was at 33. no they're at 43. that's a gn , wh, a third, in three weeks. you've never seen that before for a stock like general motors. there you have it, what a performance. neil, it's yours. neil: and they're all going driverless, right? stuart: so they say. neil: i don't know, i don't know. i'm not there yet. stuart: nor me. neil: thank you, my friend, very much. we're waiting for the president due to arrive in las vegas shortly. meanwhile trying to get more details about the shooter's girlfriend, marilou danley, she is the person of interest and authorities will be speaking to her shortly. she traveled to philippines two weeks before the shooting, and the gunman was apparently wiring a lot of cash to her 10, $000 at a time. more than 100,000 to an account in the philippines. she is thought to be the beneficiary of that money. so much we don't know. jeff flock in las vegas, what he knows right now.

hey, jeff. reporter: i come to you from las vegas strip, neil, that is now open, perhaps you see traffic running back and forth behind me in front of the mandalay bay hotel. indeed marilou danley is the focus. 62 years old, philippine descent and someone who met stephen paddock in the high-roller room in the casino. they became friends and lived together for some time. her sisters say she did not know anything about this. she is cooperating with authorities. she is someone who although is described as a person of interest is someone, she doesn't have an attorney for example and expected to answer whatever questions they have. her sisters talked to an australian television network, they live in australia. she has an australian passport. here is what they told interviewers there. >> i know that she didn't know

anything as well, like us. she was sent away. she was sent away so that she will be not there to interfere. reporter: but so many questions to be answered, neil, specifically did she know that her boyfriend was accumulating 33 of the 47 guns found in his possession at the time of the crime, that he had been accumulating those over the course of the past year? what did she know about his planning, in terms of this? did she know why she was being sent away? and the money, that $100,000, was that sent to her? did that not send red flags to her? all of the questions to be answered here. she did leave two weeks ago, september 25th, flew to hong kong and the philippines. she, i think, it's fair to say, neil, is their best bet on

trying to shed light on the motive of this crime which at this point still remains in the dark. neil? neil: so, jeff, she lived with him in this mesquite condo before she traveled to asia. was she a wife? a girlfriend? do we know her exact role or whatever? reporter: a girlfriend. she had been married previously. philippine descent. danley is her married name but obtained a divorce from that husband and they lived together. people who had been interviewed said they had, well, not a loving relationship as it was described by some, he often berated her and she loved him. she is a person of interest but she is cooperating which perhaps suggests maybe she thinks she has nothing to hide. she better have a lawyer. neil: jeff, thank you very much, jeff flock in las vegas. a former cia analyst what we can learn, what do you think? >> i think that authorities are

going to have a number of questions. the real issue to the crux of the mystery here is what was the motive. in addition to looking through all electronic devices, communication, e-mails, the investigators want to speak to the individuals closest to person in the weeks and months leading up to this tragic and horrific event. obviously, she is going to be key as an integral part of the investigation. neil: in the meantime, much has been made of all the weaponry that stephen paddock allegedly had, two dozen weapons and more spread among his homes including the condo in mesquite. nothing would have drawn authorities's attention because the semiautomatic weapons he made automatic were made that way after the fact with the particular device, otherwise there would have been many more stringent requirements for having such weapons. what are we to glean from that and is there anything that would have registered over the

sheer number of weapons he had over the years or months purchaseed? >> certainly, obviously i'm not a psychologist or gun expert. in all cases when looking at suspicious cases of individuals, whether it be mass shooting or domestic terrorism or international terrorism, you need to look for patterns of behavior that seem strange and whether or not that could have set off alarm bells in terms of purchasing certain materials or equipment. there was also reports of explosive material, potential explosive material in his car that could have been, again, in and of itself, not a bomb but could have been used, and the high number of weapons purchases in not a long period of time. so could alarm bells have been raised to people close to him even if no laws were broken and suspicious behavior, that was a deviation from normal behavior. that's why talking to individuals is key. obviously, hindsight is 20/20. but the thing that is so strange about this case is

nobody yet has pointed out anything that can go a direct motive for this. nothing in the public domain to this point either by those close to him or strangers observing things that would go to the motive. obviously, the number of weapons. obviously that is stuff that goes premeditation here, the amount of planning, but missing the motive or trigger, whether something triggered this or motivated it or underlying driver, whether it's social, political, personal, we have really not heard anything from anyone yet on that. neil: let's say he doesn't have online profile because he wasn't online or using the media at 64 years old. maybe he never got into it, it makes the job of authorities trying to reconstruct this more difficult, doesn't it? >> you raise a point in terms he did not have social media profiles. in this day and age, most people are leaving some form of digital footprint. i mean everything from cell phone calls, e-mails, text

messages, google searches, all those things can go to people's state of mind or can go to behaviors that were going to lead up to this. he may have not been on social media in this case, but investigators have quite a bit of digital information including the cameras in and around the area, las vegas, highly saturated with cameras given the casinos and hotels and everything else there. authorities will have quite a minefield of digital data to go through. neil: tara maller, speaking of, which the cameras, surveillance and otherwise, not to mention the three he had in his suite at the hotel, piece together to give authorities maybe a better idea leading up to the events, what he was doing, what he was thinking. former national security director michael balboni. what do you think about what his cameras could tell us? he went to great lengths to record what he was doing, to put a camera through the keyhole to the door of his

room, to make sure authorities wouldn't just burst in on him. and it could be well telegraphed and in this case killed himself. clearly a recording of all of this. what do you make of that? >> to your point, las vegas has a tremendous amount of cameras. you are absolutely correct. the most extensive camera networks in the nation because it's las vegas. but what we're going to see is lots of different information, what's important for people to recognize is all of this information is very hard to put together into a coherent and sensible timeline very quickly. that's what a lot of officials are looking at right now, but in terms of his actual utilization of cameras in the room, that sent another discordant factoid for this entire issue. if you look at the fbi information on active shooters, most of them take their lives and do not have the final go

out with a gunfight with the authorities. so for this guy to create a sniper's nest with the incredible amount of weaponry and then plan by using these cameras to perhaps meet an assault is outside of the normal profile associated with an active shooter. in addition to which, there are questions today raised by members of the military experts who sit there and say, you know what? this guy had in a sense an automatic weapon that he created and he was firing for a very long period of time. physically, the act of doing that i'm told by weapons experts is very difficult. that when you have that amount of fire going at the weapon bucking against you, it takes a physical toll you on. another fact that just doesn't make sense. he didn't have prior military training. he wasn't a law enforcement officer. he never had that kind of official experience with weapons.

so again, neil, it's a huge onion, every layer you unfold, you see another layer of other questions. neil: when you question, what goes on when you fire the weapons repeatedly and the physical toll it can take, are you hinting that maybe he didn't act alone or what? >> you know, you and i have worked together a number of years, you know my philosophy. you let the evidence take where you it takes you. you try not to prejudge an investigation. you will bias it. so i'm of the belief let's continue to see how the information unfolds. what i am so fascinated about is every minute you think you've got some direction that explains to you where this is going, some other fact presents itself that says, wait a minute, that doesn't add up. profile doesn't work in this scenario against a typical scenario we have been studying for a long time. as i mentioned before, the fbi has done really good work on active shooter situations. neil: all right, so knowing what you know now, knowing what

surveillance cameras might be including those on the 32nd floor of the mandalay bay hotel which could immediately alert when he was going to and from his room, to say nothing of what's in the casino itself where the cameras are everywhere to your point. what do you think they'll be able to reconstruct? >> yeah, that's an excellent point. this is what the investigators are going to be doing, they're going to be look at a couple different aspects. means, methods and motivation. one of the things they're going to consider doing is reconstruct the actual physical transportation of these cases up to the room. what would he have needed to have done? who might have seen that? what cameras would have seen it and piece it against what video would be available? we know there is video in the hotel room. that goes over to period of time, how many days. was he physically carrying one case at a time. these are all the specific facts that you need to assemble

to create not only a timeline, but also to try to envision what steps he had to take to physically pull this off. again, everybody sitting here saying this is not something that obviously had any snap or rage. this guy had planned and prepared this, but nothing in his background that is so far come to light, indicates that he would be able to mastermind this type of an attack. neil: yeah, it's so crazy to put it mildly. michael, thank you very much. michael balboni. always appreciate your expertise. the president is due in las vegas in about 15 minutes. when he arrives there, we are there. stick around. you are watching fox.

so new touch screens... and biometrics. in 574 branches. all done by... yesterday. ♪ ♪ banks aren't just undergoing a face lift. they're undergoing a transformation. a data fueled, security driven shift in applications and customer experience. which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. hello, mr. deets. every branch running like headquarters. that's how you outmaneuver.

. neil: all right, we're told that senate intel leaders are about to hold a press conference on russia, the degree to which they influenced the 2016 election. we'll keep you posted before they gather before cameras. rex tillerson, secretary of state, standing by the president despite conflicting reports on that. take a look at this. >> the vice president has never had to persuade me to remain the secretary of state because i have never considered leaving this post. while i'm new to washington, i have learned that there are some who try to sew dissension to advance their own agenda by

tearing others apart in an effort to undermine president trump's own agenda. i do not and i will not operate that way. >> you can address the main headline of this story that you called the president a moron, and if not where, do you think these reports are coming from? >> i'm not going to deal with petty stuff like that. this is what i don't understand about washington. neil: all right, maybe just me but did you call the president a moron or not? might be nonsense in your eyes, people will fixate on that alleged comment, is it real or not? to political playbook co-author and senior correspondent katie glick. what do you think? he never answered that outright. maybe didn't want to give it more than lip service, what do you think? >> he certainly didn't address that piece of reporting and to make an effort to move on from the story, but certainly this is the latest instance in an administration that certainly has struggled with divisions

among top personnel and this is an effort by the secretary of state to quash reporting that perhaps he was at odds with the president here. you are right, he certainly did not address that particularly juicy piece of reporting. neil: the fact that you are addressing reporters, you have to address the nonsense, you might as well address the other part of the nonsense by addressing the moron comment. maybe i'm getting too into the weeds here. what do you think? >> listen, i think clearly this is an effort by tillerson to squash this story that was getting legs. there's all kinds of rumor, was he going to resign? not resign? instead of stopping the story and talking to the president listen i'm on your team and appearing as a strong leader to foreign leaders he needs to do business with on a daily basis, he basically undercut himself saying i didn't say that, he wouldn't address it at all. so this is going to become a

second or third day for it. neil: do you think he ran this by the president and say, i'm going to say this is nonsense, and the president would have said, by the way, tell them you didn't say i'm a moron. i don't know, i'm leaping here. that's the one thing that's out here that a top cabinet official is disparaging his boss? >> he did address, he said that the vice president and he did not have the conversation where he had to be convinced. the vice president put out a statement saying the exa thing, saying he's ner had that conversation with rex tillerson. he, in that comments said he hadn't talked to the president. he thought he was on his way to las vegas. doesn't appear this was a coordinated conversation at principal level. who knows what was happening behind the scenes. hard to believe the white house wasn't aware what was said at the staff level if he was going to give a response to this kind of incendiary reporting. neil: you know, we don't know what happened, katie, that, i

understand. and you don't want to feed the rumor beast, and that too i understand it. when this happens in republican or democrat administrations. it is what it is. you stop everything to say i never contemplated leaving, but it happens at a time when a number of trump insiders are leaving of their own accord or forced out. and the president did say over the weekend that secretary tillerson could have at it and talk to north korea officials about getting a piece but essentially wasting his time. so if you're rex tillerson and hearing that, aren't you saying, what the heck am i doing? >> this is the latest instance of tensions of elements between the white house and tillerson bubbling up coming to the forefront. of course, there is a moment following protests in charlottesville where rex tillerson appeared to be at odds with the president. he was not out there as other members of the administration were defending the president's response to charlottesville and this is another moment that

perhaps folks might look to as they are trying assess where the relationship stands. a lot of conservatives were quite skeptical of tillerson, there is divisions within this white house and how various members of this white house are perceived and the broader conservative movement, the broader republican party and this moment does appear to be something that may add to the fire. neil: again, these international rivalries and differences between cabinet officials and people leaking stuff on cabinet officials whether true or not or fostering an image that is discord, disarray, not unique to this administration but we're seeing a lot more case with this administration, i'm not imagining that. >> right, i think it should be no surprise to anybody there are different teams in politics and backbiting at the staff level. i think one of the things we need to take a step back and look at this when you try to ascertain, how come there are so many leaks?

this is played out in the press? a lot of the principals and staff, you don't have the long-held loyalties that really bind these different individualsing to the say we're going to row in the same direction, even if i might not in privately disagree with you, publicly we're going to come together. that's part of it, you have a lot of people that don't have that 20 year long history working together. neil: i'm wondering too, katie, when the president throws out, there he got elected largely being this unconventional feisty, fiery populist and also there is a degree of that expectation, that's what you'll get. but a comment like today where he said maybe forgive all of puerto rico's debt, a lot of puerto rican bonds are tumbling, people in new york that hold the bonds are in complete disarray. whatever your opinion, that's one thing, that didn't sound like it was run through powers that be, including the

secretary of state whose purview that that might warrant at least a heads-up, what do you think? >> if that's the case that is classic trump. same donald trump we saw on the campaign trail and we've seen at times throughout his presidency. he is someone who will often throw out an idea there, and you know, there are some folks, including on wall street today who are perhaps a bit skeptical of that. we heard talk about other legislative priorities that have yet to come to fruition, in particular point to promises to repeal the affordable care act. but at the same time, it's the president of the united states saying that. and when he says something or tweets something, that's something folks need to take seriously. neil: do you think he ran that by anyone, the puerto rico thing? >> i doubt it. i think this was a trial balloon, something he employed on the campaign trail and if you're in washington. you saw the cleanup, mick

mulvaney said that's not what he really meant. you have seen division within the administration about the likelihood of that actually happening. neil: all right, ladies, thank you, both very, very much. we hope to get soon the senators on the latest update on the russian intel investigation. if we can dip into this and see what they're concluding or surmising. >> unbelievableage. so we're here to update about you and the american people into the investigation of russia's meddling in the 2016 election. when we started this investigation on 23 january of this year, we had a very clear focus. we were focused on evaluation of the ica, the intelligence community assessment of russia's involvement in 2016 election. additionally, the investigation was to look into any collusion by either campaign during the 2016 elections. the third piece was an assessment of the ongoing

russian active measures, including information and influence campaigns that may still exist and may be ongoing. the investigation started with those three buckets of interest. now, we're over 100 interviews later, which translates to 250+ hours of interviews. almost 4,000 pages of transcripts. almost 100,000 pages of documents reviewed by our staff and some by members. it includes highly classified intelligence reporting. it includes e-mails, campaign documents and technical cyberanalysis products. the committee has held 11 open hearings this calendar year that have touched on russia's interference in u.s. elections. i can say that our dedicated russia investigative staff have

literally worked six to seven hours a day since 23 january to get us to the point we are today. >> six to seven days a week. >> six to seven days a week. excuse me. so far in the interview process, we have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice into the creation of the intelligence community assessment. we have spent nine times the amount time that the community spent putting the ica together, reviewing the ica and reviewing all of the supporting documents that went in it, in addition to, that the things thrown on the cutting room floor that they might not have found appropriate for the ica itself, but we may have found of relevance to our investigation. we have interviewed every official of the obama administration to fully understand what they saw, what clarity and transparency they

had in the russia involvement and more importantly what they did or did not do and what drove those actions. again, i'm reminded that we will come out with a finding at some point, and part of that hopefully will be recommendations as to changes we need to make. so we've tried to think as thoroughly through this as we can. we have interviewed literally individuals from around the world. so for those of you that choose to stake out when the next witness is coming. there have some that have snuck through because you don't know who they are. now, it's safe to say that the inquiry has expanded slightly. initial interviews and document review generated hundreds of additional requests on our part for information. it identified many leads that expanded our initial inquiry. the volume of work done by the

staff has prepared the committee to look at some areas of our investigation that we hope will very soon reach some definite conclusion, but we're not there yet. we're not ready to close them. one of the areas is the ica itself. given that we have interviewed everybody who had a hand in the ica, i think there is general consensus among members and staff that we trust the conclusions of the ica. but we don't close our consideration of it. in the unlikelihood that we find additional information through the completion of our investigation. the obama administration's response to russian interference, as i said, we have interviewed every person within the administration. they have volunteered and they have been unbelievably cooperative to come in and share everything they knew and in most cases were interviewed

for over two hours. the meeting at the mayflower. let me be specific. these are not issues that are closed. we have not come to any final conclusions. we have interviewed seven individuals that attended the mayflower event. the testimony from all seven were consistent with each other, but we understand that with the current investigation open, there maybe additional information we find that pulling that threat may give us additional insight that we don't see today. changes to the platform committee. again, i'm addressing some things that have been written by you in this room, and they may not have been on the chart, but we felt that we had to dig deeply into them. we have -- the committee staff interviewed every person involved in the drafting of the campaign platform. campaign staff was attempting to implement what they believed to be guidance to be strong, to be a strong ally on the ukraine, but also leave the door open for better relations

with russia. i'm giving you the feedback we got from the individuals who were in the room making the decisions. again, not closed. open for the continuation. the last one i want to cover is the comey memos. this topic has been hotly debated, and the committee is satisfied that our involvement with this issue has reached a logical end as it relates to the russia investigation. now again, this is not something that we've closed, but we have exhausted every person that we can talk to to get information pertinent to us relative to the russia investigation. questions that you might have surrounding comey's firing are better answered by the general counsel or by the justice department, not the select committee of intelligence in

the united states senate. there are concerns that we continue to pursue collusion. the committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. now, i'm not going to even discuss initial findings because we haven't any. we've got a tremendous amount of documents still to go through, and just to put in perspective, i said we've done over 100 interviews, over 250 hours. we currently have booked for the balance of this month, 25 additional interviews. that may not end up being the total but as of today, there are 25 individuals booked to meet with our staff before the end of this month alone, pertaining to the russian investigation. we have more work do as it relates to collusion but developing a clear picture of what happened. what i will confirm is that the

russian intelligence service is determined, clever, and i recommend that every campaign and every election official take this very seriously as we move into this november's election and as we move into preparation for the 2018 election. i'm going to ask the vice chairman to covert other areas that we're in the process of pursuing. >> thank you, richard. and i want to say at the outset again, i'm very proud of this committee. i'm proud of the way the committee has acted. i'm proud of our staff and the enormous amount of work they've done. i know the chairman and i see many of you daily in the hallways and know that this feels like it's taking a long time. it is taking a long time. but getting it right and getting the facts is what we owe the american people, and as we've seen, for example,

stories that emerged in the late summer around mr. trump junior's meeting, or possibilities of a trump tower moscow. chairman and i would love to find ways to close things down, but also still see strains and threads that we need to continue to pursue. i want to touch on two subjects. the first is echoing what richard's already said. the russian active measures efforts did not end on election day 2016. they were not only geared at the united states of america. we have seen russian active measures take place in france. we've seen concerns raised in the netherlands. we've seen concerns raised in

germany, and we need to be on guard. one of the things that is particularly troubling to both of us is the fact that it has become evident that 21 states' electoral systems were not all penetrated but there was at least, there was at least -- trying to open the door in these 21 states. it has been very disappointing to me, and i believe the chairman as well, that it took 11 months for the department of homeland security to reveal those 21 states, and still don't know why exactly last friday was the date they chose to reveal that information, but still believe there needs to be a more aggressive whole of government approach in terms of protecting our electoral system. remember, to make a change even

in national election doesn't require penetration into 50 states arguably, in states like the chairman's and mine could be key. you could pick two or three states in two or three jurisdictions and alter an election. and i believe in a state like mine where in virginia and new jersey in 34 days, we have elections, i'm glad to see the dhs said they're going to up their game and help those states with elections that are happening this year, but we need to make sure that there is an organized, again, whole of government approach. i know in virginia, for example, even before we discovered we were one of the 21 states, i think the state electoral board in abundance of caution decertified one set of machines that were touch screens that didn't have kind of a paper ballot or paper trail to this.

one of the things we wanted to emphasize with the briefing that this is an ongoing concern, and that if states don't proactively move forward very shortly we'll be getting into primary seasons early on in 2018. and this is an ongoing challenge, and again, i point out even after last week, wisconsin, texas and california still have some lack of clarity about whether the appropriate individuals were notified. i also want to raise an issue that the chairman and i have been working jointly on as well. and that is the russians' use of social media platforms. social media platforms that increasingly, the vast majority of us turn to for information from news in a way that is very different. if you look, for example, at

the realm of political advertising, we've seen over 700% increase in the use of digital political advertising between 2012 and 2016. the expectation is that may double or triple again in terms of the next election cycle because of the ability to so target voters. i was concerned at first that the social media companies did not take this threat seriously enough. i believe they are recognizing that threat now. they have provided us with information. we think it's important that three companies that we've invited -- google, twitter and facebook -- will appear in a public hearing, so that americans can again hear both about how we're going to protect, i would argue, three areas, one making sure if you

see an ad that appears on a social media site that americans can know whether the source of that ad was generated by foreign entities. two, to make sure that if you see a story that is trending and becoming more popular, whether that trending is because of a series of americans are "like"ing that story or "like"ing that particular page or that's generated by real individuals or generated by bots, or some cases it may be false identity, falsely identified accounts, for example, facebook is indicated between 30,000 and 50,000 such accounts were taken down in france because of russian interference. and third just the motion that both of us have been in politics a long time. if you have someone running an ad for you or against you, you ought to be able to take a look

at that content. the same way if ads are run for or against you on radio, tv or news print, you can get a look at the content. this is an ongoing process but seeing increasing levels of cooperation, and turn it back over to the chairman. >> let me say, many of you have asked are we going to release the facebook ads? we don't release documents provided to our community, period. let me say it again. the senate intelligence committee does not release documents provided by witnesses, companies, whoever -- whatever the classification, it's not a practice we're going to get into. clearly, if any of the social media platforms would like to do that, we're fine with them doing it because we've got scheduled an open hearing because we believe the american people deserve to hear firsthand, and just to remind people on october 25th, we will have another hearing, number

12, with michael kohn. on november 1st, we have invited the social media companies that mark mentioned to be our guest at an open hearing, and we feel confident they will take us up on it. as it relates to the steel dossier. unfortunately, the committee has hit a wall. we have on several occasions made attempts to contact mr. steel, to meet with mr. steel, to include personally the vice chairman and myself as two individuals making that connection. those offers have gone unaccepted. the committee cannot really decide the credibility of the dossier without understanding things like who paid for it?

who are your sources and subsources? we're investigating a very expansive russian network of interference in u.s. elections, and though we have been incredibly enlightened at our ability to rebuild backwards the steel dossier up to a certain date, getting past that point has been somewhat impossible, and i say this because i don't think we're going to find any intelligence products that unlock that key to pre-june of '16. my hope is that mr. steel will make a decision to meet with either mark and i or the committee or both so that we can hear his side of it, versus for us to depict into our findings what his intent or what his actions were, and i say that to you, but i also say it to chris steel.

potential witnesses that we might ask to come in, in the future. i strongly suggest that you come in and speak with us. if we believe that you have something valuable to bring to the committee, if you don't voluntarily do it, i will assure you today, you will be compelled to do it. i can compel you to come. i can't compel you to talk, but will be in a very public -- done in a public way, if you turn in the private office. the committee is proven to be balanced, professional and willing to listen to everybody. let me say in closing, for those following our investigation in the press, i want you to know that you only see glimpses of the amount of work the committee's done. we're doing much of our work behind closed doors to ensure the privacy and the protection of witnesses and sensitive sources and methods. it's become increasingly clear

that the committee has stayed focused on building the foundation, to be able to finish our investigation thoroughly and in an accountable way. i'm confident today that, when we started -- we chose wisely by choosing our professional staff to do this investigation and not to the talking heads all around the country that suggested we couldn't do this unless we went out and hired a whole new group, and i think the numbers here reflect that. ultimately, we look forward to completing our work, and presenting our findings to the public. i can't set a date as to when that will be. mark can't set a date as to when that can be. we will share with you when we have exhausted every thread of intelligence. every potential witness that

can contribute anything to this. i don't, by any stretch of the imagination, tell you there's been value to everybody we've met with. but if we hadn't met with them, then you would have questioned us as to why we didn't. the truth is nobody in this room, and mark and i might be included in this room. none of us in this room may know everybody we've met with. we're not going to share who we interview. we're not going to share what we asked, and certainly not going to share what they tell us. we're not going to share with you the documents that we got, but when you receive 100,000 documents plus, a large group of that coming from the trump campaign alone. when you look at this country's most sensitive intelligence products. let me assure you, we're going to get the best view of what happened that anybody could possibly get. at the end of this process, we

will be sure that we present to the american people our findings as best we have been able to accumulate them. with that, i'll be happy to open it for questions. chad? reporter: thank you, have you seen evidence between the russian facebook ads with the trump campaign or with any political campaign? >> chad, we haven't even had our hearing with any of the social media platforms. i think if you look from 10,000 feet, the subject matter of the ads was -- seems to have been to create chaos in every group they could possibly identify in america. from a standpoint of any involvement. let us have the opportunity to have these folks in, ask them the questions. in many cases, they didn't even take advantage of some of the most technical targeting tools that exist within the social media companies. so i would defer answering your question until we've completed

the investigation. reporter: may i say, i believe and i think we will -- >> you will see that there will be more forensics done by these companies, again, when we just look at scale, france versus united states in one of the platforms, facebook in terms of what happened, i think they've got more dwoshg and pleased to say i think they're out doing that work now. reporter: the president has said repeatedly, any talk of collusion is a hoax, and you've gone through all the documents, interviewed all these people. at this point, is the president right? is this a hoax? >> i'm going to let you guys quote the president and ask him questions about what he says. it's not going to be the committee. reporter: do you have evidence to suggest to rule out that the president knew anything about any of these contacts that occurred between any of his associates and the russians? >> let me go back and say, i thought i was pretty clear, that the issue of collusion is

still open, that we continue to investigate both intelligence and witnesses, and that we're not in a position where we will come to any type of temporary finding on that until we've completed the process. reporter: you say that the issue of collusion is still open. are you pursuing the question of whether there's a link between the ads that appeared on social media sites and the trump campaign? >> well, let me just say that -- let mark address it if he'd like to. if there was any connection that would be pertinent to investigation of russia's influence in the elections. we have had incredible access and cooperation by those social media companies that have been in. some of them have been interviewed twice. at the end of the days, we'll

be prepared to ask the right questions that may answer some of your questions at that open hearing. >> so we also have to get the universe first. i was concerned on the front end, with the first pass was not a thorough enough pass. for example, i cited the pass that went into the only ads that were produced for those that were paid for in rubles. obviously, there are various forms of payments. i think the companies are increasingly understanding that their actions need to match their public statements that they realize how important it is to maintain the integrity of our democratic process. reporter: did you call on facebook to release those ads? >> i think at the end of the day, it's important that the public sees these ads. reporter: two questions, you talked about the level of cooperation that you've gotten from obama administration

officials, you can characterize the level of cooperation and candor that you've seen from trump campaign officials and those in the trump orbit? >> i can't think of a trump campaign official that we have asked to come in that has not -- that has not come in. that is accurate. there are some individuals that may have been involved in the trump campaign that, to this point, we might have limited the scope of our questions but with the full intent of them coming back when we knew a little more and pulled a few more intelligence threads. reporter: so far when you compared what they said to you to the documents that you ru reviewed, do you find they have been truthful? >> i think our interviews, to this point, outside of the five specific areas of buckets that we knew exactly what the universe of people we wanted to talk to, we knew what we were trying to find out, that very

much in an exploratory mode trying to piece together what people did, where they were, who they talked to, in most cases we have accessed e-mail records, text messages, phone records, voluntarily. usually when you get something like that voluntarily, somebody is going to tell you the truth when they answer the questions, but the reason that we can't definitively answer some of your questions today is we will take everything that our staff put in the transcripts andest that against every piece of intelligence and other interviews that we've done, to suggest that we've done that it everybody thoroughly would be misleading you. so let us go through that process, but i will assure that you if somebody has come in and not been truthful with us, we will catch them on that, and they will come back and that will be the subject of great intensity on our part. reporter: questions for both of you, based on the work done so

far, what's your assessment what the russians did in 2016, what they're doing and in and what's the intent for the future? >> i will just say, i think there is large consensus that they hacked into political files, released those files in an effort to influence the election. we think they actively tried to at least test the vulnerabilities of 21 states' electoral systems, and we feel that they used the social media firms both in terms of paid advertising and what i believe is more problematic but created false accounts and others that would drive interests towards stories or groups, and

generally those stories or groups were just so chaos and drive division in our country. and i think that the pattern they used in america they have used in other nations around the world, and i fear sometimes if you add up all they've spent that was a decent rate of return for them. >> let me add to it if i, can we can certifiably say that no vote totals were affected. that the tallies are accurate. the outcome of the election, based on the count of votes, they did not in any way, shape, or form, that we've been able to find alter. that i want to reiterate something that mark said. you are can't walk away from this, and believe that russia is not currently active in trying to create chaos in our election process. i assume that the same tactics

that we saw in montenegro, in france, in belgium, in the united states will continue to be tested within our structure of the election process here at home. reporter: thank you, senator, pivoting off that point, you just noted that facebook, they say ten million people saw their ads. there was an information campaign waged against one candidate by the russians, and, if they probed 21 states, perhaps more that we didn't catch. you can definitively look at the american public, senator burr, and say the election was not influenced in any way by this massive russian operation? >> let me take issue with the premise of your question. neither mark or i said there was a campaign targeted against one. we're looking at both campaigns. reporter: that's what the ica

insisted? >> the ica did not look at collusion of campaigns, the ica -- let me finish, russian involvement in the election process. we're in agreement with that. we have not come to any determination on collusion or russia's preferences. if we used solely the social media advertising that we have seen, there is no way that you can look at that and say that was to help the right side of the ideological chart and not the left, or vice versa. they were indiscriminate. one of the things that's most challenging to this investigation is with the exception of certain pieces that have already been discussed, it seems that overall theme of the russian involvement in the u.s. elections is to create chaos at every level, and i would tell

you the fact we're sitting here nine months later investigating it, they have been pretty darn successful. reporter: senator burr, how would you rate the administration and the country's response in terms of preventing something like this happening in the future? how ready are we for virginia's election in 2018? what more needs to be done? >> i'll let mark address virginia. but let me just say this, our role is not to necessarily suggest here are the things we need to do. our investigation should create a road map for committees of the proper jurisdiction to follow for states to follow. mark and i made a decision to take the initiative in our authorization bill, that we require in our authorization bill that there be a designated person in every state who has the security clearance to be briefed on election issues. we couldn't say secretary of state, because that's not the case in every state. we felt compelled with what we learned to make sure that just

the fact that somebody wouldn't clear at a high enough level would put a state out there not being notified. we've made steps in the right direction as we see those things that we think it's appropriate for us to do, we will do. if we see that it's not appropriate for us to do, we will hopefully convey that in a way that presents a road map for somebody. reporter: let me ask if the administration is paying close enough attention to the level of -- >> let me add to what you said, i think putting this impetus in our intel bill, meaning it seemed very strange to me that somehow there was an excuse being given. we can't tell the top election official because he or she may not have a high enough clearance. i'm glad to see, as of last friday, dhs has changed that position. but i do believe we need more, and this is -- i would say that this administration or any administration, a whole of

government approach about protecting our electoral system, but we need a whole of government approach for that matter, maybe a whole of society approach in terms of cyber vulnerabilities across the board. came from a hearing this morning where there was pretty uniform consensus that the equifax breach, where most of our private/personal financial information may be in the hands now of rogue elements, that there wasn't appropriate cyber protections there. this is that -- this is why i characterized this as the wild, wild west. we all need to step up our game. reporter: has the russian lawyer who -- >> thank you, i'm going to go right here. reporter: do you think this reporting to be done, your conclusion needs to happen before the 2018 election in order to warrant people what can happen next? and where do you think the most work needs to be done? >> i'm not going to set an artificial deadline, i think mark and i could agree.

we've got to make our facts as it relates to russia's involvement in our election public prior to the primaries getting started in 2018, which means sometime the first year. it's still my aspirational goal to finish this investigation in this calendar year, don't think i've changed, but when we started nine months ago, i saw three buckets and today i talked about five or six. so i didn't dream then what it would expand to. i can't predict what witnesses share with us that might lead us in another direction. >> one of the things, again, the committee has been very good at, you know, we're going to follow the facts, and we want to do it as quickly as possible, to do it right and follow the facts. reporter: the attorney met with donald trump, jr., you reached out to her, is she one of the

25 on the list? >> how do you know we haven't interviewed her? reporter: that's why i ask. >> thank you. [ laughter ] reporter: the question for both of you, is there any progress forward on creating legislation that would create new rules for regulating how it works in the platforms that republicans are discussing with democrats? you and senator klobuchar are working on it? >> senator klobuchar and i are working on something, that would be the lightest touch possible, and that light touch would focus on making sure that foreign paid-for advertising doesn't penetrate our political system and that there was an ability to at least look at the content that appears in political campaigns, the same way that similar to the rules that the rest of the media already have. i want to make sure we're hoping to finish that draft in the coming days, and i can

assure you one of the first people i want to share that with is my chairman, and because this ought to be an area where i think there would be broad bipartisan consensus. and my hope from some of the comments of the companies, i've heard at least comments that they are open to this type of disclosure. >> let me just state fact today. it is illegal today for foreign money to find its way into u.s. elections. so it's not like we've got to rewrite some morals. yes? reporter: i just want to get clarification on this, so so far you have not been able to verify the intelligence was weighing in on the side of -- >> we feel confident that the ica's accuracy will be supported by our committee. we're not willing to close the

issue, given nature of rest of investigation, we might get a thread of intelligence that suggests possibly an area of the ica that we, that our interpretation is different. we're leaving it open. it is not closed. i think any smart investigation would stay open until we complete. >> adam, that is one of the things we're trying to be very careful richard talked about meetings where we talked to most folks. it has to be talked to with balance of committee members. we're being extra cautious saying we're not reaching final conclusions until we had the conversations. >> would there ever be a point where the meddling from russia was overwhelming it could lead to negating the results of the election? >> maybe that is a theory people are working under. all i can tell you, votes were

counted, one person won. that is how it is going to stay. >> release of your committee's report, will there be any coordination what the senate judiciary found in its own investigation? >> listen, we're focused on our investigation? everybody has their jurisdictional lanes. my hope they stay within the lanes. we talk, i won't say regularly, we talk with the special counsel. the special counsel is focused on criminal acts. we're not focused on criminal acts. if we fine one, they are the first phone call we make. >> the president, as commander-in-chief charged with protecting the country. he hasn't spoken out on this issue. would you want him to do something tangible to protect the country from these ongoing attacks from russia? >> i think the vice chairman alluded to the fact though it was slow getting dhs to

recognize this, it didn't take as long as it did for the last administration to run the clock on it. so we're not trying to look back and point to things that were done wrong. everybody has done things wrong. >> i'm talking about prospectively. should the president now take what you're saying today, speak out against it, lead some kind of a effort to protect the country? >> i'm not asking the president to take briefing that we give at a press briefing about progress and assume that that in any way, shape or form fully encapsulates what our final report will say. what i will say is what the vice chairman pointed out, that the department of homeland security has taken a different posture. it's his administration. i'm sure they had his direction or his leadership's direction. we're pleased with the progress that they're making but some of the things that hopefully we

will be able to point out will be important steps to be incorporated in their thought process moving forward. thank you, guys. we got to run. >> thank you. neil: all right. you've been hearing the leading members, senator richard burr, republican from north carolina and his minority counterpart, mark warner, democrat from virginia, talking about where this investigation into the so-called collusion stands right now. they say that issue of collusion is still open but, again, burying the headline near end of that, you might have heard senator burr as well say no vote tallies were affected by this. votes were counted. one person has won. that is how it is going to stay. no matter what they come up with looking at role the russians played in the 2016 election, nothing will come forward that will change certainly the outcome or how we arrived at that outcome, or whether the russians ultimately affected the

final outcome in the total vote count. they have been busy bees. interviewed 100 individuals. additional 25 interview requests gone out at end of this month. no initial findings they can share. they are convinced russian intelligence officials are determined to interfering with our election process and will do so next year as well if we don't get a handle on this sort of thing. senator warner made a reference to 21 states electoral systems were tested, didn't say compromised, tested or left open. i don't know what he meant by that, whether that could have altered the vote there, when his coleader talked about the no vote was ultimately affected in the terms of the final tally, i take it they're looking into unusual anomalies in those particular states. didn't identify 21 states but

nothing was compromised as much as tested. whatever that means. this goes on. they hope to have conclusion reached by end of this year. that could be unlikely. it could be dragged into early next year. we stuck with this on a day the president arrives in las vegas to speak to victims of that attack and their families and those offering help because this is a backdrop for a story that is not going away but both leaders of that committee doing their best to make sure it is resolved and sooner, rather than later. again as i said the president arriving in las vegas a short time ago. he will be touring the scene of what is the worst u.s. mass carnage in history. to blake burman meanwhile at the white house, impact of all of this. lives got deirdre bolton here on some other developments as well. so, blake, to you first, obviously the president has long-held to the view that the russians didn't make him win this election. you have the chairman of this intelligence committee saying nothing that they have discovered thus far has indicated that the tally of the final vote would have been any

different but the investigation ensues. your thoughts? >> you can drop this into three different buckets, neil. first two politically, one you pointed out supporters of the president, maybe even the president himself reacts hey look, this has been an extensive investigation by the senate. as we heard from other folks not a single had been changed from the 2016 election. president trump won. he got votes fair and square. you talk about 21 states, senator burr was saying or senator warner actually was saying that the states were targeted but not necessarily penetrated. thus no votes changed at all. bucket one. the other bucket, will be those not fans of this president. potentially many democrats, hey look, clear what burr and warner are saying through many months, many hours of this investigation up on capitol hill that russia clearly tried to have some sort of role in the election, as it put multiple times, the word

they kept on using was chaos. russians in one form or another tried to create chaos that would touch all different fabrics of society, whether democrat, republican, live in this corner of the country, that corner, russia tried to have some sort of influence on it. this investigation, so it seems at least in the early phases, shows that russia tried to create chaos. bucket two. the third takes it outside of politics when you heard from senators burr and warner, neil, these social media companies were not necessarily on their toes at the beginning of all of this. now they realize the importance of this, the gravity of this, the height of all this. they will be dragging those companies, some of them at least, before the cameras up to capitol hill soon, to lay out to the american people what they're doing to try to stop this as they talked about, this is not just a 2016 issue, it is 2018, 20 to and beyond, neil. neil: blake burman, well-laid

out, my friend. thank you very, very much. i want to get to deirdre bolton, the clear proof, at least committee members are saying, russia tried to use social media platforms to change or influence the vote. there apparently 3,000 pieces of evidence of this effect. committee members said they won't share with the public. companies are free it do that. i guess that is the next stage here, whether they do, right? >> whether they do. i know the tech companies are very concerned about sharing and oversharing. something that blake just said, i think it is fascinating, this ad structure, which is essentially at the heart of the silicon valley business model, may have to be changed. and as blake said, maybe these companies didn't understand how they were going to be used but now, we all do. you. now we're all on the same page. neil: sorry, deirdre. senator warner made a reference to this i assume they were paid

in rubles or whatever. i never thought about that before. they have to be paid to use the advertising. how was, whether your facebook, how is that payment getting to you? let's say if it is in rubles it is clearly delineated and trackable. if it is not, through multiple parties gets to be a mess. >> i think through multiple parties. facebook, which is a successful business story, right? who doesn't want, if you have a company you would love to have two billion users. neil: sure. >> there is this premise that perhaps facebook and google for sure may have gotten just too big to monitor what we now see was really a threat. and then also as blake referenced, maybe didn't realize how seriously need to build up the security. neil: money is money. don't care where it is coming from. it is boosting our bottom line. there is that. >> the underlying question for these companies, do they have to completely redo the ad infrastructure before our next presidential election? neil: that seemed to be the

inference there. they're saying, they're going to be at this again next year. that is the russians. so we have to be on guard. presumably to your point, that was not so subtle pressure put on online companies. you better be aware of this. >> you better be aware, so there are changes i think coming to the way silicon valley does business. there have to be, if national security is now at stake. i think a little bit more control. we heard mark zuckerberg say about a week ago, i will hire 1000 new human mass, new employees to go through news and vet it, serve as editors. 1000 workers in light of a two billion usage platform may or may not just be a drop in the bucket. neil: yeah. deirdre, thank you very, very much. we switched you at last second. you handled it marvelously. the up shot from the ranking chairman and minority member of

committee, want to have some conclusions by end of the year, no guaranty we will, no vote tallies affected by the russian meddling. they don't deny that russian meddling and votes were counted and one person won, that is how they will stay, no matter what, comes of the investigation in other areas. meantime other developments we're following the president of the united states is in las vegas right now panned continuing a role that is certainly not scripted in the constitution to be the consoler-in-chief as well. he was playing that role in puerto rico ravaged by the storm. coming to the las vegas, ravaged by a much greater man-made natural disaster. hillary vaughn with the latest from there. hillary? reporter: neil, we got an update from sheriff lombardo who does say that the availing gas shooter's girlfriend, marilou danley, is being questioned by the fbi at their field office in los angeles. police confirmed danley is a person of interest in their

investigation. but law enforcement sources told fox news, she returned to the u.s. voluntarily. she remains not under arrest at this time. we know the fbi used law enforcement tools in order to track her down overseas in both japan and the philippines and they were able to follow her movements. we're also getting more information from danley's own family. her brother telling abc she called him avenues of the shooting broke, telling him she has a clean conscience. danley's sister also admitting g that marilou can help the please put together how and why this happened. >> no one, except marry lou, only marry lou can help. >> police are working through 60

body cams and processing paddock's electronics. that review is still ongoing, but nothing concrete found in the electronics that points to motive. the las vegas review that paddock was prescribed an anti-anxiety drug, valium in june. doctors say taking that type of drug can trigger aggressive behavior. neil, it has been three days since hundreds were gunned down at the music festival. you can see the festival behind me, the stage is still set up with thousands of items, purses bags, cell phones, left behind as people ran for their lives. this scene is locked in time. police say they are still going to process every piece of evidence that they find. neil? neil: all right. hillary, thank you very, very much. great reporting. what can investigators learn from this woman, stephen paddock's girlfriend? bill gavin and u.s. marine intel analyst bill stanford.

what is your sense what we could learn here? more to the point, that this money wiring which presumably she was beneficiary totaling better than $100,000, we don't know the duration or period of time that covers but clearly all going to the philippines, we're meant all to her. what do we look for here? >> neil, there is just a whole -- neil: i'm sorry. bill gavin, to you first. i apologize. >> neil, there is a whole plethora of avenues into, in to mary marilou danley the questions they want to ask her. i agree one of the most troubling is the $100,000 that has been sent to the philippines to her. what was that money for? when was it sent? when was she told to go, was she told to go? did she go on her own. neil, we can learn so much. we all know that living with anybody for limited amount of

time, and great amount of time as apparently they have, you know intimate things that are only going to come out through the other person. what did he say on the phone? who were his friend? did he stockpile all the weapons in the home? did he have some sort of storage facility? did he teller anything he was going to do? did he have psychotic problems prior to the whole thing that he sent her away. there are some things. i'm sure bureau and law enforcement authorities have at this particular time drafted all these kinds of questions. really profilers have looked what has been done and designed some questions also to ask miss danley. neil: bill, i apologize for the confusion. one thing i guess they will look into, the weapons cache he developed, better than two dozen weapons at the hotel room, better than that at least the two other homes, including the condo he shared with her in mesquite. the question coming up, she

would certainly notice him piling up the weapons, right? >> yes, neil. listen, i think the most interesting thing to me about this, what has nsa collected here? since 9/11 the rules have basically been changed about the collection of information for, from signals intelligence, and so i think there is an opportunity now for the authorities to go back and sort of recover all of the conversations that have been had, and, i'm very interested to see how that is going to be used going forward. i have full, faith, confidence we'll get to the bottom of this. neil: i have no doubt about that i agree with you. bill gavin, one of the things i want to ask you about though is, you hear from this woman's family that they were getting a little increasingly uneasy about paddock and his actions and his demeanor. of course there is no way to

telegraph to say this guy will kill people. but they were getting up easy. they checked with her as person of interest at very least, whether that was something she was noticing as well, right? >> that is strong possibility, neil. also the fact that allegedly he was given a medication for anxiety in recent -- >> that's right. >> she would probably know when he went to the doctor, or if he went to the doctor, what was concerning him. i tell you still, neil, the one hub thousand dollars to someplace like manila in the philippines, you and i both know full well the terrorist activities that have occurred there. that still need to be straightened out in my mind. neil: you're right. we don't know if that was all to her. you're quite right it point that out. that is hotbed for that kind of activity. >> it is. neil: gentlemen, thank you. so much breaking news. we appreciate you taking the time, because other news was breaking, beyond the president arriving in las vegas. today, for example, what he said about puerto rico earlier, about

forgiving all of its debt the. that is better than 74 billion-dollar in debt. which could explain why a lot of that debt is tanking in the open markets today, because the president just said, hey, they can't pay it. just drop it. after this. ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ can i kick it? ♪ yes you can ♪ well i'm gone

or a little internet machine? it makes you wonder: shouldn't we get our phones and internet from the same company? that's why xfinity mobile comes with your internet. you get up to 5 lines of talk and text at no extra cost. so all you pay for is data. see how much you can save. choose by the gig or unlimited. xfinity mobile. a new kind of network designed to save you money. call, visit, or go to xfinitymobile.com.

>> we're going to work something out. we have to look at their whole debt structure. they owe a lot of money to friends on wall street. we'll have to wipe that out. you can say good-bye to that. i don't know if it is goldman sachs, but whoever it is you can wave goodaway -- good-bye to that. the debt was massive on the island. >> doesn't mean the federal government will bailing out puerto rico's long term debt situation or bondholders. the president focused on reality, in order to get long-term fiscal operation back in order, puerto rico will have to figure out how to restructure the debt. i don't think you saw federal involvement in the bond situation in puerto rico. neil: maybe not. that is the omb director trying to clarify what the president said and i distinctly heard twice that the president say, you will have to get rid of that, you have to say good-bye

to debt, that $74 billion debt puerto rico owes to this neck of the woods. charlie gasparino, surprise follow-up to that. a lot of puerto rico tanking in open market. >> down on a cents on the dollar, we report on your show -- 50 cents,down to 30 cents. there is 40 different issues. neil: not just one thing. >> the main issue general-obligation bond which they just issued in 2014. so he is essentially screwing bond hold that's came now in 2014. neil: can he do that? can the president, he can put moral persuasion but -- >> he actually can. look at the, first off, puerto rico is not a state. you know, it is a tourer to. it will need federal assistance and federal guidance whatever bailout comes from the financial situation, minus, don't even put in the hurricane relief stuff. so federal government, as it did

with new york back in the 70s, had some role. to gerald ford, new york asked him for a bailout? ford actually did bailout new york. there was a whole bunch of federal assistance. neil: big mac bonds. all that. >> the state did the big mac bonds to help provide new york. neil: all this time i thought they paid them back in hamburgers. >> me too. known as big mac back then. remember that? federal assistance and federal guaranties. remember the government always plays a role. neil: what do they say about that? >> puerto rico has to issue debt in the future, has to, to rebuild, have an economy. you don't have to go heavily into debt. everybody needs a little debt a credit card. you have to pay it off. that is just the way -- neil: some reasonable strategy to pay it off. >> here is what he did in the spirit of rex tillerson, this was a pretty moronic statement,

i will tell you why. you basically told every bondholder or bonn buyer in the future, don't buy the debt, guess what? we'll just wipe it out when we get in trouble. i think that's a really dumb statement that he made. we should point out that donald trump has made similar dumb statements like this in the past when it came to debt. he once said you should restructure u.s. treasury debt to lower interest rates. guess what? that is essentially a default. neil: that is a default. changing obligation. maybe he is slyer than we think? maybe by putting that out there, he is forcing the lenders to take haircuts, bigger haircuts than they have? they already are. >> known as a cram-down. you can cram them down to the max. they have no power. neil: storm made it more complicated. >> but here es a the problem, if you really screw them, i was going to use another word.

neil: glad you didn't. >> these players will never come back to buy a bond from you again. then you're in a big trouble. if you can't have debt, municipal debt, or any sort of debt, you can't build roads. neil: don't argentina prove grudges die eventually. >> who is buying argentinian debt? >> you didn't have to. enough players came to rescue argentina. >> i don't think there is thriving market on argentina debt. neil: they're thriving. best steakhouses on the planet. >> it is cheap. no one has money. look at experience in new york city. this will show you why what he says -- trump loves to screw banks over. that is what he did as private investors, real estate, casinos went belly-up. a lot of banks wouldn't deal with donald trump. neil: didn't you come up with a you owe a little money banks own you, but when you owe a lot of

money you own them. >> when you screw the banks they don't deal with them. neil: he didn't come up with that. >> i'm 90% sure my professors, one of my professors in economics 101 at university of missouri came out. neil: i gotcha. >> i will say this, new york city had a technical default. missed a one bond payment or delayed one bond payment. neil: all it takes. >> took years for them to come back into the market. if you screw this up, if they really, if they really cram down the bondholders, guess what? neil: puerto rico has nowhere to go here? >> they should totally cram down, if they do what he says, they're screwed, long term. neil: all right. you're not a moron. i know that. >> who called him a moron today? neil: i don't believe it. >> i do. neil: it was incredible. >> i think it was f-ing moron. neil: stop it. this was good enough for a record. for others as well. what the heck is going on here? after this.

and administrative paperwork, your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges. at optum, we're partnering across the health system ♪ i'm... i'm so in love with you. ♪ ♪ whatever you want to do... ♪ ...is alright with me.

♪ ooo baby let's... ♪ ...let's stay together...

neil: all right. marilou danley, this is the woman who was identified as stephen paddock, the aassailant in las vegas, his girlfriend. she is expected shortly at the fbi's los angeles office for questioning. she was picked up from los angeles airport after a flight from asia. we'll learn more there, what she knew, when she knew it, whether recipient of all that money, better than $100,000, that paddock wired in $10,000 installments, over past days or weeks. maybe we'll have opportunity to pick that apart. what she knew and what she was seeing and what she was saying. former chicago police superintendent gary mccarthy on all of that. gary, what do you think, for the very least living with the guy she was aware or had to have been aware of all of these gun purchases, if he was, changing. we know enough from family members of hers saying they were

becoming increasingly concerned for her given erratic behavior of the stephen paddock. play -- through this if you can help me and what authorities hope to glean once they start talking to her. >> there are a number of questions that need to be run down. first of all, when did she leave, what was his condition when she left? as you said, did he send her that money and running down all of those firearms. you know one of the things that we have figure out, if he went from one-to-one hundred guns in two weeks, somebody should have been paying attention to that somehow. neil: right. >> i know gun rights activists will say otherwise. you know, what, neil, at time like this we have to stop being polarized in this country and find middle of the road things we can talk about. it is not more guns or no guns. there is middle of the road here. if he went from one gun, saw interview with his brother, he said, to his knowledge, his

brother only owned a gun or two. and as you we know now he has at least 50 that we know of, where did those guns come from? over what period were they purchased? there is a lot of things to be run down here. my expectation is that the girlfriend is going to give some sort of a statement about, you know, he sent her away on vacation. she didn't think anything of it. she thought he was fine. which isn't just going to fly. individually if he planned the thing by himself it, would have taken him months to pull together the type of things that he did. it took some expertise to put up cameras, to convert those firearms into automatic weapons. and it took some time to stockpile that many guns. so there is a lot of unanswered questions here. it is going to take a long time to figure out. plus, what does his computer say? i'm not sold on the fact that this may not be a terrorism incident. he certainly doesn't fit the

profile, but the profile of the event certainly looks like it. we november know what we'll find out. you have to let the investigation run its course. neil: it wasn't a flash of anger, right? it was so meticulously planned. he arrived a week ago tomorrow. before this country concert even started. and he patiently waited. and plotted. and furthermore on the weapons you talk about, this so-called bump stock that he used, that allowed semiautomatic weapons to mimic automatic weapons, that would not catch the attention of authorities, right? if you bought an automatic weapon to begin with, that would, you're on a specialist for that right? >> yeah. i don't think you can actually buy automatic weapons in most states in this country. so i'm not familiar with the different states but to my understanding, since 1986 you actually can't buy an automatic weapon in the united states. but again -- neil: but you can buy the bump stock thing right?

>> correct. neil: i'm not an expert, trust me but you can buy that without raising eyebrows, correct? >> you know what? i have a problem with that. we need to have a reasonable discussion here and stop fighting about it because people are dying. people are dying in, across the country in urban centers. it was interesting to listen to, i forget the talk show host, corden, from england, he is not accustomed to it. we've grown numb in country. it is not okay. neil: to praise gun rights, some of the guns and weapons used here. small arsenal and sophistication beyond most people's basic needs do raise eyebrows to your point. we'll see how this question and answer -- >> neil, one more thing. neil: i'm sorry. >> that second amendment was written at a time when we were talking about a well-regulated militia 250 years ago. to a smooth, bore muzzle-loading

flintlock one-shot rifle. i don't know if we should have high capacity guns like this in civilian hands. i don't see the need. if you're a hunter, you can get a bolt action 30.06, that is great. if you want to defend your family, there are other things there. i understand the second amendment, but i think we have to put it in perspective. neil: reasonable debate without going wacky on either side to your point. >> exactly. neil: garry mccarthy, former chicago police superintendent. we'll follow that. president arriving in las vegas as we speak. big story on yahoo!, any other day would be a lead story, three billion of its accounts, all accounts hit in the 2013 data breach. every single one of them. after this.

neil: all right. this would be like me offering dietary advice which i can never escape but, the irs hiring equifax to help with fraud protection. i kid you not. i thought this was a mistake when i saw it on our run-down. apparently it's not. gerri willis with all the details. gerri, incredible. >> it is incredible. one senator said, like giving lindsey lohan the key to the mini bar. i kid you not. that 2001 of the quotes. senate banking committee taking

issue of irs handling of no-bid account for fraud prevention to he equifax, asking former ceo richard smith, why, why the former employer should be entrusted with those responsibilities after losing data on 145 million americans. smith said this. >> why in the world should you get a no-bid contract right now. >> i'm not sure it was no-bid. my understanding i don't profession to have details. it is with the irs. i think a we had in the past being renewed. >> so the irs released a statement too today, the short-term contract was awarded to equifax to prevent alarms in service during a protest on another contract. it is ongoing identity validation needs of the irs. equifax provided identity proofing service to irs under another contract. this contract was signed well after the big breach was announced. and of course it is day two for

former equifax ceo on hot seat on capitol hill. many replays it was replay of yesterday. lots of criticism from both sides of the aisle. >> all of equifax action up to this point demonstrate that this simply is not a company that deserves to be trusted with americans personal data. >> but the pile-on didn't stop there. elizabeth warren, senator from massachusetts opined about the future concerns for consumers thanks to the hack. >> equifax did a terrible job of protecting our data because they didn't have a reason to care to protect our data. the incentives in this industry are completely out of whack. because of this breach, consumers will spend the rest of their lives worrying about identity theft. >> so, neil, lots of heat today. not a lot of answers. it all continues on capitol hill. neil: all right, gerri, don't forget the salad. oh, my gosh.

great reporting, gerri willis. by the way, we're getting a little bit of information from adam housley in las vegas with the president visiting las vegas. some of the concerns, questioning going on of marilou danley being interviewed in los angeles by fbi officials. reportedly has been cooperative in the last hour. questioned at start of interview, there was no detention of detaining her. she contacted a lawyer. adam reports i'm not sure if a lawyer is there with her. encouraged to do interview at headquarters, given option of nearby hotel, she chose headquarters. because she has been cooperative, they don't want to square her away. has a relative living in venice, california. could be a daughter. has option of staying with her last night. can't go back to nevada because the homes there are considered crime scenes. if we get anymore out of q&a, with officials there, fbi folks we'll let you know. a lot more after this.

♪ neil: when i assume your own show not interrupted, continue to go on, continue to entertain people who rely on that every time they come to vegas? >> i am convinced that tonight we will get back to doing what it is we do, trying to bring happiness into people's life.

neil: indeed he did. the show did go on. wayne newton considered one of the most successful entertainers in history. one of highest paid. he will continue to do what is best. he thinks it is needed. can sign knows hoping to do the same, get las vegas back, to remind folks its people are back and will overcome this. former nevada gop chair, andy tarkanian and we have nigel innis was well. nigel, what did you think of the attitude, not only show must go on but we have obligation of entertainers to bring it on? >> absolutely. no question about it. i had a talk with my nephew last night which is really upset what occurred. you know what he did? he got on computer, started writing. starting write be, typing engaging back into regular normal life. to have a little diversion from

the horrific massacre that took place. you know, i think we are going to bounce back. we bounced back from the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008. neil: absolutely. >> and this state, which has battle-born, will go back. i applaud wayne newton. i say absolutely the show must go on. we have a terrible tragedy. we must recognize that tragedy, mourn for the innocents that were, that died that were viciously murdered, but yes the show, will and must go on. neil: what a lot of people say it will go on but getting to the show, staying at casinos, that might be different. more security checks. maybe more magnetometers. that things are going to change, much as they did in new york and elsewhere after 9/11 where now you have to go through, security clearances to get into some buildings. that something similar like that

will happen in las vegas. what do you think? >> well, unfortunately something is going to have to change and if it does come to that level of having to have metal detectors, what not, so be it. i believe that the city here, the residents here will happily accept that. you know, not long ago we also had a woman who was not well, she ran into a crowd of people on the strip. so the next, necessary precaution that was brought up to put up more posts along the walkways. unfortunately we are in, we are living in some pretty violent times. so we'll have to really step up and see how we can prevent something like this from ever happening again. i know you can't, you can't ledge late evil. you can't control evil but you can at least try to eliminate what evil, what their intent is. neil: no, i hear you. nigel, one of the things with the president there today,

visiting those wounded in the attack, family member, rescuers, those sort of folks is that, as horrific as it was, it could have even been more horrific by factor of many times had it not been for a lot of brave folk who got in harm's way and stopped this craziness but that message doesn't get out, does it? >> no, unfortunately it doesn't get out enough. i think, the partisanship is at a very, very high level right now, and, the partisanship is not just among politicians but unfortunately members of the mainstream media as well, that are going to parse everything the president says and every little word, take it out of context and spin it in a way that is not helpful and healthy, for our country. no, i, i'm as sad as everybody else, but i'm also inspired. i'm inspired by the first-responders. i'm inspired by the policemen.

i'm inspired by those i was caught up in traffic with trying to give blood on west charleston at the blood center. i'm inspired by folk that i saw at the salvation army former homeless people, now working at the salvation army on owens and collecting supplies to help the victims. this city, from our first-responders, from our policemen, our law enforcement, feds that are here, i think right now is the safest city in the world, quite frankly. and i think the citizenry is engaged and is focused. i agree with amy. we can't let this kind of craziness ever happen again. i don't think we are. neil: amy, real quickly, talk about reining in number of outdoor venues in las vegas after this. what do you think of this? >> i had this discussion with my kids. i have four children. my son started going through laundry list of events his

teenage sister might not attend. you said knock it off. we can continue to pray for these affected an traumatized. we will not let this stop us. we are vegas strong. we'll move forward. neil: i won't mess with you, amy. niger, goes without saying. very encouraging words. good advice. we'll have more after this.

: my "business" was going nowhere... so i built this kickin' new website with godaddy. building a website in under an hour is easy! 68% of people... ...who have built their website using gocentral, did it in... ...under an hour, and you can too. type in your business or idea. pick your favourite design. personalize it with beautiful images. and...you're done! and now business is booming. harriet, it's a double stitch not a cross stitch!

build a better website - in under an hour. free to try. no credit card required. gocentral from godaddy. parts a and b and want more coverage, guess what? you could apply for a medicare supplement insurance plan whenever you want. no enrollment window. no waiting to apply. that means now may be a great time to shop for an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. medicare doesn't cover everything. and like all standardized

medicare supplement insurance plans, these help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide. it could help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. these types of plans have no networks, so you get to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. rates are competitive, and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. remember - these plans let you apply all year round. so call today. because now's the perfect time to learn more. go long. >> all right.

say what you will of this president. he has had to deal with more natural, man-made, calamitous disasters. horrific events. the consolener chief. we don't have it etched in the constitution, he has sadly had to play it again and again and again. and now in las vegas. trish: the girlfriend of the las vegas shooter is interviewed as we speak at fbi's office there in los angeles. investigators are hoping that she may be able to shed some light on why her 64-year-old boyfriend committed the deadliest mass shooting in our nation's history. earlier they had said she was not a person of interest. well, now she is. and we're getting new details about that shooting. police say the suspect planned this mass murder extensively. stocked his hotel room with arsenal and multiple cameras. this took a lot of planning. one has to wonder what exactly