanctions in hoping that china will somehow exert leverage on them and somehow bring them under the control of the community of nations and now we've got to a point, a natural point they're getting closer and we don't have that many options at this point and i would suggest that what we're seeing with north korea, in a way, is what we're going to be seeing with iran at a certain point, the options on the table, as rex tillerson said is right, nobody wants war, nobody wants to go that route. what else-- we've got to admit that we've got to look at the various scenarios if we're going to be pragmatic in dealing with them, but there are not that many good options here.

>> mike baker, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> it's a busy day for president trump today and our 11:00 hour, president trump holds a meeting with microsoft founder bill gates. then he's discussing the republican health care bill with speaker paul ryan, health and human secretary tom price and obamacare architect zeke imanwell. later he's getting on air force one to louisville, kentucky for a rally. and the committee will grill fbi director james comey and we're talking with a member of that community next and later this morning, a confirmation hearing for president trump's supreme court pick neil gore suchl. we're all over it, a busy morning and get this, tesla killing off the cheapest car one year after it went on sale. we'll have the details on that next.

this is judy. judy is 63 years old. her mortgage payment is $728 a month. that's almost 9 thousand dollars a year. now judy doesn't think that she'll be able to retire until her mortgage is fully paid off. this is mike. mike is also 63 years old. his mortgage payment was $728 a month. mike thought he would have to work for another 12 years until his mortgage was paid off... and then mike heard about a reverse mortgage and how that might help him. he called one reverse mortgage to get the details. mike retired immediately after getting his

one reverse mortgage loan. maybe you too can benefit from a reverse mortgage. call one reverse mortgage now and find out if you qualify. they'll send you an information kit that includes all the details and the stories of mike and others. a reverse mortgage... is a mortgage with no required monthly payments. it was created for homeowners 62 or older so they can continue to afford and own the home they love. many one reverse mortgage clients find they can retire sooner, do more the things they love, or simply put more money in the bank. a reverse mortgage could change your retirement, and your life. i examined my finances and i said, there is no reason why i shouldn't retire today. 10, 12 years earlier than i had anticipated. in the first year, mike's cash flow savings totaled $8,736.

after 5 years, it will be over $40,000. it really is worth a call to find out if a reverse mortgage can help you too. call and ask for your free information kit. >> news from soccer club manchester united, they're planning to hold five matches

into the united states this summer. they're going to be in los angeles, salt lake city, and you've got stuart varney's summer vacation there. and the cheapest tesla model. liz: it's killing the cheapest model. the ordering process doesn't look like the sales are coming in strong. it had limited battery potential versus the next one, 74,500 is what you pay if you want the cheapest model. it looks like people are buying that model or upgrading. so, tesla said we're going to tank it. charles: i thought it was a bad idea to go too low particularly when the taxpayers are paying for the down payment. liz: exactly. ashley: but we have the $35,000 model s later this year. chars: i hear you. ashley: there you go. charles: by the way, another live look guys from capitol hill. intelligence leaks, that's going to be one of the main

focuses of this hearing involving fbi director james comey and president trump tweeting about that, the real story that copingress and the fi and others should be looking at is the leaking of classified information. must find leaker now. joining us is chris stewart, republican in utah and member of the intelligence committee. thank you for joining us. you guys have a big agenda this morning with regards to james comey. what is going to be your central focus? >> my gosh, it's hard to answer that question. we have a lot of important issues that we need to deal with. the most important, the claim that the white house made that there was eavesdropping or wiretapping and the largest story, without any evidence that there was somehow collusion between the trump administration or trump elected officials and russia and by the way, we have this rumor or whisper that doesn't have any evidence to it all, but the one

thing we do know coming to your point, charles, is this: we do know there were leaks of highly classified and very sensitive information. we do know that that is a crime and certainly is something we're looking at today as well. charles: i hate to satisfy say it this way, we've spent the last eight years watching the hearings in on capitol hill result in nothing. we saw the ib if, the irs, almost every agency wielded as a weapon from time to time against conservatives and it felt like it was all noise. when it was all said and done, it never felt like any justice came out of it? could there be a sense of that today? do this leaking situation, both sides agree exists, could this be the something that someone pays a price for this? >> there has to be and i'm going to make that clear on my portion of the hearing. we don't speculate that it happened, we know that it happened and it's a crime and it endangers our national

security. for heaven's sake, some of this was really, really sensitive and released methods that shouldn't be out there and people did it for political means or decided somewhere we don't like this president therefore, we're going to try to weaken them. they need to be held accountable for that. we may not resolve that in this hearing, but we're going to move forward on that. in the past there's been a sense of disappointment or deflation, and in one sense that might be good and if we say definitively there was no evidence that trump election officials colluded with russian intelligence. if we tell the american people and assure them, and hopefully that brings clarity to that as well. charles: representative stewart, i think we're in complete it's time to inhale

and move forward. it should be a barn burner. >> tim allen says he's calling out actors, saying that being a conservative is like living in germany in the 1930's. you'll hear that next. my dad gave me those shares, you know? he ran that company. i get it. but you know i think you own too much. gotta manage your risk. an honest opinion is how edward jones makes sense of investing. ifover time it canr fromlead to cavities and bad breath. that's why there is biotene, the # 1 dry mouth brand recommended by dentists. biotene. for people who suffer from a dry mouth. ♪

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness,

liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance >> and now this, comedian tim allen on jimmy kimmel live

compares being a conservative in hollywood to 1930's germany. roll tape. >> you don't believe what everybody believes, it's like 30's germany, i don't know what happened. if you're not part of the group. >> get in line. >> you know what we believe is right, well, i might have a problem. i'm a comedian, i like going on. >> and tammy, your reaction. >> look, out of context, it seems a little extreme, he's joking around a little bit and the fact of the matter is, in early 1930's, 1933, what began, which was people thought was just about making people get in line, was about a lot of pressure from various groups for people to be fired if they did not adhere to the nazi line. people would be shunned and people would be arrested and generally, it was more about social pressure, what would happen to you, and then of course, it turned more violent, stores being attacked and vandalized and we're already experiencing some of that, of

course, jews being targets-- >> i think that anybody has run up to his $10 million mansion. >> i hear when twitter came out, that it's not just in hollywood. >> main street to be more of a threat than cozy confines of hollywood. liz: i think people need to stop the nazi reference and-- >> hold on, breaking news on a president trump tweet just coming in now about the clinton campaign, actually have it. ashley: the president is on a tweeting storm no doubt about it. this one from the president, what about all t contact with the clinton campaign and the russians? question mark? it's a good question. is it true that the dnc would not let the fbi in to look. charles: it looks like he was watching when i was talking to representative chris stewart and i didn't talk about those things and maybe you should have, we've got some coming in-- >> bill clinton got half a million dollars for a speech in

moscow, the clinton foundation took money. >> that's okay. liz: money from-- >> we've got a lot to go through. by the way, more varney after this quick break. ♪ guyhey nicole, happening here? this is my new alert system for whenever anything happens in the market. kid's a natural. but thinkorswim already lets you create custom alerts for all the things that are important to you. shhh. alerts on anything at all? not only that, you can act on that opportunity with just one tap right from the alert. wow, i guess we don't need the kid anymore. custom alerts on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade. i just had to push one button wto join.s thing is crazy. it's like i'm in the office with you, even though i'm here. it's almost like the virtual reality

of business communications. no, it's reality. introducing intuitive, one touch video calling from vonage. call now and get amazon chime at no additional cost. kevin, meet yourkeviner. kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin kevin trusted advice for life. kevin, how's your mom? life well planned. see what a raymond james financial advisor can do for you.

>> we're less than 20 seconds interested opening bell. the market is coming down a little bit. wall street rubber necking in washington d.c., fascinated like everyone else out there and also, greg anxiety that maybe some of the tax cuts and regulatory cuts won't happen as quickly as promised. nevertheless, the market has been on one kind of a tear. you can see the first few ticks here the market down 12 points with the first few stocks on the dow jones industrial average open. you're looking at them, joining us to discuss it all, ashley webster, liz macdonald, tammy bruce, keith fitz-gerald and scott shellady. let's talk about the market on pause, d.c. sort of, just sucking up the oxygen out there. keith, would you agree with that or do you think there's something else happening here? >> this is like a country dance sopping, two steps forward, one step back.

risk and confidence are everything right now for traders and investors and it's a show-me market. it's showed and now we've got to kell. charles: scott, you're the cow you must know about promenading and do-si-do-ing. >> to keith's term, it is a country western song and everybody is sitting out the dance and not doing any steps and ultimate i will the end of the -- ultimate ultimately, things are quiet and your imagination gets in your head and your imagination is your worst enemy, would have, should have, could have. and that's what's happening. and once there's something to sink our teeth in. people are stepping up to the plate and stopping that drift. charles: they do. and any serious-- >> kind of bearish canary in the coal mine, the russell.

and maybe there's fear that the small caps which will benefit from trump's policy, that conveyer belt of trump's reforms will not make it and they will get hit and they won't benefit from stronger dollar, lower tax rates and the like and we'll have a sad trombone and just the border wall. charles: everyone is watching closely, but having said that, they are the biggest beneficiary of the trump rally. 'cause that's-- they're the essence of buy america. liz: they're parring down the gains and actually they're to the down side. charles: what do you think? >> the biggest issue is health care reform. get that through on thursday and that will give cheer to the markets so things will be moving along. it always takes longer than hoped for in washington, but that will certainly give another boost to the market, i think. >> even as a lay person, i would think that most of this already baked into what's happening, is that, would that be correct when it comes to expectations with obamacare, the optimism clearly shows expectation and the numbers and

percentages have lizzen. liz: they have to deliver. >> they have to deliver, and once they deliver, it means that i guess, essentially if it's baked in, are' not going to see another big boost because it's already in. charles: i think this is just the beginning. let's not forget, we start talking about the benefits of lower taxes and regulations, and the train is out of the staying. you get that enthusiasm the fed could never get by simply just printing money. talk about oil, some analysts blaming the drop on g20 officials, removing language. scott, what do you think on that theory. >> a nice idea and at the end ofhe day it's supplysuly, supply, and we'r going to be skim swimming in it. as we say in 2016, the oil and stocks have been trading together and what people are on their heels, hey, is oil going to take the market lower? when things are quiet, those

things come into play a little bit. until we get through this or at least get our energy companies into the clear here, it could be a little bit of a negative and then once that's the case, we're putting people back to work and gas is a lot cheaper at the station, it's going to be off to the races. >> let's not forget, we brought back double the amount of rigs from a year ago, maybe we're bringing them back too quick. we've got to leave it there, the house is going to vote on thursday to replace and repeal obamacare. keith, what will it do to the health insurers? >> it's hard to say on this one. af been looking at this and going after data, data, data. i think it initially takes a hit, but the pharma companies will do well and ultimately the consumers are going to benefit here. doctors don't have new cars, patients don't have new cars. health insurance guys have new cars. they're going to squeeze that out. charles: doctors in new york city have been driving lower

cars except for plastic surgeons. [laughter]. you wanted to talk about the protectionism thing. >> it's the oil dynamics. we're swimming in oil, one thing when everything you feel you can predict. look where the world is heading. people seem to be preparing for war, if something emerges from the middle east in particular and the flow is stopped. imagine that, it's not going to be a bad idea to be swimming right now because you might not have movement coming out of, certainly saudi arabia, you know, any of the canals, and the strait. it's going to be blocked. so this is i think what we have. liz: it may not be blocked because they need the money to keep surviving. charles: we haven't seen the geopolitical risk into oil yet. >> if you had to-- moving-- >> the oil leaves, maybe something like that you could see happening, but the rest of the world, the g20 backs off protectionism thing certainly s a win for the trump administration. let's take a look at the big

board, again, we're not moving much. the dow though is off the lows of the session. interesting story over the weekend. one of these darling, grub hub, the stock barron's now saying could drop 25% amid increased competition. also, we've got lower sales of jamba juice and talk about that. and tesla killing off the cheap model less than a year after introducing it. all right, let's start with, i want to go back to you, scott. the tesla move, killing off that cheaper version car, they actually say they've got one in the pipeline. do you think that's going to help or hurt them? >> i don't think it's going to do anything, i don't. i like elon musk. to say i like all of his companies would be stretch, but i like his out of the box type of thinking. and going back and tying two things together here. if we're really-- we don't have any geopolitical, if we're swimming in oil, what is that going do in the big picture to the price of a battery and then what tesla does and makes their electric automobiles.

so i'm kind of a little leery here with what we've found in the states and alaska about what that might do in the next five years to the electric automobile. i think we're ahead of it still and i'm going to kind of wait and see. charles: a lot of people saying tesla is ten years ahead of itself. the stock has killed most shorts than almost any stock i can think of. do you like it here? do you think it has more upside. >> i have a longer perspective-- >> i think you're going to be able to pick it up cheaper, yes, we could see a little bit of an a run to the upside, but ultimately the end of the the day if you bang the headlines cheaper and cheaper oil, that's going to have some sort of affect or at least take that away from the r & d going into the electric or battery cars. charles: and keith. >> to scott's point, i think you're going to get it cheaper, but if you've got the right perspective. this has never been about the car and everybody looks at elon musk and it's about the grid.

and there's a much bigger value that's not related to the car. charles: the lithium battery. it could be revolutionary and i do like the hyperloop, too. by the way, you've got to take a look at disney, it's been -- where is the stock? do we have the stock. liz: it's moving to the upside. charles: it should be because beauty and the beast is a monster, no pun intended. the best open in a march in history. keith, does it make you want to buy the shares at disney? >> i would, but they've got an espn problem and i don't like that. it's an albatross around their neck and until that gets cleared up, i don't want "beauty and the beast" and other things out there. charles: keith, do you have young kids? >> i do, two boys, not as young as they used to be. charles: i had a birthday party for my granddaughter and when mickey and minnie walked in,

forget about espn, the way they went nuts, crazy. and now "beauty and the beast", i don't say it's bleeding subscribers, but a crop of people who are going to buy every product from them. >> maybe we should take advantage of the fact that they have espn as a weight around the neck. number two, i think this, don't you think that the mood of the country was waiting for something like this, you know, it's a feel good story, great graphics and the music is fantastic. and sometimes these things come out at the exact right time and i think this is one of them. charles: maybe this isn't the right time, but i'm calling it a win for america. the rest of the world may not say so, apparently they think that g20 strong armed dropping the pledge, and calling for everyone to rethink the global trade. scott, what do you think about that one? >> i like the fact that they're retrenching a little bit, but at the end of the day, with what we've got happening here

in the state and havinbeen here in london, ultimatelyt's going to start to catch fire and go aund e world and onto the next thing, and talking about globalization, but ultimately, the retrenching i like, i do like that. charles: anybody here not like that, anybody afraid of protectionism hurting our economy. liz: yes, it could. they say they're going to back off, does that mean they back off the ent a trust probes of all of our tech companies as well? >> i don't think the eu will. ashley: they're going off google and everyone else as hard as they can for as long as they can, let's be honest. charles: by the way, speaking of trade, apple chief tim cook says globalization is great for the world. a company that looks like a direct attack on president trump. any thoughts on that, tammy? well, look, the condition of the economy not only here, but in europe has been limping alone and has been effectively artificial. maybe he's looking at his own mansion and his own company which are doing well with

globalism. but for the individual worker and average person all over the world, it's harmful and then, of course, in africa, other nations where there's just no economy at all, it's not-- nothing globally is moving in to help the people that actually need it. individual freedoms, strong countries make a difference. liz: a good point. cook said it in china, he's got to make a bigger play in china. charles: and all right, guys, got to leave it there. keith and scott, thank you both very, very much. more problems for uber. the company's president calling it quits after six months on the job. we've got details for you on that. the far left doing everything they can to derail the president's agenda, warning democrat lawmakers, if you vote to confirm the president's supreme court pick neil gorsuch, we're going to vote you out of office. next. ♪ i've got a peaceful easy feeling ♪ ♪ and i know you won't let me down ♪

♪ 'cause i'm already standing on the ground ♪ at angie's list,e there are certain things you can count on, like what goes down doesn't always come back up. ♪ [ toilet flushes ] ♪ so when you need a plumber, you can count on us to help you find the right person for the job. discover all the ways we can help at angie's list. because your home is where our heart is.

>> stuck in neutral. we're going to check that big board for you, we're down six points, looking for something that wants to go up. it needs a catalyst. hey, check out fire, you want a stock that has not lived up to the hype. and now bank of america thinks the bad news is out and they say you want to buy it now. it might be a good hunch. the stock is severely oversold. jeff jones, president of uber has resigned six months on the job. liz: i left, a top marketing guy. uber has seen a string of executive departures and talk heating up on the street they're going public. wow, when you see the top guys leaving, they need a receive operating officer. it looks like there's instability in the c-suites up there.

this comes after, you know, the head of the company got in a fight with an uber driver. it comes as they're underfire sitting on the trump advisory panel and uber drivers are upset about that and the string of departures after that fake version of the app that uber was using to foil regulators from coming in to do sting operations on uber. ub ear-- >> and you've got to wonder about that valuation. charles: you talk about a new coo. they might need a new coo. i know sometimes these guys are smart enough to step aside and say someone should operate this business that i created. all right, guys, confirmation hearing for neil gorsuch, president trump's pick for the supreme court. progressive threaten democrats who will vote for him. come in, byron york. a dangerous game they're playing, no? >> absolutely. i think there are a couple of things to remember about this gorsuch hearing. is it about neil gorsuch and his record or is it go donald trump?

and democrats will be bringing up things about gorsuch's record, about votes on religious liberty, contraceptives, guantanamo, workers' rights, things like that. i think the biggest fireworks are going to come over donald trump in which the question is basically going to be, will you support the president if it comes to some sort of legal conflict in which he is involved. charles: well, i'm also hearing that some democrats, because they're really having a tough time with this, this is -- this is one of these g.o.p. picks they're having a tough time finding the ideological thing. his resume' is so press te-- pristine. they all voted for him before, and what happened in ten years. i'm comparing about campaign finance reform and things that don't seem like a game stopper. >> that's it. they just don't have anything explosive. on the other hand, they have a

base that really wants revenge. remember, republican senators did block the nomination of merrick garland for many, many months during the campaign and the election, until republicans had control the senate wi a republican president. so there's anger about that, a desire to get back at them, but they have this big question. should democrats try to filibuster the supreme court nominee which they can try to do and if they do it they'll probably prompt the senate majority leader mitch mcconnell using a nuclear option killing the filibuster for a supreme court nominee and putting neil gorsuch on the supreme court. the net result for democrats, we blew our filibuster chances and gorsuch is on the supreme court anyway. you hear talks about democrats holding their fire and keeping their powder dry for maybe the next supreme court nomination. charles: i want to switch gears to the comey hearing a few

moments from now. the democrats are making it all about russia. here is what house chair nunez said about it. >> a simple answer, no. >> no evidence of any collusion. >> no evidence. >> and this is after talking and getting this information from the fbi. >> up to speed, everything i have up till this morning. charles: of course, he was referring to possible collusion between russia and the trump campaign although president trump tweeting out, what about all the contact with the clinton campaign and the russians also, is it true that the dnc would not let the fbi look into its situation. what do you make of this hearing? i mean, obviously, it has the potential to be explosive. >> well, we'll have a couple of things, one, there will be a lot of talk about donald trump's tweets a couple of weeks ago accusing barack obama of wiretapping him or wiretapping trump tower. there will be a lot of democrats saying there's absolutely no basis for that, president was totally wrong, he

needs to apologize to the fbi or the people or the world. something like that. but that clip you played with devon nunez, the fundamental question here, did trump or his associates collude with the russians with the 2016 campaign. so far there's no evidence of that. not saying there's no evidence in some secret corner somewhere, but no far after investigation, there's no evidence of that and we'll see james comey questioned about that. charles: and the speculation is that he will put that to bed and in other words, there is no evidence of that. and does this leave open the door to say why haven't you also, since you've gone so deep into this, investigated the russians contacting the democratic party and also, of course, the leaks. the leaks, everyone acknowledged there are leaks and maybe what is the role of the fbi. it feels like we could come out

of this with explosive things and further investigation. >> yes, as nunez said we only know now of one crime, the witappin general flynn, the leak of the wire tapped information on flynn because flynn was picked upped on a u.s. wire tap on the russian ambassador and the information from that intercepted phone call was actually leaked to the press, which is a crime. so, you're going to hear republicans talking about that quite a bit. as far as the collusion is concerned, my guess is we'll probably end up with kind of a muddy conclusion with each side being able to say something on their own behalf and there being still no public information supporting any sort of collusion. charles: byron york, thank you very much. >> thank you, charles. charles: all right, let's check on the dow 30, a moments ago we went into the green.

look at that, more winners than losers, and getting traction, and the buying crowd alive and well. in washington d.c., director comey in the hot seat grilled by the committee moments from now, we'll bring you there live when it happens. more varney after this. ice... ...we've helped our investors stay confident for over 75 years. call us or your advisor. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. just like the people every business is different. but every one of those businesses will need legal help as they age and grow. whether it be with customer contracts, agreements to lease a space or protecting your work. legalzoom's network of attorneys can help you, every step of the way. so you can focus on what you do and we'll handle the legal stuff that comes up along the way. legalzoom. legal help is here.

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates... maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. liberty mutual insurance. we cut the price of trades to give investors even more value. and at $4.95, you can trade with a clear advantage. fidelity, where smarter investors will always be.

>> sales are down for this company. down once again. see the stock down 3% this morning and then there's this. we're moments away from the hearing with fbi director james comey testifying before the house intelligence committee on russia, their election interference and what are you expecting here, tammy? >> obviously there will be specific things. comey is expected to say there is no russian interference. they've been investigating this since last year. there's been active investigations and keep going and going, keep it going until they find what it is they want to find, but in this case there is really nothing. that i think will be made clear and that's important, but there has to be a question about the issue about the fisa warrants and the trump tower surveillance. if, and mike rogers is going to be there as well, trump's nsa director and he can answer

whether or not, this is seemed to be presumed there was a fisa effort in june, nsa effort in june to go to the fisa court, they were rejected to get sufficiently at trump tower, if that never happened that's important to know and that would presume the october effort never occurred and that will help that. but if rogers confirms that they tri in june, then that makes trump's claims more reasonable. charles: all right, guys, let's leave it there, one quick check of the big board, 5 points there. you're looking live at capitol hill, james comey testifying before the committee. hour two it three minutes away.

. .

charles: any moment now fbi director james comey will testify before the house intelligence committee. expect questions on russia, leaks and wiretapping. good morning. i'm charles payne. stuart will be back tomorrow.

the committee chairman, congressman devin men news a republican, says there is no evidence of wiretapping at trump tower. he says there is no evidence of collusion between the trump camp and russians. with the leaks and intelligence community and that they were there to undermined trump administration. that will play out next hour sore some we'll bring it to you all live. hour two of "varney & company" is about to begin. ♪ charles: check the big board. forget about trading. we're up three points right now. the tech stocks never seem to go up. they are conquering it to big tech names you know hitting all-time highs. you can see the board. let's not forget about oil. we've been tweeting about it back and forth.

i tell you we need a little bit higher to help america because we're now a oil giant. happening any moment now, the big news, fbi director james comey is going to testify before the house intelligence committee. allegations of wiretapping by the obama administration, russia's election meddling, those will of course be two big issues. joining us republican congressman from wisconsin, sean duffy. congressman, are you glad we'll get the hearings on so we get on to other things like health care, tax cuts, things that the american public really wanted and that's what they voted on in november? >> it is about time. we've seen so much fodder on the left and right. left is talking about collusion between the donald trump campaign and russians. on the right donald trump said i was surveiled at trump tower, me and my allies. i think james comey coming in today will offer a lot more clarity for both sides. we can clear the clouds and move forward. to your point, we have to get health care done. in my distribution in wisconsin,

you have people who have skyrocketing health care costs, increasing deductibles. getting this done is phase one. we move on to tax reform, phase two, dodd-frank reform. things that kick-start the economy. let's put this aside. charles: how easy will it be to get over the hurdle thursday on obamacare replacement? you've got voices still saying over the weekend, republicans are saying it will not happen in its present form? >> looking at house perspective, this is the first bill comes up on thursday as the target, we have the republican study committee, that is a bunch of republicans i'm a member of that group that are conservatives. there is another group that is called conservative caucus. the they are. this is where donald trump comes in. he steps in uses negotiating tactics. he is maybe able to tweak the bill to make them happy there.

is great opportunity to pass the bill on thursday. let me give you one side vote, if it doesn't pass i think it will come up for a vote. if it doesn't pass a week or two later. pressure on those republicans who don't vote for the bill, in essence we'll give you obamacare in perpetuity, the pressure on them by president trump and rest of the republican constituents will be so great when it comes back, this will pass one way or the other, thursday or week later, it will pass. charles: in the budget committee three republicans who did vote against it. they understand the stakes. they understand what they're doing here. i guess this is, maybe vote your conscience. you've got cruz saying premiums going up, you can not accept them. the cbo saying over next few years these premiums will go through the roof. ultimately 10 years from now they will be down 10% overall, still up 25% for seniors. is that a gambit republicans are willing to accept? >> the cbo looks at legislation how it will impact the budget.

they do fairly well at that but they don't do good job what do free markets and market pressure do to drive the costs for americans and cost of health care on american families. they're not good at that. just recall, obamacare they said 22 million people would join the exchanges. only 10 million people joined the exchanges. they don't get the stuff right all the time. i feel the competition and choice for consumers will bring is pces down andetr. charles: what about you're a conservative, did does this cut to your core somewhat? does this interfere with traditional orthodoxy of government interfere ends to the degree we're subsidizing this. >> we do subsidize people in health care. help people when they fall upon hard times i think is still a conservative idea. to make them contribute for the health care costs is good as well. to think the people who are working poor.

to give them refundable tax credit to go into the market to buy health care coverage instead of using only emergency rooms. one, they have skin in the game and two, more cost effective for the american people. by the way republicans and conservatives when we were trying to he repeal obamacare this, is the thought process we all had. to step back i know he voted for a plan like this during obama's years but now it is not conservative, i don't buy that. this is approach i think that will try costs down and help poor people in times of need. charles: ted cruz say you will be tarred and feathered if the premiums go up. >> yeah. charles: the stakes are high for him and anyone else that goes against this but are you making a lot of assumptions what tom price will do and senate republicans will do and getting enough democrats on board to lower state barriers to get competition you alluded to? >> thursday we talked about phase one. you heard a lot about that.

>> phase one is making a lot of assumptions about phase two and three. >> phase two with what tom price and can do at health and human services he has autonomy as secretary to do that phase three will help breed competition. competition across state lines. getting tort reform which i don't think democrats will join us. they sold out to the trial bar. association health care. if i'm realtor i can work with all the other realtors in america to leverage buying power to get cheaper insurance prices. all of that will be very helpful. here is what you have to recognize. democrats are in opposition because we haven't gotten rid of obamacare. once we get done with phase one and obamacare is gone, they will be stuck, how do i help my constituents out with a reform package that brings in more competition? i think they will work with us in phase three. again you note in the senate. charles: hopefully at least eight will. >> senate, 52 votes. eight democrats to join us to get to 60, congressman, thank you very much. really appreciate it.

you're looking at james comey. he is going to everybody the center of attention. one of the big topics is the russian interference with u.s. elections. i want to bring in general jack keane. general, over weekend, felt like enough speculation is out there we'll perhaps get a foregone conclusion today that the trump campaign did not collude with russia. although president trump, if you opened up that door, why hasn't there been effective investigation whether or not the russians colluded with the clinton campaign because there have been signs of that as well? >> well i think that is why we're having this investigation. by the way, i'm absolutely delighted that the investigation is being conducted by the house and the senate intelligence committees as opposed to going to that knee-jerk reaction with a special prosecutor. if we had that, none of this would be exposed to the public. the representatives in the house and the senate they work for the

american people and they're conducting this investigation. they're bringing in the proper people to get it. we're going to get some answers. the american people truly he deserve answers. if russia was interfering into the american election that is a russ issue. we know they hacked into the dnc we get to get that answer. we know too find out of any collusion between the trump campaign and russia. from very responsie government officials they don't believe ere is any interference with either one of those is but we'll get some answers today. charles: what about the potential of russians colluding or meeting with officials from the clinton campaign? again, over the last couple of weeks more and more stories have come out about that. if russia, their intent is to muddy the waters and delegitimatize the american electoral process would make

sense to reach out to talk both sides. nevertheless the media is only taking this narrative that it was russia and trump? >> the media has a bias in trying to allege there is something between trump and russians. i think, i think, a lot of this is truly idle speculation that is dead wrong. listen the russian government officials, particularly their ambassadors, their job is to work, understand what the policies are of both of those campaigns as they're heading towards an election. they have to answer to their government in moscow about that. our ambassador is doing same thing in in. he is meeting with opposition politicians to putin this is normal business, for russian diplomats to do.doing that, talking to the clinton officials, talking to trump officials there would be something wrong with them. that's their job. charles: the idea of leaks, we know that they exist and a lot

of people now are hoping perhaps coming out of this will be enough information we get something concrete with respect to finding these leakers, exposing them to the world and taking swift action. is that a possibility today? >> i think it's a possibility but it's remote. i think these were relatively high government officials that had access to a lot of information. i think they know how to protect themselves. i suspect they're also out of government now. they were likely political appointees from the previous administration. i'm just speculating here but i truly believe that it is going to be very tough to get ahold of them. i would hope we can but i think it will be pretty hard to do. charles: wow, that is honest and but sort of sobering i guess. general, i want your take on this. we're hearing reports that

north korea tested a rocket engine over the weekend. they're coming with better and better missiles and facilities to launch perhaps nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles. this engine test was apparently successful. they're getting closer and closer to being able to create havoc on the world, maybe a nuclear nightmare. how do we treat this? >> first of all treat it the way we are treating it, dead seriously. when president obama left, he told president-elect trump the number one concern in the near term is north korea and their belligerence and the fact that they're building ballistic missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles an trying to weaponnize with nuclear weapons. that is an extraordinary development. the intent to use it is the rhetoric they are using the past couple years. that is dangerous.

we're tracking that obviously with our intelligence services. we're all over this thing. they are moving closer to that keepability. we can never ever left them launch an intercontinental ba list -- ballistic missiles. that is what secretary of state tiller been so telling officials in the far east, particularly the chinese. we've been trying to stop these guys for 20 years. three presidents have failed. we're heading towards the only option left on the table. that is the direction we're we don want to take ary option. preemtive strike. wenow military escalation will come as a result of that but that is the option that is left. if you china, do not do something in the near term to stop north korea's arsenal development and ballistic missile development if you don't finally take action after 20 plus years, that is the only choice our president is going to have.

charles: that whole buffer state thing is wearing pretty thin considering the stakes. general keane, thank you very much. really appreciate it. >> good talking to you, charles. charles: the market getting a little traction, the dow up 14 points. it drifts, find some buyers, maybe some sellers, but if you're making this money, smart money is not selling at any point. he they have been buying any dips even smallest of them. we're watching democrat, the leading highest ranking democrat on intel committee right now, representative schiff out of california. the comey hearing will start real shortly. we'll take a quick break. we'll be right back. happening h this is my new alert system for whenever anything happens in the market. but thinkorswim already lets you create custom alerts for all the things that are important to you. i guess we don't need the kid anymore. custom alerts on thinkorswim. only at td ameritrade. at angie's list, we believe there are certain things you can count on, like a tired dog is a good dog. [ dog barking, crashing ]

so when you need a dog walker or a handyman, we can help you find the right person for the job. discover all the ways we can help at angie's list.

charles: as you can see the hearings are almost ready to start. james comey, fib bib director is

here. emac, as i was speaking to general keane, you wanted to chime in. liz: what i wanted to point out political rubbernecking this, is setting the stage for the midterm elections. democrats are already telling their base you will not see evidence of collusion between russia and trump. and if russia did break into our election in any way, so trump collusion with russia, you're not going to see that, base, knock it off. it really boggles the mind. if russia could get into your election system, isn't that evidence you should drain the swamp? isn't that evidence you should get rid of whoever is in d.c.? if you lost control of electoral system where russia could get in, that is evidence you are not capable of running this country. >> there has never been any accusation that i know russia got into ballot counting. liz: there is nothing. ashley: no proof whatsoever that happened at all.

the question did it in other ways? that is tenuous at best. charles: i don't think it influenced the outcome. ashley: not at all. >> the ranking member adam schiff is talking. politicians talk all the time. he has been moving the pac removing this ridiculous meme. mr. president, the russians hacked our election, and interfered. no one disputes this from you. this is from the man who is now sitting there as ranking member saying no one disputes the russian hacked our election. it is untrue. it is meant to rile up a base. it is meant to make people feel unsafe. it is meant to make people of the united states not trust the president. and this is the politics of the day. this is what the democrats are doing and it will backfire. it will backfire. charles: guys, i want to bring in former congressman pete hoekstra, who happened to be the former chairman of this very committee, the house intelligence committee.

congressman, thanks for joining us. >> hey, good to be with you, charles, good morning. charles: you're the perfect man for the morning. help us understand exactly what is going on here. behavior for instance, with what we were hearing about adam schiff and tweeting at donald trump with sort of conclusions without even hearing testimony of james comey yet? >> well, you're actually seeing the intelligence committee in a place that really doesn't like to be. it doesn't want to be on public television. it doesn't want to be in an open hearing. you know traditionally. this stuff and work done in that committee should be done in secret. when you're talking about fisa, and talking about secrets you want to do it in a secret place. you want to do it in a place where you know, nobody can watch or lisn to what's going on. and so it's uncomfortable, now what you're seeing is adam schiff and others they're

bringing out their political instincts, their political messaging because today they are on a public stage in much of america is going to be watching them. all of the news media is going to be watching and reporting on this. charles: do you think today we'll get some definitive answers, first on the fisa court requests? >> i think what you will see today, charles, you will get some definitive answers on some very narrow questions. was there, were there fisa requests or fisa warrants out there and the answer will be no. but i think what you're mored interested in and probably what the president was he referencing which you won't hear today is the incidental collection, the accidental collection on the trump tower on people affiliated with the trump campaign and those types of things. i'm not sure that even the intelligence community point

knows all of that information. charles: why would it have been accidental, sir, with all due respect? >> well it would have been accidental, because what they have done, they have targeted, excuse me, the russians. they may have targeted other people in the foreign service that, you know, that are in america and so these people can be targets. they're targets of the nsa all day, every day. and sometimes they talk to americans and so it is accidental collection because they're not targeting the americans. they're targeting someone else who may be then in contact with americans an typically you know, by law, that information, that's deep-sixed. it should be buried and no one in the intelligence community or very few people in the intelligence community should ever see that, those intercepts. charles: if that were the case would that justify the notion of wiretapping? feels that would underscore

there was some sort of, some sort of intelligence gathering at trump tower? >> absolutely. i mean these folks are very, very good at what they do and by and large the vast majority of them operate within the law. we see that some did not by the leaks that we saw on michael flynn. that was very sensitive information. it was leaked out. it was a violation of law but someone could have targeted the trump tower not by getting a fisa on trump tower and his campaign, but surrounding it with people that they said, you know, if we target these folks who are around the trump tower, and the trump campaign we're going to collect a lot of information on that campaign. did it happen? i don't know. i think it will take month for the intelligence committee to actually figure that out but it's possible that it could have happened. charles: oh, boy.

so, all right, representative hoekstra, thank you very much. the comey hearing will start momentarily guys. we'll take a very quick break and come back.

your insurance on time. tap one little bumper, and up go your rates. what good is having insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

charles: all right, guys. you're looking there, the hearings are going to start officially? >> thank you for the opportunity to before you today -- charles: that is mike rogers speaking first. i will go real quickly to general jack keane. general keane? >> go ahead, charles. charles: i'm not sure if you heard what peek hoekstra said, formerly chairman of this committee but he talked about the idea of perhaps surveilling enough people who surrounded president trump, then candidate

trump that you had a he defactor wiretap on trump tower? is that a possibility? >> it certainly is a possibility. charles: hold on one second, sir. we're going into the committee meeting. real quick. we have to listen to mike rogers. >> -- assessment on assessing russian activities and in10 shunts in the recent activities. we stand by the assessment as issued there. is no change in the confidence on the assessment. the specifics of this assessment need to remain classified to protect sensitive sources and methods. today i will limit my discussion to information in the public domain, that of the publicly released he intelligence community assessment. i hope you will understand there are some issues i can not discuss in an open session, nor will i be able to provide specifics in some areas. as the committee fully knows the intelligence community has a

long discussingurveillanc targeting information in particular cases. as to do so woulinvarily open the door to compel further disclosures in litigation or the release of classified information, all of which would be harmful to our national security. like the committee, we are also greatly concerned about leaks of classified information as they can refeel the sources and methods we employ to provide intelligence to american policy-makers and warfighters an generated a advantage for our nation and protecting citizens and interest and their privacy. i also want to assure the committee we take very seriously that obligation to protect u.s. person's privacy. this applies to all stages of the production of foreign intelligence but i would like to emphasize one area in particular, the dissemination of u.s. person information. we at nsa have strict procedures in place to it make sure that our reporting and the contents of our reporting are

disseminated only to those that have strict need he to know for valid purposes which primarily means the support of development of foreign policy and protect national security. i do want to specifically mention among the election authorities we have to target foreign actors in foreign spaces, fisa section 702 and executive order 12333 have been instrumental in our ability to make intelligence available to the committee and sigint facts on foreign activity in this election cycle. it would be difficult to state the scale of malicious cyber activity occur today. or adversaries including nation states have not rested in penetrating government systems, stealing private entities intellectual property and making greater strides towards the achievement and development of cyberattack capabilities. we have a hard-working dedicated team working every day at nsa a

to generate insights into the activity and thwart its effectiveness. cyberdefense is a team support and one of nsa's strong partners in the effort is director comey's team athe fbi. i'm glad to describe here today how we're workg together to help protect the nation and our allies including providing a better understanding of russian intentions and capabilities. in light of the ic findings i welcome your investigation into overall russian activities targeting the previous u.s. elections. nsa continues to employ rigorous analytic standards applying them in every aspect of our intelligence reporting. our analysts have consistently proven to be reliable and thorough in their technical and analystic efforts and providing our policymakers and warfighters with sigint ammunition to make informed decisions to protect our nation's freedom and insure the safety of its citizens. they are diligently continuing to mon for additional reflections of into u.s. systems

and those of our friend and allies around the world to share the information with our ic colleagues and foreign counterparts and produce unbiased, unprejudiced and timely reporting of sigint facts in their entirety and i look forward to your questions. thank you, sir. >> thank you, admiral rogers. director comey. you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member schiff, members of the committee thank you for including me here in today's hearing. i'm honored to represent the people people fbi. i hope i show you through our actions and our words how much we value at the fbi our oversight of our work and respect your responsibility to investigate those things important to the american people. thank you for showing that both are being taken very seriously. as you know our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations especially those investigations that involve classified matters, but, in unusual circumstances

where it is in the public interest it may be appropriate to do so as justice department policies recognize. this is one of those circumstances. i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating the russian government's efforts to rfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. as with any counterintelligence investigation this will also include an assessment whether any crimes were committed. because it is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, i can not say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we're examining.

at the request of congressional leaders we have taken the extraordinary step in coordination with the department of justice of briefing this congress's leaders including the leaders of this committee in a classified setting in he detail about the investigation. but i can't go into those details here. i know that it is extremely frustrating to some folks but it is the way it has to be, for reasons that i hope you and the american people can understand. the fbi is very careful in how we handle information about our cases and about the people we are investigating. we are also very careful about the way we handle information that may be of interest to our foreign adversaries. both of those interests are at issue in a counterintelligence investigation. please don't draw any conclusions from the fact that i may not be able to comment on certain topics. i know speculating is part of

human nature but it really isn't fair to draw conclusions simply because i say i can't comment. some folks may want to make comparisons to past instances where the department of justice and the fbi have spoken about the details of some investigations. but please keep in mind that those involved the details of completed investigations. our ability to share details with the congress and the american people is limited when those investigations are still open, which i hope makes sense. we need to protect people's privacy. we need to make sure we don't give other people clues as to where we're going. we need to make sure we don't give information to our foreign adversaries about what we know or we don't know. we just can not do our work well or fairly if we start talking about it while we're doing it. so we will try very, very hard to avoid that as we always do. this work is very complex and there is no way for me to give

you a timetable as to when it will be done. we approach this work in an open-minded, independent way. and our expert investigators will conclude that work as quickly as they can but they will always do it well no matter how long that takes. i can promise you we will follow the facts wherever they lead. and i want to underscore something my friend mike rogers said. leaks of classified information are serious, serious federal crimes for a reason. they should be investigated and where possible prosecuted in a way that reflects that seriousness so that people understand it simply can not be tolerated and i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, rector comey. admiral rogers i first want to go to you. on january 6th, 2017, the intelligence community assessment assessing russian activities and intentions in recent u.s. elections statedded

that the types of systems russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying. so my question as of today, admiral rogers, do you have any evidence that russian cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of michigan? >> no, i do not, but i would highlight we're a foreign intelligence organization. we're not a domestic intelligence organization. it would be fair to say we're not the best organization to provide a more complete answer. >> how about the state of pennsylvania? >> no, sir. >> the state of wisconsin? >> no, sir. >> the state of florida? no, sir. >> the state of north carolina? >> no, sir. >> state of ohio? no, sir. >> you have no intelligence or evidence to suggest any votes were changed? >> nothing generated by the flags security agency, sir. >> director comey, do you have any evidence that votes were changed in the states i mentioned to admiral rogers?

>> no. >> thank you. admiral rogers, i know that there is a leak of information regarding director clapper and former secretary of defense carter. we're looking at relieving you of your duty. are you aware of those stories? >> i'm aware of media reporting to that. >> and those stories were leaked as soon as you had visited with president-elect trump, is that correct? >> yes, sir. i was asked if i would be prepared to interview with the trump administration for a position which i did. >> did the leak of that information at all, at all impact your ability in your assessment that you did for the intelligence community case assessment on january 6th. >> no, sir. if i spent time in this job worrying about unsourced media reporting would never get any work done. >> thank you, admiral. director comey, i remain

extremely concerned about the widespread illegal leaks you just referenced in your testimony. just for the record though, i want to get this on the record, does the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to the press pry late 18 usc 793, a section of the espionage act that criminalizes improperly accessing handling or transmitting national defense information? >> yes. >> would an unauthorized disclosure of fisa-derived information to the press violate 18usc, 798, a section of the espionage act that criminalizes exposure of information concerning communication, intelligence activities of the united states? >> yes. in addition to being a breach of our trust with the fisa court that oversees our use of those authorities. >> thank you, director. at this time i will yield to mr. rooney, who chairs our nsa cyber committee for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to direct my questions first and foremost to admiral rogers to convey my

thanks to the many men and women for their dedication at the nsa for keeping our country safe as well as i want to talk about the recent media stories that may have led to confusion in the public what the nsa is and is not legally collecting and the safeguards the nsa has put into place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa, i got recently got to meet your deputy, admiral last week out at the nsa and we visited and spoke of some of these things. what we can talk about here today publicly, if you can go into, if you can't you can't but i think this is important for the people in the room and listening outside to understand. is it true the nsa would need a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance on a u.s. person inside of the united states? >> yes, sir.

>> and just to be clear, the section of the fisa that is expiring later this year, that 702 which we'll be talking about a little bit, can not be used to target u.s. persons or persons in the united states, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> section 702 focuses on non-u.s. persons outside of the united states primary, correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that the section 702 is important and valuable for u.s. national security? >> yes, sir. >> so it's safe to say without having this tool it would be a threat to our national security? >> would significantly impact my ability to generate the insights i believe this nation needs. >> in the media there is a lot of reporting about something called incidental collection. can you talk about what incidental collection is? >> yes, sir. incidental collection is when we are targeting a valid foreign target, for example, in the course of that targeting we

either get a reference to a u.s. person or suddenly a u.s. person appears as part of the conversation. that is what we call incidental collection. >> and what do you do when mething like that happens if there's a u.s. person part of an incidental collection what kind of safeguards are put in place to make sure -- >> so it depend specifically on the legal authority we're using to execute the collection in the first place in broad terms, vary as little bit by the specific authority we're using you can conduct the collection, you step back and we ask ourselves first, are we dealing with a u.s. person here? is there something we didn't expect to encounter that we have now encountered? we'll ask ourselves what leads us to believe it's a u.s. person. if we come to the conclusion it's a u.s. person then we ask ourselves are we listening to criminal activity or seeing something of imminent threat or danger for example? or are we just receiving something that has nothing to do with any of our valid collection

authority. based on that we'll take a series of actions. in some cases we will just purge the collect. make no reporting on it, not he retain the data. it is incidental election. it has no intelligence value and wasn't the purpose of what we were doing. in some cases then if we believe that there is intelligence value, for example, whether it's a reference to a u.s. person as an example in a scenario, in our reporting then, we will mask the identity of the individual. we'll use a phrase like u.s. person one or u.s. person two. i would remind everyone for our purposes u.s. person is he defined very broadly. that is not just a u.s. citizen that is a u.s. corporation. that is a ship or aircraft that is registered in the united states. that is an internet protocol address for example. it is not just a particular individual if that makes sense of the term for us is much broader because it is designed to insure protections of u.s. persons.

>> the procedures and protections you talked about are required and approved bit fisa court, is that correct. >> yes, sir and the attorney general. >> and you mentioned in your opening statement for that information to be disseminated outside of your agency in the nsa that dissemination would be strictly on a need to know basis, is that correct? >>e use two criteria. is tre a need to know and in the course of person or group asking for the identification. is there a valid need to know in the course of the execution of their official duties. >> who would that be? >> it could be another element with the intelligence community t would could be another element with nsa. it could be a military customer for example, reading some of our reporting. it could be a policymaker. i apologize there was one other point i wanted to make but i lost the thread in eye mind. i will try -- >> let's get back to masking briefly. you spoke about masking and and

in trying to keep a u.s. person's identity concealed. and when it is disseminated, you we often talk about in the intelligence community about exceptions to if somebody's masked how you unmask them. what would the exceptions to that masking be before it's disseminated? >> again we use two criteria. the need to know on the person requesting us in the excuse of their official duties and the second part was is the identification necessary to truly understand the context and intelligence value that the report is designed to generate. those are the two criteria that we use. >> is that identity of a u.s. person communicating with a foreign target, is that ordinarily disseminated in a masked or unmasked form. >> no, it is normally disseminated it if we make the

decision that there is intelligence value and we're going to report on it, it is normally disseminated in a masked form. again as i said we'll use a reference, u.s. person one, u.s. person two. >> right. >> i would highlight if you look at total breadth of our reporting, reporting involving u.s. persons at all is an incredibly small subset in my experience of our total reporting. >> who normally in the nsa would make the decision to unmask? >> there are 20 individuals including myself who i delegated this authority to approve unmasked requests. >> and does the level of approval change depending on the reason for unmasking? if it was something or somebody say really important, would that mask or could it be -- >> not necessarily designated in writing that way but by custom and tradition at times requests are put up to the senior most of the 20 individuals, requests will be pushed to my level, hey, sir, we want to make sure you're comfortable with this.

>> 20 people, what procedures or safeguards are put in place to make sure those 20 people are not unmasking, you know, wrongly? >> so they received specific training. there are specific controls put bility to disseminate out of the database associated with u.s. person. >> okay, let's run through the exceptions quickly, through a filing hypothetical. if the nsa collect as communication where a target under surveillance is talking to a u.s. person, how would you nsa whether disseminating the u.s. person information is necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence or assess its importance? >> so first we'll try to understand the nature of the conversation. is it as truly something that involves intelligence or a national security implication for the united states or is this just very normal, reasonable conversations in which case we have no desire to have any awareness of it. it is not applicable to our mission. i said in that case, normally we'll purge the data.

we'll ask ourselves is there a criminal activity involved? is there a threat potential threat or harm to u.s. individuals being discussed in the conversation, for example? >> if there was criminal activity involved what would you do then? >> if, when we disseminate, if we decide, if we need criminal activity we'll disseminate the information. if fbi or other criminal activities are on the reporting stream, in some cases i will also generate a signed letter under my signature, in specific cases to the department of justice highlighting what we think we have is potential criminal activity. but because we're not law enforcement or justice organization. we're not in a place to make that determination. >> based on that again hypothetically, if the nsa obtained the communication of general flynn while he was communicating with a surveillance target legally, would you please explain how general flynn's identity could be unmasked based on the exceptions that we discussed.

>> sir, i'm not even going to discuss hypotheticals about individuals, i'm sorry. >> if i could make reference to a "washington post" article that i have here from february 9th which states -- let me say what it is and i ask you if you read it or if you have seen it. which states national security under michael flynn privately discussed u.s. sanctions against russia with the country's ambassador to the united states during the month before president trump took office. contrary to public assertions by trump officials, current and former u.s. official said the article goes on to say that nine current or former, former officials who were in senior positions, multiple agencies at the time of the call spoke under the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. did you read this article? >> i apologize, sir, it is not an article not particular

individual doesn't necessarily ring a bell. i certainly seen plenty of media reporting but i will not comment on specific. >> just basically, under the breadth of that article, when we hear that nine former, current, or current officials had spoken to the press under the condition of anonymity and we heard director comey and the chairman speak of this as a potential crime, serious crime, under the espionage act, assuming, if this article is accurate, who would have the, who would be in a potion to reest the unmasking of general flynn's identity? would that be you? >> i would have the authority to do that. >> who else would? >> 19 other individuals. >> would that include director comey? >> i'm talking about, in the nsa alone. >> within the national security agency we're talking about nsa reporting. >> but would people like

director comey also be able to request that? >> yes. >> and the attorney general and director clapper, are those type of people also on this list? >> again i'm not going -- in general they would be. >> generally speaking -- >> would be able to come and we'll not talk about specifics of individual or hypothetical scenarios. >> here is what i'm trying to get at. if what we're talking about is a serious crime as has been alleged, in your opinion would leaking of a u.s. person who has been unmasked and disseminated by intelligence community officials, would that leaking to the president hurt or help our ability to conduct national security matters? >> hurt. >> okay, if it hurts, this leak, which through the 702 tool, which we all agree is vital or you and aat least agree to that,

do you think that that leak actually threatens our national security? if it's a crime, and if it's unveiling a masked person, and this tool is so important that it could potentially jeopardize this tool when we have to try to reauthorize it in a few months, if this is used against the ability of us to reauthorize this tool and we can't get it done because whoever did this leak or these nine people that did this leak, creates such a stir, whether it be, in our legislative process or whatever, that they don't feel confident that a u.s. person under the 702 progm can be masked successfully and not leaked to the press, doesn't that hurt, that leak hurt our national security? >> yes, sir. >> can you think of any reason why somebody would want to leak the identity of a masked person? >> no, sir.

i have raised this directly with my own workforce, over the course of the last few months to remind everyone, part of the ethics of our profession, not just the legal requirement but the ethics of our profession as intelligence professionals is we do not engage in this activity. i also reminded the men and women of the national security agency, if i become aware of any such conduct, there is no place for you on this team. it is unacceptable as citizens of the nation and -- >> i think as we move forward obviously you know, i think where you're speaking of is the sacred trust that the intelligence community has with the american people and with the people that are representing them they're on this dais. if we i think it is vital for those who break that sacred trust, if they are not held accountable whether the nsa internally or the fbi through conviction or investigation/prosecution and

slash conviction through the attorney general's office of that crime it is very difficult for us to be able to keep that sacred trust to know what we're doing is valid and what we're doing has no nefarious motivations and, and to us to be able to keep america safe without violating the constitutional protections that we all enjoy. mr. chairman, i'm not sure how much more time i have left. i just -- >> congressman, could i make one comment i could. >> yes. >> i apologize. based on your question. i want to he remind everyone in general, fisa collection on targets in the united states has nothing to do with 702. i just want to make sure we're not confusing the two things here. 702 is collection overseas agnst non-u.s. perso. >> right. and what, what we're talking about here is incidentally, if a u.s. person who a foreign person we're listening to whether or not that person is unmasked. >> i want to make sure we

understand the context. >> right. whether or not somebody in the intelligence community we put the trust in is going to leak that information to the press for whatever reason. i'm not even going to get into the gratuitous what that reason may be but it will really hurt people on this committee and you all on the intelligence community when we try to retain this tool this year and try to convince some of our colleagues this is really important for national security, when somebody in the intelligence community, you know what the hell with it. i will release this person's name because i will get something out of it. we're all going to be hurt by that, if we can't reauthorize this tool, do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, do i have enough time to talk about the letter, the committee sent? the committee sent to you on march 15th, a letter, yeah, to admiral rogers and to director comey.

have you had a chance to look at this letter? i you -- >> i in fact have given you a reply on the 17th. >> real quickly i don't want to take up more time. can you give us a sense how many unmasked u.s. persons identities were disseminated from june 2016 and june 2017. >> no, sir. as i indicated we're in the process of compiling that information. we'll provide it to the committee but until that work is done i will not comment. >> can you tell us any of those disseminations broadly involved people related to u.s. presidential candidates, donald j. trump or hillary clinton. >> i won't answer until i complete the research, sir. >> assuming they disseminated under masked u.s. persons related to trump or clinton campaigns would that have been a reason for such unmasking? >> i apologize, i don't truly understand the question. >> let me just move on to the next one. along those lines, if the nsa

had wanted to disseminate unmasked u.s. persons information related to either the presidential campaign, who in the nsa would have approved such sis dem nations? >> again it would have been one of the 20. i provided that in initial response to the committee. i outlined the procedures. i outlined the specific 20 individual. >> thank you, admiral. i appreciate your answers. i look forward to working with you on the subcommittee moving forward, and mr. chairman i yield back. >> he yields back. mr. -- mr. gowdy is recognized. >> we'll begin this line of questioning and finish the next round. programs described even this morning as vital, critical, indispensable to our national security. many of us on both sides of the aisle believe fisa and similar counterterrorism programs prevent terrorist attacks and save americans lives. but fisa and other surveillance perhaps are intentionally

designed to preserve the privacy of u.s. citizens. they are inessentially designed to insure the information is collected and used only for legitimate national security and criminal investigationtive purposes. there are statutory safeguards. there are warrant based on probable cause. there is a fisa court that is involved. there are audits on the back end and we think so highly of this material it is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison to unlawfully disseminate it. all of this done to make sure this information gathered remains protected as it relates to u.s. citizens. the way i view it, director comey, the american people have an agreement with their government. we are going to give you the

tools to keep us safe even if it infringes on our privacy some. we're going to give you the tools and government in return promises to safeguard the privacy of u.s. citizens. and when that deal is broken it jeopardizes americans trust in the surveillance program. let me ask you, do you agree fisa is critical to our national security? >> i do. >> do you agree programs like fisa were intentionally designed to safeguard the identity of u.s. persons? >> yes. there are other important elements of it but that's the >> it wasn't an afterthought, it wasn't an accident. these are intentional safeguards that we put in place to protect u.s. citizens, is that correct? >> correct. >> do you agree much of what is learned from these programs is classified or otherwise legally protected? >> all fisa applications

reviewed by the court, collection by us pursuant to our fisa authority is classified. >> the dissemination of which is a felony punishable by up to ten years this prison? >> sure, unauthorized dissemination -- >> unauthorized dissemination of classified or otherwise legally-protected information punishable by ten years this prison. >> yep. as it should be. >> all right. according to a senior u.s. government official, a named u.s. citizen -- and i will not use the name -- a named u.s. citizen phoned the russian ambassador several times on december the 29th. in february of this year, "the washington post" reported nine, nine current and former officials who were in senior positions at multiple agencies

at the time of the calls spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters and that officials began poring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and diplomatic cables. in february of this year, "the new york times" reported a u.s. citizen whose name i will not use discusses sanctions with the russian ambassador in a phone call according to officials who have seen a transcript of the wiretapped conversation. and again this february of this year, "the new york times" reported on a phone call involving a u.s. citizen including significant discussions of phone records, intercepted calls, intercepted

communications and reported the nsa captured calls and then asked the fbi to collect as much information as possible. my time is up, so i will say this for this round, i thought it was against the law to disseminate classified information. is it? >> oh, yes. sure, it's a serious crime. i'm not going to comment on those particular articles, because i don't want to in any circumstance compound a criminal act by confirming that it was classified information. but in general, yes, it's a serious crime, and it should be for the reasons you said. >> we'll take it back up nextç round, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. i'll thousand yield 15 minutes to -- now yield 15 minute toss mr. schiff. >> director comey, i want to begin by attempting to put to rest several claims about president trump's predecessor so

that we can be reice, i want to -- precise, i want to refer you to exactly a what the president said and ask you if there is any truth to it first, the president claimed, quote: terrible. just found out obama had my wires tapped in trump tower just before the victory. nothing found. this is mccarthyism. unquote. director comey, was the president's statement that obama had his wires tapped in the trump tower a true statement? >> with respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, i have no information that supports those tweets, and we have looked carefully inside the fbi. the department of justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the department of justice and all its components. the department has no information that supports those tweets. >> the president accused mr. obama and presumably the fbi of engaging in mccarthyism.

as you understand the term "mccarthyism," do you think president obama or the fbi was engaged in such conduct? >> i'm not going to try and characterize the tweets themselves. all i can tell you is we have no information that supports them. >> were you engaged in mccarthyism, director comey? >> try very hard not to engage in any isms of any kind, including mccarthyism. [laughter] >> the president second stated, quote, is it legal for a sitting president to be wiretapping a candidate prior to election? turned down by a quote earlier, a new low, unquote. director comey, can you answer the president's question? would it be legal for president obama to have ordered a wiretap of donald trump? >> i'm not going to characterize or sunday to the tweets themselves. i can tell you this general as admiral rogers and i were just saying, there is a statutory framework under which courts grant permission for electronic surveillance either in a

criminal case or a national security case based on a showing of probable cause carefully overseen. it's a rigorous, rigorous process that involves all three branches of government, and it's one we've lived with since the late 1970s. that's how it works. so no individual in the united states can direct electronic surveillance of anyone. it has to go through an application process, ask a judge, the judge can then make the order. >> so president obama could not unilaterally order a anyone. >> no president could. >> mr. trump also asserted in that tweet that he was, that the application or the president's order was turned down by a court. was there any request made by the fbi or justice department to eiretap donald trump, turned down by a court? >> that's one of those subjects i can't comment on one way or the other. please don't interpret that

other than i just can't talk about anything that relates to the fisa process in an open setting. >> third, the president sated: i bet a good lawyer could headache a great case out of the fact that president obama was tapping my phones prior to election. director comey, you're a good lawyer. could you make out a great case that mr. obama tapped mr. trump's phones just prior to the election in light of the fact that you have said there's no evidence to that? >> all i can say is we don't have any information that supports those tweets. >> well, in my view though, you would not be a great, but an unethical lawyer to make out such a case. and finally, the president made this accusation: how low has president obama gone to wiretap my phone during the very sacred election process. this is nixon/watergate, bad or sick guy. director comey, presidents has compared this to another watergate. what was the gravity of the offense by nixon and his

operatives during watergate? a lot of people who may be watching may be too young to understand what watergate was about. what was the gravity of that offense? >> well, as i recall it -- and i was a kid, but i've studied it quite a bit in school -- it was an abuse of power including break-ins, unlawful wiretaps, obstruction of justice, sort of the cycle of criminal conduct. >> and it was a break-in of the democratic headquarters by operatives of the president, was it not? >> that's my understanding is that's how it began. >> also involved a cover-up by the president. >> yes. as i said. >> now here i think you've said there's been no evidence of an illegal wiretap by president obama, is that right? >> i've said the fbi and the department of justice have no information to support those tweets. >> but there is evidence, is there not, of a break-in of the democratic headquarters by a

foreign power using cyber means. >> yes, there was. as the intelligence community report, the unclassified report said in january, the russian intelligence services hacked into a number of enterprises in the united states including the democratic national committee. >> andhere was an effort by the russians to cover up their break-in of the democratic party headquarters by using cutouts like wikileaks to publish the stolen material, isn't that right? >> certainly to cover up their, that they were the ones releasing it. >> director rogers, in an effort to explain why there was no evidence supporting the president's claim that obama had wiretapped him, the president and his spokesman, sean spicer, have suggested that british intelligence -- through its nsa or gchq -- wiretapped mr. trump on president obama's behalf. did you ever request thatç your counterparts in gchq should

wiretap mr. trump on behalf of president obama? >> no, sir, nor would i. that would be expressly against the construct of the five is agreement that's been in place for decades. >> and the five is are some of our closest allies in intelligence, and britain is one of them. >> yes, sir. >> have you seen any evidence that anyone in the obama administration made the request? >> no, sir. in my view, i've seen nothing on the nsa side that we engaged in any such activity, nor that anyone ever asked us to engage in such activity. >> and if you were to ask the british to spy on america, that would be a violation of u.s. law, would it not? >> yes, sir. >> our relationship with british intention is one of the closest we have with any foreign services, isn't that true? >> yes, sir. >> now, the british allies, our british allies have called the president's suggestion that they wiretapped him for obama nonsense and utterly ridiculous. would you agree? >> yes, sir. >> does it do damage to our relationship with one of our

closest intelligence partners for the president to make a baseless claim that the british participated in a conspiracy against him? >> i think it clearly frustrates a key ally of ours. >> certainly wouldn't endear the british intelligence services to continue working with us, would it? >> i believe that the relationship is strong enough this is somethng we'll be able to deal with. >> but it's not helpful -- >> yes, sir. that -- >> director rogers, president trump recently met with german chancellor angela merkel. the president suggested they both had something in common, that they had both been wiretapped by president obama. director comey has just demonstrated why the claims by the president about his being wiretapped by obama were unsupported by any evidence. but the claim he made about wiretapping directed at merkel referred to something that came up in the context of the snowden disclosures. i'm not going to ask you to comment on whether the

chancellor was the subject of any eavesdropping, but i would like to ask you whether the snowden disclosures did damage to our relationship with our german ally and whether the chancellor herself expressed her concern at the time. >> yes, sir. >> in light of this, is it helpful to our relationship with the chancellor or our relationship with german intelligence to bring this up again in a public forum? >> it certainly complicates things but, again, i'd like to think that our relationship is such we're going to be able to deal and keep moving forward. >> so our relationships with the british and the germans, you hope, are strong enough to withstand any damage done by these comments. >> by anything in general, sir. we have foundational interests with each other, and we need to keep working together. >> at this time, director comey, let me ask you a few questions you may or may not be able to answer. do you know who roger stone is? >> generally, yes.

>> you aware that he was aç partner of paul manafort? >> you know, mr. schiff, i'm wary we're going to a place i don't want to go which is commenting on any particular person, and so i don't think i should comment. i'm aware of public accounts, but i don't want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with someone that the intelligence community has assessed was a person of russian intelligence? >> i've read media accounts to that effect. i don't want to hear anybody's -- hurt nub's feel anything the media -- anyone's feeling in the media, i don't know if that's accurate or not. >> if mr. stone acknowledged mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016, would that have been prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> i believe that's correct

chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta that's e-mails were going to be released? >> it's not something i can comment on. >> do you know that mr. podesta has said that at the time he was not even aware that his e-mails had been stolen and would be published? >> it's not something i can comment on. >> at this point, mr. chairman, i'm going to yield to mr. himes. >> thank you to the ranking member and, gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. let me, when i get my own time, i'll have some follow-up questions, but let me start with a point that the chairman brought out, i think, very specifically which is that there's no evidence that votes were technically changed in any of the jurisdictions that he named, admiral rogers, thanks for confirming that. but am i correct that when we say "russian hacking," what we

are referring to is the fact that the intelligence community believes that the russians penetrated the networks of the dnc, of john podesta and other individuals, stole information and then disseminated that information? is that a fair characterization of the conclusions of the intelligence community? >> yes, sir. >> and did the intelligence community ever do an analysis as to whether the dissemination of that advers information in a closely-fought election had any effect on the american electorate? >> no, sir. the u.s. intelligence community does not do assessments -- >> of course not, that's -- >> [inaudible] >> that's not your job. >> yes, sir. >> the fact is those of us who go through campaigns, know that's actually something we probably have a little bit more understanding of. let me just ask this question then. was there any equivalent dissemination of adverse information stolen from the rnc or individuals associated with the trump campaign?

>> no. >> thank you. director comey, in the remaining minutes here, i appreciate yourç frankness on the topic of an ongoing investigation and appreciate your inability to go too much further than you went. but i do want to ask you a question to try to clear up some confusion. this committee, of course, is engaged in an investigation about links, as you said, between the trump campaign and the russians, should there be any, possible collusion. we've had a number of statements very early in the investigation that there was no evidence of collusion. this is still very early in our investigation. is it tear to say that you're still -- is it fair to say that you're still relatively early in your investigation? >> it's hard to say because i don't know how much longer it will take, but we've been doing

this, this investigation began in late july. so for counterintelligence investigation, that's a tearily short period of time -- fairly short period of time. >> so you used the word "coordination" which, to me, suggests you are, in fact, investigating whether there was coordination between u.s. persons and the russians. is it fair for me to assume that we shouldn't simply dismiss the possibility that there was coordination or collusion between the russian efforts and u.s. persons as an investigatory body? >> all i can tel you is what we're investigating which includes whether there was any coordination between people associated with the trump campaign and the russians. >> okay, thank you. i'll yield the remaining time to the ranking member. >> i will yield the remaining time this period to have representative sewall. >> thank you. so with respect to the coordination, director comey, i just wanted to continue this line of questioning, can you say with any specificity what kinds

of coordination or contacts you're looking at in your investigation generally when confronted with something like this? >> i can't. >> can you discuss whether or not there was any knowledge by any trump-related person and the russians? >> i can't. >> so with respect to any investigation, ongoing investigation whether the specificity of the person, u.s. person or otherwise, you can't comment on any of that. >> correct. >> okay. can you characterize what the nature of your investigation generally -- when you do an investigation of this sort, can you talk a little wit about the process generally -- a little bit about the process generally? >> not a whole lot. i can tell you we use our great, great people, we coordinate with

our brothers and sisters in other parts of the intelligence community to say what they may know from around the world that might be useful to us, and we use all the different tools and techniques that we use in all of our investigations. that's probably the most -- i'm not sure that's useful to you, but that's the most i can say. >> how long does a counterintelligence investigation like thisç usualy take? you said that it started this july. >> there is no "usually." it's hard -- it's impossible to say, frankly. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you, ms. sewell. we'll go back to -- i'll yield myself 15 minutes, and we'll go back to mr. gowdy. >> director comey, you and i were discussing the felonious dissemination of classified material, is there an exception in the law for current or former u.s. officials who request anonymity? >> to release classified information? >> yes, sir. >> no. >> is there an exception in the law for reporters who want to break a story? >> well, that's a harder question as to whether a reporter incurs criminal

liability by publishing classified information, and one probably beyond by kin. i'm not as good a lawyer as mr. sure said i used to be. >> well, i don't know about that, but the statute does use the word "published," doesn't it? >> it does, but that's been a struggle through administration after administration. >> i know the department's struggled with it, the fourth circuit, lots of people have struggled with it, but you not aware of an exception that carves out an exception for reporters. >> no, i'm not aware of any carved out in the statute. i don't think a reporter's been prosecuted, certainly, in my lifetime though. >> well, there haveeen a lot of statutes in this investigation for which no one's ever been prosecuted and convicted, and that does not keep people from discussing those statutes; namely the logan act. in theory, how would reporters know a u.s. citizen made a telephone call to an agent or foreign power? >> how would they know legally? >> yes.

>> if it was declassified and then discussed in a judicial proceeding or a congressional hearing, something like that. >> and assume none of those facts are in play, how would they know? >> someone told them who shouldn't have told them. >> how would a reporter know about the existence of intercepted phone calls? >> same thing. in a legitimate way, through a appropriate proceeding where there's been declassification. in any other way, in an illegitimate way. >> how would reporters know if a transcript existed of an intercepted communication? >> same answer. the only legitimate way would be through a proceeding, appropriate proceeding, illegitimate way would be something told them that shouldn't have told them. >> what does the term "mask" mean in the concept of fisa and other surveillance programs? >> as director rogers explained, it's our practice -- approved by the fisa court -- of removing the names of u.s. persons to protect their privacy and their

identity unless it hits certain exceptions. is masking means, as mike roj arers said, i'll often see an intelligence report from nsa that will say u.s. person number one, u.s. person number two, u.s. person number three, and there's no further identification on the document. >> admiral rogers said there are 20 people within the nsa that are part of the unmasking process. how many people in the fbi are part of the unmasking process? >> i don't knowç as i sit here, surely more given the nature of the fbi's work. we come into contact with u.s. persons a whole lot more than the nsa does because we only conduct our operations in the united states to collect electronic surveillance. so i can find out the exact number. i don't know it as i sit here. >> well, i think, director comey, given t fact that you and i agree this is crical, vil, indispensable, a similar program is coming up for reauthorization this fall with a pretty strong headwind, it would be nice to know the universe of people who have the power to unmask a u.s. citizen's name.

because that might provide something of a road map to investigate who might have actually disseminated a masked u.s. citizen's name. >> sure. the number is relevant. what i hope is u.s., the american people realize is the number's important, but the culture behind it is, in fact, more important. the training, the rigor, the discipline. we are obsessive about fisa in the fbi for reasons i hope make sense to this committee, but we are -- everything that's fisa has to be labeled in such a way to warn people this is fisa. we treat this in a special way. so we can get you the number, but i i want to assure you the culture of the fbi and the nsa is ons accessive, and i heene that in a good way. >> i i am not arguing with you, and i do believe the culture is important. but if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously-masked name, then that's 100 different potential sources of investigation.

and the smaller the number is, the easier your investigation is. so the number is relevant, i concede the culture is relevant. , this sa, fbi -- nsa, fbi, what other u.s. government agencies have the authority to unmask a u.s. citizen's name? >> well, i think all agencies that collect information pursuant to fisa have what are called standard minimization procedures which are approved by the fisa court that govern how they will treat u.s. person information. so i know the nsa does, i know the cia does, obviously, the fbi does. i don't know for sure be that. >> how about the department of -- how about main justice? >> i think main justice does have standard -- >> so that's four. nsa, fbi, cia, main justice. does the white house have the authority to unmask a u.s. citizen's name? >> i think other elements of the government that are consumers of our products can ask the

collecto to unmask. the unmasking resides with those o collected the information. so if mike rogers' folks collected something and they sent it to me in a report and it says u.s. person number one and it's important for the fbi to know who that is, our request will go back to them. the white house can make similar requests, but they can't -- they don't on their own collect, so they can't on their own unmask. i got that about right? >> that's correct. >> i guess what i'm getting at, director comey, you say it's vital, critical, indispensable, we both know it's a threat to the reauthorization of 702 later this fall and, oh, by the way, also punishable as a felony up to ten years. so how would you begin your investigation that a u.s. citizen's name appeared in "the washington post" and "the new york times" unlawfully? where would you begin that investigation? >> well, i'm not going to talk about -- >> that's why i said "in theory." >> you would start by figuring out who were the suspects, who

touched the information that you've concluded ended up unlawfully in the newspaper and start with that universe and then use investigative toolses and techniques to see if you can eliminate people or include people as more serious suspects. >> do you know whether director clapper knew the name of the u.s. citizen that appeared in "the new york times" and washington post? >> i can't say in this forum because, again, i don't want to confirm there was classified information -- >> would he ask access to the an unmasked name? >> in some circumstances, sure. he's the director of national intelligence, but i'm not talking about the particular. >> would director brennan have access to an unmasked u.s. citizen's name? >> in some circumstances, yes. >> would national security adviser susan rice have access to an unmasked u.s. citizen's name? >> i think -- yes, this general. and any other national security adviser would, i think, as a matter of their ordinary course of their business. >> would former white house adviser ben rhodes have access to an unmasked u.s. citizen's name? >> i don't know the answer to

that. >> would former attorney general loretta lynch have access to an unmasked u.s. citizen'same? >> in general, yes, as would any attorney general. >> so that would also include acting a.g. sally yates? >> same answer. >> did you brief president obama on -- well, i'll just ask you. did you brief president obama on any calls involving michael flynn? >> i'm not going to get into either that particular case, that matter or any conversations i had with the president. so i can't answer that. >> well, director comey, there's been some speculation this morning on motive. i'm not all that interested this motive. first of all, it's really hard to prove. secondarily, you never have to prove it. but i get that people want to know. i get the jury always wants to know why.

i think you and i can agree there are a couple of reasons that you would not have to unlawfully, feloniously dis disseminate classified material. it certainly wasn't done to help an ongoing case because you already had the information, didn't you? >> again, i can't -- >> how about in theory? is this something that a reporter would have access to that the head of if fbi would not? >> i would hope not -- >> i would hope not too. i would hope that you had access to everything as the head of thç world's premier law enforcement agency. i would hope that you had it all. so if you had it all, the motive couldn't have been to the help you. because you already had it. and admiral rogers, the motive couldn't have been to help you, because you already had it. so in the universe of possible motives for the felonious

dissemination of classified material, we could rule out wanting to help the intelligence communities and the law enforcement communities. those are two motives that are gone now. that leaves some more the fair yous nefarious motives. is the investigation into the leak of classified information, has it begun yet? >> i can't say because i don't want to confirm that that was classified information. >> well, i don't want to quarrel with you, director comey. and i do understand that you cannot ordinarily confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. but you did it this morning citing doj policy given the gravity of the fact pattern. would you not agree that surveillance programs that are critical, indiceses pence bl, vital -- indispensable, vital to our national security, some of which are up for reauthorization this fall that save american lives and prevent terrorist attacks also rises to the level of important? >> i think those programs are

vital, and leaks of information collected pursuant to court order under those programs are terrible. ask as i said in my opening statement, should be taken very, very seriously. what i don't ever want to do is compound what bad people have done and confirm something that's in the newspaper. because sometimes newspaper gets it right. there's a whole lot of wrong information allegedly about class tied activities that's in the newspaper. we don't call them and correct them either. that's another big challenge, but we just don't go anywhere here to be it because we don't want to help and compound the te offense that was committed. >> i understand that, director comey. i'm trying really hard not to get you to discuss the facts that war. but some of the reporting includes the word "transcript" which has a very unique use in the matters you and i are discussing. that is a very unique use of that word. "wiretap" has a very specific meaning. the name of a u.s. citizen that was supposed to statutorily be protected is no longer recollected.

so -- protected. so some of this reporting, let's assume 90% of it is inaccurate. that other 10% is still really, really important. and to the extent that you can rely on the dates in either "the washington post" or new york times, we are talking about february of this year is when the reporting first took ple. so we are, we're a month and a half and two months into something that you and i agree is incredibly important and also happens to be a felony. is i'm just simply asking you to assure the american people -- you've already assured them you take it really seriously. can you assure them that it is it is going to be investigated? >> i can't, but iç hope people watching know how seriously we take leaks of classified information. but i don't want to confirm it by saying that we're investigating it. and i'm sorry i have to draw that line, i just think that's the right way to be. >> well, i'm not going to argue

with you, director comey, but it is, you know, we're going to discuss a lot of important things today. whether russia attempted to influence our democratic process is incredibly important. whether they sought to influence it is a separate analysis, incredibly important. the motive behind that motivation and influence, incredibly important. our u.s. response to, incredibly important. some of that may rise to the level of a crime, some of it does not rise to the level of a crime. one thing you and i agree on is the felonious dissemination of classified material most definitely is a crime. so i would ask you, and i understand some of the procedures that you are up against, i would, i would humbly ask you to seek authority there whomever you need to seek authority from. because i'm going to finish the same way i started. this is an agreement between the american people and its government. we are going to -- we, the american people, give certain

powers to government to keep us safe. and when those powers are misused and the motive is not, criminal investigations or national security, then i'll bet you my fellow citizens are rethinking their side of the equation. was that u.s. citizen -- because that u.s. citizen could be them next time. it could be you. it could be me. it could be anyone. until we start seriously investigating and prosecuting what congress thought was serious enough to attach a ten-year felon think to -- felon think to. with that, i would yield back -- >> can i just add a response to what you said? i agree with you, mr. gowdy. two things folks at home should know . first, an unauthorized disclosure of fisa is an extraordinarily unusual event, so be assured we're going to take it very seriously, because our trust with the american people and the federal judges that oversee our work is vital. and second, that this

conversation has nothing to do with 702. folks often mix them together. 702 is about targeting non-u.s. persons overseas. pursuant to the fisa statute, the fbi can apply to collect electronic surveillance in the united states, but it's a different thing from 702. the conversation you and i were just having is about this which is vital and important, but i just didn't want to leave people confused. >> director comey, you are 100% correct, and i am 100% correct this saying that is a distinction that doesn't make a difference to most of the people watching television. you are exactly correct. what we are reauthorizing this fall has nothing to do with what we are discussing other than it is another government program where the people consent to allow government to pursue certain things with the explicit promise it will be protected. so you'reç right, they're different. but in the eyes of people watching, it is the u.s. government officials reeking the name of a u.s -- leaking the name of a u.s. citizen, and if it can happen here, it may

happen there. trust me, you and i both want to see it reauthorized. s it is this jeopardy if we don't get this resolved. >> gentleman's time has expired. i'll yield 15 minute toss mr. schiff. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to follow up with a few questions about roger stone that i had started with earlier. before i pass it to my colleagues. director comey, are you aware that roger stone played a role in the trump campaign? >> i'm not going to talk about any particular person here today, mr. schiff. >> i'm going to continue to ask these questions because, among other things, i want to make sure you are aware of these facts, whether you're able to comment on them or not. have you read reports where mr. stone proudly boasts of engaging in political dirty tricks? >> i'll give you the same answer, sir. >> i mentioned before that mr. stone was in direct communication with the creature of russian -- [inaudible] ambiguouser if ii -- gucifer ii.

many stone on august -- mr. stone, on august 17th are you aware, received a communication from gucifer 2 that said, quote, i'm pleased to say that you are great. please tell me if i can help you anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me. are you aware of that communication from, essentially, russian gru through gucifer the mr. stone? >> i have to give you the same answer. >> are you aware that mr. stone also stated publicly that he was in direct communication with julian assange and wikileaks? >> same answer. >> are you aware that mr. stone also claimed that he was this touch with an intermediary of mr. assange? >> same answer. >> this question, i think, you can answer. do you know whether the russian intelligence services dealt directly with wikileaks or whether they, too, used an intermediary? >> we assessed they used some kind of cutout. they didn't deal directly with wikileaks in contrast to d.c. leaks and gucifer 2.0.

>> in early october are you aware that mr. stone tweeted: i have total confidence that my hero, julian assange, will educate the american people soon. are you aware of that tweet? >> i'm back to my original same answer. >> and are you aware that it was only days later that wikileaks released the podesta e-mails? >> same answer. >> i'm going to yield now to mr. himes. >> thank you, mr. schiff. i note that we're going through the 90 minute mark in this hearing, so let me s back a second and just revie the topics, because there's a lot on the table. and i think hi friends on the republican -- my friends on the republican side will get no argument from this side on the importance of investigating, prosecuting leaks. leaks are a threat to our national security whether perpetrated by edward snowden, people outside the white house or, perhaps as we haveç seen in the last 60 days, maybe from people inside the white house.

but, mr. comey, if i can use your phrase, "intense public interest," there is intense public interest in the fact that our new president will attack thin and everyone. he attack the cast of hamilton, chuck i schumer, our allies, mexico, australia, germany, he will attack the intelligence community which you lead associating you with mccarthyism and with naziism. but there's one person and one country which is immune, which is inoculated from any form of presidential attack no matter what the behavior. no matter be the if there's a violation of the i, this f nuclear treaty, no matter if vladimir putin kills opponents, the new president obfuscates, does not attack. and the people around the president, michael flynn, paul manafort, have an odd connection to russia, a series of odd connections. i don't think any of our

campaign people have connections with a foreign power, much less one that is an adversary of the united states. and further, apart from these weird links, without exception the individuals i quoted have dissembled or misled, maybe even lied about the nature of those connections this political pressure -- until the political pressure has gotten to the point where they have been fired or recused in the case of the attorney general. so i want to look briefly at one of these individuals, and ask, director comey, i ask your constraints, but let me ask a couple of questions regardless. paul manafort, who is roger stone's business partner and trump's former campaign manager, i want to is you a few questions about him. if first, director comb hawaii, can you tell me what the foreign agents registration act is? >> sure. not in an expert way, but it's a statute that requires people who are acting as agents of a non-u.s. government to register with the united states. >> with right.

so the national security division of the department of justice writes, this is their manual: the purpose is to insure that the u.s. government and the people of the united states are thissed of the source of information and the identity of persons attempting to influence u.s. public opinion, policy and laws, unquote. would you agree that guarding against foreign espionage or foreign influence measures falls under this heading? >> yes. >> in general, is willful violation or failure to register pursuant to this law in some circumstances a crime? >> i believe it is. i'm not an expert on fara, but i believe it is. >> and it could lead, certainly, to counterintelligence concerns, right? >> yes. >> now, paul manafort, as reported in "the new york times" and other outlets and his deputy, rick gates, ran a campaign in washington to lobby government officials and push positive press coverage of pro-russian ukrainian officials.

paul manafort began officially workingç for the former ukrainn president at least as far back as 2007 according to "the washington post". the lobbying was only discovered by ukraine's new national anti-corruption bureau which found secret ledgers in kiev indicating almost $13 million in undisclosed cash payments from ukrainian government coffers to paul manna tort for lobbying done between 2007 and 2012 for mr. yanukovych. did paul manafort ever register as a public agent under fara >> that's not something i can comment . >> whether he registered or not is not something you can comment on? >> no. >> okay. paul manafort was, however, donald trump's campaign manager in july of 2016, correct? >> i really don't want to get into answering questions about any individual u.s. person. look, it's obvious from the public record, but i don't want

to start down the road of answering questions about somebody. >> okay. well, i think the facts would show that he never did register. but as the ranking member pointed out, it perhaps should come as no surprise that the republican platform be which was drafted at the republican convention in july of 2016 underwent a rate significant change with respect to the american response to russia's illegal invasion of ukraine and their aggression in that country. it appears there our standpoint that we -- from our standpoint that we had perhaps somebody who should have registered under or fara pulling the strings there. there's more though, and i don't know how much you'll be able to comment on this, but i want to just explore for a second the nature of the russian government. because often times the question becomes was there contact with russian officials. and i want to read you a brief quote from a week putin's -- book on putin's government:

instead of seeing russian politics as an inchoate democratic system, accidental autocrats, bureaucratic incompetents or poor western device, i conclude that from the beginning putin and his circle sought to create an authoritarian regime ruled by a close-knit cabal who use democracy for decoration rather than direction. mr. comey, is it fair to say that the line that exists in the united states between government officers and and government officials is blurred in russia? that there may be oligarchs or other individuals who on the surface appear to be private citizens, but who have connections to this chose-knit cabal who might be agentsf influence or might be doing the kremlin's bidding in contact with others? >> that's fair to say, and one of ou counterintelligence missions is to try to understand who are those people and are they acting on behalf of the russian government, those russian citizens. >> is it generally true that there is a category of russian

oligarchs that are likely part of this chose-knit cabal? >> in a general sense. >> and if they go way back with vladssr) putin, do the chances increase that they might be connected with the kgb as asserted by the professor? >> longevity of the association can be a consideration. >> and the kgb was the russian intelligence service under the soviet union, right? >> correct. >> and the ukraine was part of the soviet union. >> correct. >> right. i'll just observe a steel and iron ore magnate or oligarch is the richest man in ukraine and a strong putin ally. he was the one who reportedly recommended paul hanna fort to ya nuke slip. mr.-- january you can slip. i have a report that appeared in cmn yesterday. the headline is former trump campaign chief paul manafort wanted for questioning in

ukraine corruption case. and i raise this with you because the story is told of paul manafort acting on behalf of ukraine's former justice minister who was the justice minister under the previous pro-russian regime who, and i'll just read a segment from this story here, who was involved this jailing the former prime minister who was the main political rival of the kremlin-backed president victor or january cove itch who manafort advised until he was deposed in 2014. he was released from jail at the same time that yanukovych was ousted. many saw her sentencing as politically motivated by the pro-russian government. in response to the teriation in the international climate, ukrainian prosecutors say manafort drafted a public relations strategy that included hiring -- [inaudible] an american law firm to review the case and show the conviction

had a sound legal basis. the story goes on to talk about the transfer of over a million dollars potentially legally from ukrainian coffers to the law firm. and the reason i bring all this up with you is because the story also says, and it appears to have been confirmed by the department of justice, that the current ukraine regime -- hardly a friend of the russians and very much targeted by the russians -- has made seven requests to the united states government for assistance under the mla treaty in securing the assistance of paul manafort as part of this anti-corruption case. and, in fact, the story says that you were presented personally with a letter asking for that assistance. my question, director comey, is, is that all true? have you been asked to provide assistance with regard to paul manafort, and how do you intend to sunday to that -- respond to that request? >> thats' not something i can

comment on. we have a very strong relationship in the criminal and national security areas with our ukrainian partners, but i can't talk about the particular matter. >> the story says that the doj confirmed that there have been req]erts for assistance on this matter. you can't go as far as confirming that, in fact, there have been these requests made? >> if they've done that, i would need them to do it again. i can't comment on it. >> okay. well, i appreciate that, and with that, i will yield back the remainder of my time to the ranking member. >> and i yield to terry sewell. >> thank you, ranking member. my questions revolve around the resignation of the former national security adviser, michael flynn. director comey, much has been made about russia's historical interference with political elections around the world meant to cuse discord and disunity, especially this western alliances. does the fbi generally assume

that russian ambassadors to the united states like ambassador kisliak are at least overtly collecting intelligence on influential americans, especially political leaders? >> ms. sewell, that's not something i can answer in an open setting. >> am i right that in the russian playbook, that it's in the russian playbook to use diplomats and business people and russian intelligence officers whether declared or not to collect intelligence on influential americans for the purpose of affecting u.s. policy? >> i can answer as a general matter. nation-states that are adversaries of the united states use traditional intelligence officers, sometimes use intelligence officers operating under diplomatic cover, use people we call co-optees, maybe private citizens, students, business people. all manner of human beings can be used in intelligence-electing

operation, but i'm not going to talk about the particular. >> would someone like the ambassador play that type of role for russia. >> >> i can't say here. >> the declassified january intelligence community assessment report that your agency helped to draft, the report that's entitled "assessing russian activities and intentions in the recent u.s. elections," specifically states that, quote: since the cold war russian intelligence efforts related to the united states' elections have primarily focused on torn intelligence collections -- foreign intelligence collections that could help russian leaders understand a new u.s. administration's plans and priorities, end quote. so thoughing what we know -- knowing what we know about russia's efforts and the role of the russian ambassador, director comey, would you be concerned if any one of your agents had a private meeting with the russian ambassador? >> if an fbi agent had a private meeting with a russian government employee of any kind, it would be concerning. and i assume by private, one

that's not disclosed or part of their operational activity. >> that's right. >> yes. >> and would you expect that agent to report that meeting? >> yes. >> admiral rogers, a similar question. would you be concerned if one of your intelligence officers had a private meeting with the russian board, and would you -- ambassador, and would you expect that officer to report thatç meeting? >> disclose yours of interactions with a foreign government is a requirement for all employees, including myself, for example. >> i ask these questions because on thiess four occasions that i -- on at least four occasions that i can count, mr. flynn -- a three-star general and former intelligence officer, someone with influence over the u.s. policy and someone with knowledge of state secrets and the incoming national security adviser -- communicated with and met with the russian ambassador and failed to disclose it. so i ask you, directors, if you wouldn't stand for your own staff to do this, why should we, the american people, accept michael flynn doing it?

>> ms. sewell, i'll let mike rogers take it next, but i don't -- i can't speak to what the disclosure obligations are for other people in the government, so it's hard for me to answer that. i i can answer, and i answered i hope accurately with regard to one of the fbi's special agents. >> and i, likewise, would answer the same way in terms of the nsa. >> i yield back. >> i'll yield heist 15 minutes. director comey, you announced this morning that there'll be an investigation into trump associates, possibly president trump and anyone around the campaign and any association with the russian government. if this committee or anyone else for that matter, someone from the public comes with information to you about the hillary clinton campaign or their associates or someone from the clinton foundation, will you add that to your investigation? they have ties to russian intelligence services, russian agents, would that be something of interest to you?

>> people bring us information out what they think is improper, unlawful activity of think kind, we will evaluate. 9 -- not just in this context. folks send us stuff all the time, they should keep doing it. >> do you think it's possible the russians would not be trying to infiltrate hillary clinton's campaign, get information on hillary clinton and try to get to people around that campaign or the clinton foundation? >> i'm not prepared to comment about the lahr campaigns. the particular campaigns. but the russians, in general, are always trying to understand who the future leaders might be and what levers of influence there might be on them. >> i just hope that if information does surface about the other campaigns, not even just hillary clinton's, but any other campaigns, that you would take that serious also if the russians were trying to infiltrate those campaigns around them. >> of course we would. >> okay. yield to mr. conway. >> thank you, chairman. gentlemen, thanks for being here. admiral rogers, you mentioned analytical standards early in

the conversation. are those standards the same for all intelligence analysts across the various agenciesesome. >> there's a broad set of promulgated standards for all of us, and then there are specific issues associated, for example, with the particular authority that you're using to collect the information in the first place. >> so, chairman, the same thing with your agency. your analysts would have similar types of standards? >> correct. that's one of the really good things that's happened since 9/11 especially since 2004 is the adop(ion of a common set of trade craft provisions. >> so i'm a cpa, and we have generally accepted accounting standards which are promulgated across a variety of things. are those same standards publicly promulgated but generally disseminated through all your analysts, i assume would have some sort of a test to make sure they know the standards? >> i could take that one for the record, sir. >> okay. when the i.c. attributes a hacking to a particular actor, you do that through generally

forensic evidence. but when it comes to trying to the determine intent of forei aders, can you walk us through how the nsa does that or the fbi does that? >> we assess the range of information that we've collected in an attempt to generate understanding as to not only what has occurred, but part of the intelligence professional -- profession is also trying to understand why, what was the intent. we'll use the range of information we have available to us. while we're primarily a single-source organization, it's of the reasons why cia, the defense intelligence agency talk multiple sources, so we're just one component of a broader effort. >> director comb hawaii, anything different than that? >> no, it's about putting together a puzzle. sometimes from for instance bics alone you can get a pretty good indication, other times it requires human sources and additional signals intelligence to give you that sense. >> so both of you agree though it's rarely a precise art or a

precise science of determining intent of any foreign leader. >> that's correct. all of intelligence work requires judgment. that's at the center of it. >> but i will say in some cases it's a hutch clearer case than -- much clearer case than -- >> that depends how many sources you have inside a particular foreign leader's shop. >> i'm not going to get into specifics. >> just in general. if you had somebody whose next door neighbor -- never mind. pivoting to the january 7th, january 6th intelligence community assessment, both your agencies agreed with the assessment that the russians' goal was to undermine the lick faith in u.s. democratic process. is that still your assessment? >> yes. >> yes. >> same assessment said that the russians' goal was to, wanted to den date secretary clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency and that putin wanted to discredit

clinton since he publicly blamed her for inciting protest against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, do you both still agree with that assessment? >> yeyes. >> went on to say that president putin and the russian government aspired to help president -- i guess he'd have been candidate trump at the time, president-elect trump's election process if possible birdies crediting secretary clinton. you had a lower confidence level. is that still the case? >> yes, sir. >> can you tell the group why -- >> i'm not going to get into specifics in an unclassified forum, but for me, itç boiled down to the level and nature of the sourcing on that one particular judgment was slightly different, to me, than the others. >> all right -- >> to be clear, mr. conway, we all agreed -- >> all right. but you really agreed, and he almost really agreed. [laughter] >> not terms our -- [inaudible conversations] >> a term of art. i've got you. director comey, in terms of laying out those three

assessments and whether or not the i.c. was consistent in its view of those three assessments across the entire campaign, can we walk through kind of the fbi's walk down that path? did, as of early december of '16, did the fbi assess that the active measures were to undermine -- by the russians were to undermine the faith in the u.s. democratic process? had you come to that conclusion by early december? >> i think that's right, december of last year. >> '16, yes, sir. >> i think we were at that point, yes. >> and then active measures conducted against secretary clinton to denigrate her, hurt her campaign and also undermine her presidency? >> correct. >> all right. and then the conclusion that active measures were taken specifically to help president trump's campaign. you had that by early december,

you already had that conclusioning? >> correct. that they wanted to hurt our democracy, hurt her, help him. i think all three we were confident in at least as early as december. there are. >> oka the paragraph that's give me a little concern there in terms of just the timing of when all of that occurred, because i'm not sure if we went back and got that contact same january assessment six months earlier, it would have looked the same. because you say when we further assess putin and the russian government developed a clear preference for president-elect trump. any idea when that "clear preference" analysis, when did that get into the lexicon of when you were talking back and forth among yourself on a classified basis? >> i don't know for sure, but i think that was a fairly easy judgment for the community. he, putin hated secretary clinton so much that the flipside of that coin was he had a clear preference for the

person running against the person he hated so much. >> yeah. that might work on saturday afternoon when the wife's red raiders are playing the texas longhorns. she really like the the red raiders, but all the rest of the time the logic is because he really didn't like president, candidate clinton, that he automatically liked trump. that assessment's based on what? >> well, it's based on more than that, but part of it is -- we're not going to get into into the details, but part ofs it is the logic. by definition, you want the opponent to lose. >> i know. but this scy& he wanted her to lose and him to win. >> they're inseparable. it's a two-person event. >> right. i gotcha. so i'm just wondering when you decides you wanted him to win? >> well, when he wanted her to lose -- >> no, no, i'm not talking about him --

[laughter] i got that, i got that. the question is when in this -- well, let me finish up then. so that sentence about the clear preference for donald trump, and we don't know exactly when you guys decided that was the case. then it says when it appeared to moow that secretary clinton was likely to winthe election, the russian influence mpaign then focused on undermining her expected presidency. so, and then the next sentence says the russian government aspired to help president trump's election chances. so when did they not think she was going to win? >> well, the assessment of the intelligence community was as the summer went on and the polls appeared to show that secretary clinton was going to win, the russians sort of gave up and simply focused on trying to undermine her. it's your red raiders. you know they're not going to win, so you kind of hope key people on the other team get hurt so they're not such a tough opponent down the road. >> so you believe that the fbi

was consistent through early december on that that was the case, that they assessed that they really wanted trump to win it and were working to have him. >> yes. our analysts had a view that i don't believe with changed from late fall through to the report on january 6th that it had those three elements. >> all right. so then on december the 9th, well in advance of the january with -- january 6th deal, the "e washington post" put out an article. their lead sentence -- and, again, cia is not here today, but hopefully have them next week -- that russia intervened in the '16 election to help donald trump win the presidency rather than just undermine the confidence in the electoral system. they don't mention ms. clinton at all. and then it says to help trump get elected, the u.s. senior briefed on the intelligence position -- u.s. official briefed by, briefed for an

intelligence presentation for u.s. senators said that's the consensus view. this is written by a guy named adam -- [inaudible] elaine something and greg miller. did they help draft the july -- the january 6th document? >> the reporters? i'm sorry? >> did those writers from "the washington post" help you write the january 6th -- neil: welcome, everybody, i'm neil cavuto, and you're watching continuing live fox business coverage of these hearings including james comey and the nsa director, mike rogers. they're talking about the role, if any, the russians might have played not only in the last election, but whether they influenced the results. director comey is among those saying he does not think they influenced the results per se, but they were almost invariably involved. he also went on and continues to go on to explain that he cannot support some of the allegations that president trump has made that his predecessor, barack obama, had hisç phones tapped. again, saying that it would appear to be unlikely.