to texas carrying kilmeasde and friends 590 a.m. >> they finally came to their senses. >> and more tomorrow. >> bye. >> bill: we're beginning what is arguably the biggest day yet for the young trump administration as we await two critical hearings on capitol hill. fbi director james comey set to go under oath for the first time on alleged russian interference as well as president trump's claim of wiretapping as they set the process for the supreme court nominee neil gorsuch. a busy day and we have a special edition of "america's newsroom." i'm brett baier. >> shannon: i'm shannon bream live. at 11:30 eastern the senate

judiciary committee will off a multi-day affair. each senator will give an opening statement and we'll hear from neil gorsuch himself. >> in an hour james comey and mike rodgers will testify before the house intelligence committee on alleged russian interference in the election and president trump's claim which is still unsubstantiated on the wiretapping of president obama. we'll have more on that in just a moment. first, let's go back to shannon in the senate skybox for what we can expect when the gorsuch confirmation hearing starts this morning. shannon. >> shannon: judge neil gorsuch comes in with a sterling resume but democrats are vowing to be tough on the president's pick for the nation's highest court. he's a graduate of columbia, harvard law school and got a ph.d. at oxford and where hes --

his wife and the american bar association has unanimously given him the highest ranking. gorsuch knows he's heading into potentially rough waters today. way back in 2005 he wrote an article that touched on how contentious the confirmation hearings can be calling them quote, political warfare and they're subject to vicious attacks. in recent days democrats have used the "f" word filibuster including a committee member who plans to push gorsuch, quote, aggressively. >> if he shows in his answers that he is out of the mainstream as his opinions indicate he may be i'll use every tool available including the filibuster to oppose him. >> shannon: when gorsuch was

confirmed in 2006 to his current seat it was by a unanimous vote. that means several of the senators now sitting on capitol hill had no objection to him back then but now he'll be a president trump nominee and that could change everything. gorsuch has vowed for not letting his views get in the way in his duties as a judge. >> a judge who likes every outcome reaches is likely a bad judge. stretching for results he prefers rather than stretching for those the law demands. >> shannon: the primary objections come from pro-choice groups and others on the left favoring hobby lobby and the little sisters of the core when they filed against the obama care contraceptive mandate. bret, back to you. >> thank you. now to the capitol hill to the white house. chief white house correspondent

john roberts joins us live. the committee hearing comes first and the president tweeting about the issue this morning. >> president up early letting supporters know what his thoughts are and sending a flurry of tweets sending james clapper and others stated there's no evidence potus colluded with russia and it's an excuse for running a terrible campaign. big advantage in electoral college and lost and finishing it off with the real story that congress the fbi and all the others should be looking into is the leaking of classified information. must find the leaker now. as to what we can expect today according to reince priebus there was indication there was no connection between the trump campaign and russian officials. we know michael flynn had

telephone conversations to krysliak and they're hoping today comey will say there is no evidence of any connection between the president or his top lieutenant and russia's attempts to influence the election and make this go away by saying that but comey has said there was no evidence that the president was wiretapped at trump tower as claimed. devin nunes said yes with chris wallace he had seen nothing to suggest the president was wiretapped. >> no evidence. >> no fisa warrant to tap trump tower. >> after you received the information? >> that's accurate. >> have you seen any evidence of any collusion between what i'll call trump world, associates of

campaign officials, trump world and the russians to swing the 2016 presidential election? >> i'll give a simple answer, no. >> no evidence of any collusion? >> no. >> so if nunes is indication here's what comey can do today. on the one hand give trump support by saying he's seen no evidence but also say there's no evidence of wiretapping and the president is up this morning making it about leaking and it's possible comey can say little in the public hearing and save the meaty stuff for the classified briefing. >> what else does president trump have on the schedule today? >> the very definition of a busy monday. he'll be meeting at 11:30 with tom price the speaker of the house, paul ryan and with the architect of obamacare about

health care and trying to get that through this afternoon and he'll be reaching with rex tillerson and then meeting for louisville, kentucky to have a rally where he will talk about health care, he'll talk about the budget and he'll get a sense there are people out there who really, really like him. >> john roberts. thank you. let's bring in our panel now. joining me now fox news sunday anchor chris wallace and national political correspondent steve hayes, editor and chief of the weekly standard and fox news contributor and leonard leo supreme court adviser to president trump. thank you, all. between the meeting at the white house and devin nunes at the white house you had all the power people on your show on sunday. >> thank you. i hope the president has better

luck than dr. emmanuel than i did and ran hot and couldn't have been more critical of the president's health care plan and very negative and said it would be a disaster. i hope he's more polite with the president but knowing the brothers i don't know you can count on that. >> let's talk about what we could hear from the fbi and nsa director today. >> there are really three issues. one is donald trump's tweet a little over two weeks accouple weeks ago he was wiretapped and you heard the news devin nunes gave and on friday he got a respond from the fbi on request of information of any fisa warrant and said there was no evidence of that. i think that's going to get cleared up quickly. the second is collusion. is there evidence of collusion between trump world as i call it

and the russians and there seems to be a difference of opinion on fox news sunday nunes said no but on another sunday show the ranking domestic adam schiff said well, there's circumstantial evidence and evidence of communication between trump associates and the russians. it will be interesting to see how comey and the nsa director play that. they may not talk about it much because that's an ongoing investigation and thirdly is this issue that is of great concern to devin nunes the unmasking. it's clear some trump associates were swept up in intelligence and that's the intercept of the communications he had in the phone call with the russian ambassador krysliak and nunes is really ticked off. it's an indelicate way of saying because that kind of conversation when an american is

swept up is supposed to be masked and hidden and it was leaked and feel it was by former obama administration officials trying to undercut the trump administration. >> that's what donald trump cares about most. leaks to him are the most important story and what congress should be looking at. what i'm interesting in seeing is if nunes, comey, other people are putting a stake through the heart of donald trump's unsubstantiated claim that president obama had him wiretapped whether through british intelligence or fisa wiretap or not does he keep doubling down on the claim. in the past donald trump is not the type of person who backs down from anything but it's going to be a pretty full-press against that. >> and frankly the focus, steve, on that, that wiretapping tweet from a couple saturdays ago has overshadowed some of the

sound-bytes about clapper and nunes and others who said they had no evidence of collusion. >> it has and that's what's backfired on the president. we can say with certainty when the president made the tweets that saturday morning at 6:30 in the morning doesn't have evidence and they tried to point to public open-source documentation, reports in the "new york times" and elsewhere they argued in support of their claim. nothing supported the president's first claim that barack obama ordered the wiretapping of trump tower. i think we will see some more -- get more information today about director comey about that and what took place there. i do think you're likely to see as chris suggests a real focus from chairman nunes on the question of unmasking. it's not an incidental masking. there's procedures in place from

having americans have their evidence seen in collection. those were violated or cast aside and the obama retooled the rules for nsa collection of information shortly before office and some will say it was routine and something considered as for back as the bush administration and others say it was done deliberately so if something was collected it could likely be leaked. whatever the truth is there's a paper trail. these questions are answerable. this is knowable. i hope one of the things we get out of this is more information about exactly how that unmasking took place. >> all right. leonard, let's turn to the gorsuch hearing. he's now met with 72 senators and by all accounts has had a welcome on both sides of the

aisle reception yet no democrats have come to his support they'll vote for him so where do we stand on this? >> i think the democrat strategy is to wait out the hearings and get a sense for the political climate and decide how much of a filibuster they'll have and there's no doubt there'll be one of one kind and the democrats will give 60 votes or it will be an all-out war. i think they're holding their fire to see what issues emerge. >> one thing you wrote about today i read was the press for specific answers. the democrats will press repeatedly for how a judge to be a justice would vote on certain things. there probably won't be a lot of

answers. >> he'll hear a lot of the cases and issues the senators want answers to and commitments with and he can't do that and there'll be a lot of self-contradictions because the democrats will say they'll want a judge who's independent and impartial and not a rubber stamp for president trump but then demand commitments and promises on case as they care about and abortion and gun control and he'll probably follow the standard judge ginsburg did when she refuse to answer those types of questions. >> there's a new add that refers back to ruth bader ginsburg. >> more than 70 times ruth bader ginsburg wouldn't answer. >> i can't answer the question. i can't give you an answer. >> when the democrats complain remember -- >> i don't feel equipped to

address that subject. >> you not only have a right to choose what you'll answer and not answer but in my view you should not answer. >> so there you have it. that will probably be used in defense of the nonanswer. >> it's been enshrined as the ginsburg rule you do not give a hint how you'd rule on any case that may be upcoming before the court. one thing i have to say about the supreme court debates is the hypocrisy of both sides when one president makes the appointment they make arguments. in this case it was bill clinton's nominee and ruth bader ginsburg and you see the democratic chairman of the senate judiciary committee joe biden saying there's no reason in the world you should have to answer that kind of question. now you'll have a republican president and chair and see some democrats doing exactly the

opposite saying it's outrageous if you don't answer and it goes on with the question of the filibuster and trying to block nominees. it just depends if you're in the minority or majority or who is appointing the justice. complete hypocrisy. >> more to talk about today. a busy day and more coming this hour. back to capitol hill and the skybox, shannon. >> shannon: we're going to check in on capitol hill bret because the confirmation hearing will kick off for neil gorsuch. will democrats try for revenge because president obama's nominee never got a chance. we'll talk to former senator kelly aye -- ayotte and james comey will testify we're told and we'll finally get answer russia and the election and talk to congressman trey gowdy and

first the chairman, devin nunes. >> the president doesn't physically wiretap somebody so if you take the president literally it didn't happen and the information we got on friday continues to lead us in a direction. trying your best. along with diet and exercise, once-daily toujeo® may help you control your blood sugar. get into a daily groove. ♪ let's groove tonight. ♪ share the spice of life. ♪ baby, slice it right. from the makers of lantus®, ♪ we're gonna groove tonight. toujeo® provides blood sugar-lowering activity for 24 hours and beyond, proven blood sugar control all day and all night, and significant a1c reduction. toujeo® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. it contains 3 times as much insulin in 1 milliliter as standard insulin. don't use toujeo® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar

or if you're allergic to insulin. get medical help right away if you have a serious allergic reaction such as body rash or trouble breathing. don't reuse needles or share insulin pens. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which can be life threatening. it may cause shaking, sweating, fast heartbeat, and blurred vision. check your blood sugar levels daily. injection site reactions may occur. don't change your dose of insulin without talking to your doctor. tell your doctor about all your medicines and medical conditions. check insulin label each time you inject. taking tzds with insulins, like toujeo®, may cause heart failure that can lead to death. find your rhythm and keep on grooving. ♪ let's groove tonight. ask your doctor about toujeo®. ♪ share the spice of life.

>> have you seen any evidence of any collusion? >> the simple answer, no. there's direct evidence of today ception. >> we know for sure the obama administration did spy on flynn. it's important whoever released that go to jail. >> bret: that's a sampling of what awaits fbi director james comey on what he knows as well as the allegations of wiretapping at trump tower coming directly from the president. congressman trey gowdy sits on the house intel committee and will be part of thing today. thank you for being here. good morning. i want to ask you what you're looking for? >> i'm looking for evidence to support the allegation of collusion or coordination or the legal word is conspiracy. what's the motive behind that if any of that evidence exists. what the motive behind the

collusion. is there a basis for what the president tweeted and fourthly and very importantly is the unmasking of a u.s. citizen which will jeopardize our surveillance programs. >> bret: knowing what you know how can you get the answer to the first part if there's an investigation happening? >> this public hearing will be dicey for lots of reasons, bret. director comey cannot discuss an ongoing investigation but that assumes the investigation is ongoing and it may not be. they may have concluded there was a russian effort to interfere with our election but there was no coordination or conspiracy. i would caution your viewers. this is the first step in what may be a long process. no jury should make up their minds after the first witness and wait until all are called and it may take month. >> explain the disparity between

the chairman of your committee saying no, there's no evidence of collusion between the trump world and the russians and the ranking member of your committee saying well, there's circumstantial evidence going forward. >> well, bret, with all due respect to the chairman and the ranking member neither are fact witnesses. let's go with what the fact witnesses, clapper, brennan, comey. they support what chairman nunes says, there is no evidence the collusion was designed to help trump. if that is not true we'll begin to hear that today. i am less interested in what members of congress think or feel. i'm more interested in what first-hand witnesses who have access to first-hand knowledge will tell the committee either publicly or privately. so the fact that adam schiff is making allegations today is his day to back them up. let's see if there's any

evidentiary basis. >> bret: we'll let the facts unfold as the hearing unfolds but it's clear from the fbi director and nsa director there is no wiretapping to back up the president's tweets about president obama. will you then call for president trump to apologize to president obama. >> bret, i can only tell you what i do in my own personal life when i make errors i apologize. sometimes in marriage i even apologize if i haven't made a factual error. if you say something that is false you should apologize both to the person you made the accusation against and the broader community. if you're tuning in to see evidence president obama wiretapped president trump i'd suggest you flip over to espn and watch highlights from the game last night. assume unless i'm dead wrong

there is no evidence to support president obama wiretapped president trump. the analysis doesn't end there. you have the felonious dissemination of classified information which will jeopardi jeopardize 320 million americans and i would love it if the media were as focussed on the leak as the wiretap tweet. >> bret: while you have you, your thoughts on the other side of the capitol the confirmation of neil gorsuch. >> he has the one quality i look for most in any judge which is humility. when he said i have disagreed with conclusions i have reached in my own legal opinions i knew what he meant. he never substitutes his opinion for legislative body. it's judicial humility and wish we mad -- had more of it.

>> bret: we'll tune in when it gets underway at 10:00 am eastern time and congratulations to your gamecocks. shannon. >> shannon: after the intelligence committee gets underway with the critical hearing judge neil gorsuch will get his day in the senate. will democrats move to block the pick? meanwhile, the president said to meet with paul ryan and the so-called architect of obamacare. will republicans get closer to getting the bill passed? >> i feel very good about it exactly. it's exactly where we want to be and the reason i feel so good about this is because the president's become a great closer. s.

to find the companies and talent of tomorrow, search for our page, jobsinnewyorkstate on linkedin.

>> bret: the fox news alert getting more information from the president of the united states and his twitter feed. he's very active this morning

tweeting about all the contact with the clinton campaign and the russians and is it true the dnc would not let the fbi in to look. perhaps he's laying questions for the members of the house intel committee set to start in half an hour. we'll see but we're monitoring the twitter feed. and neil gorsuch making preparations ahead of the grilling and today's the set up to that. in 90 minutes he'll appear before the senate judiciary committee kicking off a confirmation hearing expect to go a few days. chief congressional correspondent is outside this morning. what are the republicans saying. >> many see neil gorsuch as president trump's best decision so far. gorsuch dazzled a lot of the senators in one-on-one hearing ahead of the process. republicans senators like his

intellect and hoping he'll serve for decade. they're wondering how democrats will handle the judge's nomination. >> i think it's 50/50 whether the democrats filibuster. they don't have good arguments against gorsuch but furious we'll have a conservative nominate and confirmed. i believe within a month or two neil gorsuch will be an associate justice. >> they are clearly irritated at obama's nominee was never considered and they'll try to draw judge gorsuch out to get him to weigh in on controversial issues. >> during the donald trump said in june he'd be picking a justice based on a list and selection by the federal society and heritage foundation. they've taken position.

they know what judge gorsuch think of breaking up the circuit that ruled against donald trump in the muslim ban case and he has to be explicit and forthcoming with the committee. >> expect judge gorsuch to avoid weighing in on controversial issues. bottom line the questions start tomorrow and we should get a line of questioning and how republicans plan to praise his nominee as he's set to go forward. day one of four days of questioning and interaction here for a pick for the high court, bret. >> bret: i'm not sure they use the prep word "stepping in it" but i think we can do it. it's on cable. it's all good. outside the hearing room, mike, and from the skybox shannon bream. >> shannon: a little bit of background on neil gorsuch. in 2005 he joined the justice

department as an assistant to the attorney general and was joined to the 10th circuit court of appeal and he would be expect to be the split between the conservatives and liberals and kelly ayotte now joins us live. >> great to see you, shannon. >> shannon: you've been with him through the 72 meetings on the hill and senators from both sides of the aisle. i heard they come out of the meeting and say it's hard to find a flaw. publicly they may have different bluster but privately they seem pretty wowed by him. >> he's so exceptional. he's a brilliant jurist and you see people from the legal community and across the political spectrum coming out to support him including former president obama's solicitor general and he's brilliant. he's got an exceptional

educational background and served on the 10th circuit ten years and is a judge's judge and a nice person. i spent eight to ten hours a day with him in each of the meetings and he's an impressive individual. >> shannon: the american bar association think so too. they gave him the highest possible rate could and 11 years ago when he was voted onto the bench it was unanimous voice vote. a number of the senators now talking about opposing him voted for him in 2006. >> shannon: that's right. he went through the senate without objections because he's so well qualified and ten years on the bench he's gotten better. he's prepared to serve on the united states supreme court. very well qualified and think you'll see that in the hearings and the american people will hear a wonderful family man, an outdoorsman and someone who cares with the country and an

independent judge and focussed on making sure the constitution is the core of his jurisprudence and he's an excellent writer. president trump made eight great choice. >> shannon: those opposing him have a list of concerns that president obama's nominee never got a chance and this is a chance for a bit of revenge and say he's got ten years on the bench. it's different from the first time they have a record they can look at. the left doesn't like he wrote favorably about hobby lobby and the little sisters of the poor. i hear from pro-choice groups every day who say he is somehow doing -- going to be part of overturning roe v. wade.

>> he's someone who follow the law that congress passes around you'd think that's what you'd want from a judge not to make up the law and also hear they've cherry-picked cases from his record. he has a very balanced record. he's someone who's shown his judicial independence and will speak strongly about his record before the hearing. >> shannon: it's 52ans, 48 democrats and those who caucus one him and has to get 60 to get past the first procedural hurdle. will there be eight democrats to come along or will have to follow the rules to get him confirmed. >> i hope there'll be eight democrats because if they don't support this nominee my question is who would they support. here you have someone where you've seen the reaction from

the legal community from both sides of the aisle and got the highest rating from the aba and has a judicial record that shows independence and writer who can clearly communicate the law. you have to ask yourselves if they're going to block judge gorsuch would it be just to be obstructionist or what are the principles to drive that. those are the questions they have to ask themselves. >> shannon: now america will have a chance to view him and meet him and we'll see what influence the senators have in this. back to you. >> bret: to the other big story of the day. fbi director james comey under oath for the first time since president trump took office. what will we learn? and north korea test new rocket engine despite repeated warnings from the u.s. new reaction from president trump.

>> the north koreans are acting very badly. thank you. let it sink in. shouldn't we say we have the lowest price? nope, badda book. badda boom. have you ever stayed with choice hotels? like at a comfort inn? yep. free waffles, can't go wrong. i like it. promote that guy. get the lowest price on our rooms, guaranteed. when you book direct at choicehotels.com. book now.

now a house committee will begin the first hearing on the russian interference and as the discuss the meddling and wiretapping climb. catherine herridge joins us live with the latest. hi, catherine. >> sharnon, i'm 20 yards from the hearing room in the longbuilding and for the better part of two hours people have lined up to get a set inside because the fbi director james comey and nsa director mike rodgers have first-hand knowledge and know if there's a criminal probe and also know if there were surveillance orders from a national security court

targeting the trump team or if the communications were picked up through incidental means. >> were they using surveillance activities to know what they were up to. we know that happened with general flynn and it was leaked. >> this is the biggest issue to watch for the hearings we anticipate will run three hours. as the issue of incidental collection. that means the intelligence community is targeting a foreign national and in the process pick up the communication of an american citizen. there's protection to minimize the identity of an american citizen and we know through reporting at fox news one member of the trump team, mike flynn was unmasked in the process. meantime democrats will be pushing on whether there was

evidence of collusion between the trump team and russian intelligence and the ranking democrats and on sunday had said he remains unconvinced. >> there's circumstantial evidence of collusion and direct evidence i think of deception. that's where we begin the investigation. now, i don't want to prejudge where we ultimately end up and of course there's one in the to -- thing to say there's evidence and to prove it but there's enough to conduct an investigation. >> the committee had several requests out in advance of the hearing today and did get a response back from the justice department but they're still waiting for information from the cia and nsa of the unmasking of an american. >> shannon: catherine herridge is live watching that. back to bret. >> bret: let's bring back our

panel. lisa boothe president of high noon strategies and steve mara and chris. the president is engaged through twitter as mentioned. what do you think he's laying the groundwork for? >> interesting. he's not tweeting about gorsuch but the comey hearing. he's interested in leaks as catherine just described, unmasking of incidental collection of americans on the other end of a phone line from a russian who was being surveilled legally and said the democrats pushed the russian story as the excuse for losing the election the story of russian meddling. it's puzzling to me. you had top officials saying there's no evidence of collusion. that's a win so why not pocket that and move on. >> i think the president has shown he has a hard time moving on sometimes. you're right, the reality is there's been a lot of narrative

have continued to be pushed that have been unproven. and even in terms of russia influencing the election there's nothing to point to that. if you look at things like the unsubstantiated sexual conduct allegations received 430 minutes of coverage and wikileaks got minutes of coverage and if russia tried to influence the election there's nothing to point to the fact russia influenced the election and chairman nunes said with chris wallace yesterday he sees no evidence of collusion. there's not been an ounce of evidence to point to collusion between the trump people and russia. >> bret: the whole show is essentially one big tease for fox news sunday. we brought in sound bites. >> story of our lives. >> bret: it was a good show.

your thoughts as we get ready to hear the hearing? >> it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out. i think and i get the sense from having talked to devin nunes yesterday on fox news sunday they'll be forward leaning in being able to say what president trump said in the tweet there was wiretapping of him at trump tower they'll say it's not true because there's no investigation going forward. you heard a variety of people including devin nunes yesterday saying there's no collusion. i'll be curious whether james comey can say that because if there's an ongoing investigation i'm not sure he'll be willing to make that statement and come to that conclusion. you may see a negative story for trump there was no tapping but you may not see a positive story for trump there was no collusion at least from the mouth of james comey. that will be interesting. and then there is the whole other question about the leaking of people's names that quote,

unmasking of michael flynn. it was interesting yesterday devin nunes at one point said we're trying to get everybody at the scene of the crime and i was struck by that and i said what's the crime and he said there's only one crime, one fact of illegality that's unmasking the leaking of the name of someone swept up in incidental intelligence intercepts. that's the only crime. >> bret: we'll await the two hearings on capitol hill. the obamacare repeal and replace raging on. the president meeting this morning with speaker paul ryan who was on fox news sunday who is confident the american health care act will pass. >> you say people are at the table the president is bringing people to his table. i'm impressed how the president is helping us close the bill making the improvements we've been making ab getting the

votes. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ sfx: engine revving ♪ (silence) ♪

>> bret: as we await the start of the comey hearing the house intelligence committee hearing with james comey and the nsa director mike rodgers you see they're waiting for him to arrive.

health care is in the headlines and president trump will meet with paul ryan the ac -- architect for the repeal and replace and with congress set to vote thursday speaker ryan said hes living up to his name. >> we're making improvements to the bill and the reason i feel so good about this is because the president's become a great closer. he's helped negotiate changes to the bill with members from all over the caucus. i call it getting the sweet spot. >> bret: praising president trump. steve, the numbers seem to be shift house at least if you believe the meeting in the oval office with republican study committee members the president said were all nos and now yess. the real question is still the

senate. >> i think there's still a question in the house. you have more than two dozen members that expressed opposition or strong reservation to this you talk to members of the republican members and they wouldn't have scheduled a vote for thursday if they thought there wasn't chance for it to go down and i still think there's arm-twisting and one thing speaker ryan said is he wants president trump to be a closer. that's what he's hoping for this week and there was interesting news over the weekend out of mar-a-lago with the head of the house freedom caucus met members of the trump team for hours to go over the details of conservative objections to this health care proposal and what the trump team might add to win over conservative votes. >> bret: is there a plan b, mara? >> that would be extraordinary.

if it doesn't survive they go on to tax reform -- >> bret: couldn't it start off? >> they can start and send it back but what i think they're counting on to get this over the finish line is two simple questions, one, do you want to repeal obamacare or not and two, do you want to hand the new president a defeat on his first major piece of legislation. those are big pressures on a party that has complete control in washington. if the answer is no and they don't pass it then i think that's a huge huge setback. >> bret: we're looking live at the house intelligence committee and you see devin nunes and adam schiff and let's bring in shannon bream with the gorsuch hearing later and we're watching and waiting for the hearing on the house intelligence committee to start. shannon. >> shannon: what a busy week in washington. it's jam packed then we find out the house said the rules committee on wednesday will

start moving on the health care bill as you talked about. they're trying to get to the floor by thursday for a vote. it's an ambitious week and it's been a break-neck pace. president trump said this is the type of presidency he wanted to have and get things moving and has lived up to the reputation as someone who sleeps four and five hours a night and wants to get things done and for the first time a wider audience will meet and see and hear him. we'll start with the senators making their opening statements. we heard a split privately many democrats and republicans alike said he was very impressive in their private meetings as a senator. we talked about the fact the was approved unanimously ten years ago to become a 10th circuit justice. he's written and talked about what the confirmation hearings have turned into he called them "political warfare." he wrote that before he knew

he'd be in the hot seat and all of washington is keyed in on the vote. excuse me, on the hearing on the house side we're monitoring. folks are very anxious to get answers on a lot of things from russian involvement to wiretapping claims. as you can see it looks like we now have fbi director james comey who always stands out in a crowd coming and heading towards that hearing, brad. >> bret: he's walking towards the house intelligence committee. you'll also have the national security agency director mike rodgers testifying. let's listen in here. [multiple chatter] >> bret: not expected he'd stop and take a press conference as he heads into the committee room as the members are getting ready. he's walking into the room. we're told there'll be opening statements from devin nunes and the ranking member, adam schiff from california.

we're hearing there'll be 15-minute round of questions. you can imagine -- what we don't know is there'll be opening statements from the fbi director and nsa director. chris, your thoughts. >> it's interesting because we heard a lot about comey and what he think and famously after the trump tweet another leak he privatelied asked the justice -- privately asked the justice department to refute the allegation of wiretapping at trump tower but it's the first time we'll hear from him since testifying from hearings in the fall about the clinton e-mail scandal. this is very unusual that an fbi director take such a public role and it goes back to july 5 of last year when he famously held the news conference to say while he felt hillary clinton had been extremely careless in her handling of classified material

in her private e-mail server he did not believe there was the basis or grounds to prosecute her. from that we got the hearings in the fall and eight days before the election when he put out the statement he was re-opening the investigation because they had found some material, e-mails on anthony wiener server and it's unusual for an fbi director to such a public fbi director. >> bret: and unusual to hold a public hearing. it's rare. most their hearings are held behind closed doors in a classified session and there will not be one and trey gowdy said the may be tip toeing

through the tulips. >> republicans would like to put this russian story to bed because they want to move forward with what you pointed out earlier with the schedule whether it's obamacare or taxes and this is a distraction to more for war and if you're the democratic party you want too keep it going because that's all they've talked about and you can't take the russia story and run an election. they'll have to have a legislative agenda or something to run on. there's a danger for them to continue to beat a dead horse unless something interesting pops up in the hearing or coming days because at this point as i'd mentioned earlier there's been nothing coming forward to prove any collusion between the trump campaign and russians. at some point they have to move forward and accept the results of the election. >> bret: that's the same message on the senate side. the senate intelligence

committee with burr and warner coming out with their own statement that kind of matches that. >> i thought it was interesting. the very first phrase i believe of that joint statement was biss bissed -- based on the information we now have. everyone wants to leave a sliver of daylight something else could surface. we don't know the status of the investigations of confirming there are specific investigations how long they have been going on and when they'd wrap up. i thought it was interesting there was a smallest hint from the statement saying based on what we know now we do know and it's the house side that all of washington will be watching. >> bret: as the fbi director makes his way in the room. you can see the cameras flashing, steve. >> i think your point about this being a public hearing is a good one and an important one. i think that was a priority for chairman nunes. there'll be a second public

hearing next tuesday featuring form former cia director john brennan and sally yates and former acting attorney general. i think we're likely to have because of the sequencing a focus today on the unmasking question on who revealed mike flynn's name and how that process happened and next week maybe more focus on the kinds of allegations president trump made in his tweets and the broader questions on what the obama administration did, if anything, to ensure the information was leaked. >> mara. >> republicans want the investigation to go forward because the russians meddling though there's no collusion between the trump campaign and russians was still such an egregious breach of our national security that they want to get to the bottom of this including people like lindsey graham. i do think there's a good point

on democrats not beating the dead horse however, i think democrats are planning to bring lots of other issues to run on in 2018 beyond russia. >> in the past eight years the democrat -- >> bret: let's listen into the chairman, devin nune pes. >> it's important to clear the air regarding unsubstantiated media reports. to our guests in the media, welcome. we appreciate you being here. i also expect the proper decorum will be adhered and disruptions will not be tolerated. now i'll recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of an opening statement. the putin regime has a long history of aggressive actions against other countries

including the outright invasion of two neighbors in recent year as well as the brutal military action in syria to defend the assad regime. but the hostile acts take many forms aside from direct military assault. for example the kremlin is waging an international disinformation campaign through the rt propaganda network which traffics an anti-american conspiracy theory that rival untruths and they have a history of launching cyber attacks on a wide range of countries and industry. the baltics and other russian neighbors have long decried these attacks but their warnings went unheeded in many nation's capitols and it comes as no shock to the committee.

we've been monitoring russia's hostility and our inability to predict their plans however, the russian measures of the election meddling is troubling one in the is clear it's focussed wide attention on the presses threats by the autocrats. committee members have issued pleas for stronger action against russian belligerence the obama administration was committed to the notion against all evidence that we could reset relations with putin. and it routinely ignored our warnings. i hope today's hearing will shed light on three important focus points on the committee's investigation on russia active measures. first, what actions did russia undertake against the united states during the 2016 election campaign and did anyone from

political campaign conspire in these activities. number two, were the communication of officials or associates of any campaign subject to any kind of improper surveillance. the intelligence community has strict procedures for handling information pertaining to any u.s. citizens subject even to incidental surveillance and the committee wants to make sure surveillance activities have followed rules and regulation. there's not been a physical wiretap of trump tower however, it's possible other surveillance activities were used against president trump and his associates. number three, who has leaked classified information. numerous current and former officials have leaked purportedly information. we aim to determine who has leaked or facilitated leaked

information so the individuals can be brought to justice. i hope the committee's bipartisan investigation will result in a definitive report on the russian involvement during the campaign and we encourage anyone who has information to come forward and speak at the house intelligence committee. i again thank the witnesses for helping shed light on these issues and recognize ranking member schiff. he's asked for 15 minutes for his opening. >> mr. chairman, i thank you and thank general comey and admiral rodgers as we hold the first hearing on the information campaign waged against our 2016 presidential election. last summer at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential presidential campaign a foreign adversarial power threatened to weaken our democracy and influence the

outcome for one candidate and that was russia upon the direct instructions of the ruler vladimir putin in order to help donald j. trump become the president of the united states. the active measures campaign may have begun as early 2015 when russian intelligence services launched spearfishing attacks designed to penetrate the computers of a broad array of republican and democrat party organizations and think tanks and entities. it continued through the winter of 2016. while at first the hacking may have been intended solely for the collection of intelligence they weaponized the stolen data and used platforms establish the intel services such as dc leaks and existing channels like wikileaks to dump documents. the stolen documents were almost uniformly damaging to the

candidate vladimir putin despised hillary clinton and by the daily drip of disclosures it benefitted donald trump's campaign and they're reflected in the consensus conclusion of our intelligence agency. we'll never know whether the intervention was determinative and it's unknowable whether it would have led to a different result for the purpose of investigation it doesn't matter. what matters is the russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they'll do so again. ours is not the first democracy to be attacked by the russians this way. they have been interfering in the affairs of allies for decades. what is striking is the degree to which the russians were

willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on earth. it ought to be a warning to us if we thought the russians would not dare to blatantly interfierce we were wrong and if we do not do our best to determine how they accomplished this attack on our democracy and what we need to do to protect ourselves in the future we'll only have ourselves to blame. we know a lot with the russian operation about the way they many -- amplified the damage and the rt and the kremlin's media arm but there's a lot we don't know. most important we do not yet know whether the russians had the help of u.s. citizens including people associated with this trump campaign. many of the trump campaign personnel including the president himself have ties to russia and russian interest. this is course is no crime

however, if anyone in the trump campaign aided and abetted the russians it would be a crime and a shocking betrayal of democracy in history. in europe where the russian have a longer history of political interference they've you'd techniques to undermine democracy. they employed the hacking and leaking of documents as they clearly did here and also used bribery, black mail, compromising material and financial entanglement to secure co- co-op -- . and determine whether it's supported by the raw intelligence and whether the

u.s. government responded properly and whether the leak of information about michael flynn or others is indicative of a systemic problem. we have also reviewed whether there's evidence to support president trump's claim that he was wiretapped by president obama in trump tower and found no evidence whatsoever to support that slanderous accusation and hope director comey can put that to rest. today most of my democratic colleagues will be exploring the potential involvement of u.s. persons on the russian attack on our democracy. it's not that we feel the other issues are less important, they are very important but rather because this issue is least understood by the public. we realize of course the witnesses may not be able to answer many of the questions in open session. they may or may not be to disclose even whether there is an investigation but we hope to present to you directors and the public why we believe this

is a matter of such gravity it deserves a thorough investigation not only by us as we intend to do and the fbi as well. here's a preview of what i expect you'll be asked by members. whether the russian active measure campaign begin as nothing more than an attempt to gather intelligence or was meant to be more we do not know and a question we hope to answer. we do know this, the months of july and august 2016 appear to have been pivotal. at this time the russians began using the information they'd stolen to help donald trump and harm hillary clinton. so the question is why. what was happening in july/august of last year and were u.s. persons involved? here's some of the matters drawn from public persons alone that

we believe concern us and should concern americans. in early july carter paige travels to moscow on a trip approved by the trump campaign. while in moscow he gives a speech critical of the united states and other western countries for what he believes is a hypocritical effort on fighting corruption. according to christopher steele a former british intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by u.s. intelligence, russian sources tell him paige had a secret meeting with the ceo of rostnov and according to steele's russian sources paige is offered brokerage fees on a deal with a 19% share of the company. according to reuters the sale of the 19% share of rostnov later

takes place with unknown fees. and according to russian source the campaign offered documents damaging to hillary clinton which the russians publish through an outcome of undeniability like wikileaks in exchange for a trump administration policy that deemphasizes russia's invasion of ukraine. policies of which have now come to pass. in the middle of july paul manafort from the trump campaign and long on the payroll of russian-ukrainian interests attends the russian convention and mr. paige also attends the convention manafort was chosen

as the go-between and ambassador kislyak who also meets with carter paige and potential advisors. it was j.d. gordon who approved paige's trip to moscow. ambassador kislyak meets with national security campaign chair and attorney general jeff sessions. sessions would later deny meeting with officials prior to his hearing. the platform is changed removing the section removing the lethal weapons to ukraine.

ma ma manafort denies the platform and states it was removed at the insistence of the trump campaign. later j.d. gordon includes the provision. later in july and after the convention the first stolen e-mail detrimental to hillary clinton appear on wikileaks. there was a claim of responsibility for hacking the dnc and giving the documents for wikileaks. the leading cyber security firms review the evidence of the hack and conclude with high certainty it was the work of apt28 and apt29 known to be russian intelligence services. the u.s. intelligence community later confirms the documents were in fact stolen and was acted as a front and later in

july president trump says he love wikileaks and encouraged the russians to hack the e-mails saying they'd be richly rewarded by the press. on august 8, roger stone a long-time trump political advisor and self-proclaimed dirty trickster said he communicated with assange and denies links to the leaks to russian intelligence and then stone redicts john podesta's personal e-mails will be release and said it will soon be his time in the barrel hash tag crooked hilary and in the weeks that follow they show impression and that they'll educate the

american people and two days later it comes. wikileaks releases the first batch of podesta e-mails. the release of john podesta e-mails continue on a daily basis until the election. on election day in november donald trump wins. donald trump appoints one of his high-profile surrogates michael flynn to be his national security advisor and had been paid by the kremlin's propaganda outfit rt in the pass and has a secret conversation with middle class kislyak and he president assures the country no such conversation has happened. the president is informed flin has lied and pence has mislead the country. the president does nothing.

two weeks later the press revealed flynn has lied and the president is force to fire mr. flynn and then praise the man who lied, mr. flynn and castigates the press for exposing the lie. now, is it possible the removal of the ukraine provision from the gop platform was a coincidence? is it a coincidence jeff sessions failed to tell the senate about his meetings with the russian ambassador in a more private meeting when the u.s. election was under attack? and is it a coincidence michael flynn would lie about the meeting with kislyak about sanctions over russian hacking of our election designed to help donald trump. is it a coincidence the russian gas company sold a share after

paige was offered a deal on fees of that size. is it a coincidence that russia had stolen documents and it it a coincidence john podesta would have his e-mail hacked and pu publish before he was aware his private e-mails would be exposed? is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? yes. it is possible. but it is also possible maybe more than possible that they are not coincidental and not disconnected and the russians used the same techniques to

corrupt in europe and elsewhere and we owe it to the country to find out. director comey, what you see on the day in front of you in the form of this small number of members and staff is all we have to commit to this investigation. this is it. we're not supported by hundreds or thousand of agents and investigators with offices around the world. it is just us and our senate counterparts. in addition to our investigation we have our day job overseeing the most important agencies in the country, agencies trained to secrets. i'm wrapping up, chairman. first, we cannot do this work alone nor should we. we believe these issues are so important the fbi must devote its resources to investigating each thoroughly. to do any less would be neglect

in the protection of our country and we need your full cooperation to have the benefit of what you know to coordinate our efforts in the discharge of both of our responsibilities. second i raise this because i believe we would benefit from the work of an independent commission to commit the servic services we do not have and should not be a substitute for the work we should and must do but as a complement to our efforts as was the case after 9/11. the stakes are nothing less than the future of our democracy and liberal democracy because we're engaged in a new war of ideas. not communism verse us capitalist and in this struggle our adversary sees our process as a legitimate field of battle. only by understanding what the

russians did and can we inoculate ourselves from further interference we know is coming and others are enduring similar russian interference in their own elections and first a word on our committee and investigation. you'll undoubtedly observe in the questions and comments our members make during today's hearing that the members of both parties share a common concern over the russian attack on our democracy and bring a different perspective on the significance of certain issues or the quantum of evidence we've seen in the earliest stages of this administration. this is to be expected. the question most people have is whether we can really conduct this investigation in the kind of thorough and nonpartisan manner the issues merit or the consequences of our work will make that impossible. the truth is i don't know the answer. but i do know this, if this

committee can do its work properly, if we can pursue the facts wildfire they lead unafraid to compel witnesses to testify and hear what they have to say and learn what we will and after exhaustive work reach a common conclusion it would be a tremendous public service and one that is very much in the national interest so let us try. i thank you mr. chairman and yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. with that admiral rodgers you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. chairman nunes, ranking member schiff and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the men and women of the national security agency. i'm here with director commey to discussion the russian intentions during the 2016 election and our team is doing the best to support your ongoing investigation into the subject. over the past weeks nsa has been

working closely with the committee to provide you the information that you require for your investigation and i can assure you we will continue to do so. when we last met in january, we discussed the classified version of the january intelligence committee community's assessment on assessing russian intentions in the recent election. today more than two months after we issued the assessment we stand by it as issued. there is no change in our confidence level in the assessment. of course the specifics of the assessment need to remain classified to protect sensitive source and methods so today i'll limit my discussion to discussion in the public domain of the publicly released intelligence community assessment. i hope you will understand there are some issues i cannot discuss in an open session nor will i be able to provide specifics in some areas. as the committee knows the intelligence community has a

longstanding policy of not discussing surveillance in particular cases. as to do so would open the door to compel further disclosures or litigation or the release of classified information harmful to the national security. like the committee we're also greatly concerned on leaks of classified information as they reason reveal the month -- methods employed. i also want to assure the committee that we take very seriously that obligation to protect u.s. persons' privacy. this applies to all stages of the production of foreign intelligence but i'd like to emphasize the dissemination of u.s. person information. we add nsa have strict procedures in place to make sure our reporting and the contents of our reporting are disseminated only to those that

have strict need-to-know for valled a purpose which primarily means to support policy and security. among the collection and authorities we have to target foreign actors in foreign spaces by the section 702 and the executive order 1230 have been instrumental in our ability to produce intelligence to the committee and others in gathering the facts of foreign activity in this election cycle. it would be difficult to overstate the breadth and scale of malicious cyber activity today. our adversaries including nation states have not rested in trying to penetrate government systems, steal our private industry's intellectual property and make greater strides in the achievement of cyber attack capability. we have a hard-working and dedicated team at nsa that works every day to generate insights

and thwart the effectiveness but it's a team sport and one of the nsa's strongest partner is directo director comey's team at the phish and we're work -- fbi and we're working to better understand russian intentions and capability. in light of the assessment and findings i welcome the investigation in the u.s. elections and the nsa continues to employ standards. our analyst haven to be reliable and thorough in providing policy makers and war fighters with ammunition to make informed decision to protect our nation's freedom and they're diligently

monitoring and share that information with colleagues and counterparts to produce timely reporting in their entirety. i look forward to your questions. thank you, sir. >> thank you, admiral rodgers. director comey, you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, ranking member schiff and members of the committee i'm honored to be here representing the people of the fbi. i hope we have shown you through our actions and our words how much we at the fbi value your oversight of our work and how much we respect your responsibility to investigate those things important to the american people. thank you for showing both are being taken very seriously. as you know, our practice is not to confirm the existence of ongoing investigations. especially those havings that involved classified matters. but in unusual circumstances

where it is in the public interest it may be appropriate to do so. as justice department policy 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's efforts to interfere in the 2016 election including the 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 it will include an assessment whether crimes were committed. because it is an open, ongoing investigation and is classified i cannot say more about what we're going and whose conduct

we're examining. at the request of congressional leaders we've taken steps in coordination with the department of justice briefing the leaders including the leaders of this committee in a classified setting in detail about the investigation. but i can't go into those details here's. i know that 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 conclusions from the fact 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 detail of some investigations but please keep in mind 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 foreign adversaries about what we know or don't know and can't do our work fairly if we talk about while we're doing it. we'll try 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 c conclude the work as quickly as they no matter how long it takes. we'll follow the facts whether it may lead and i want to underscore what my friend mike rodgers said leaks of information are serious crimes. they should be investigated and prosecuted in a way that reflect the seriousness so people understand it simply cannot be tolerated. i look forward to taking your questions. >> thank you, director comey. admiral rodgers i want to first go to you. january 6, 2017 intelligence community assessment assessing russian activities and intentions in recent

u.s. elections stated the types of systems russian actors target order compromised were not involved in vote tallying. my question as of today admiral rodgers do you have evidence they changed vote tallies in the state of michigan? >> no, but i would highlight we're not a domestic intelligence information so we're probably not the best organization to provide a complete answer. >> how about the state of pennsylvania? >> no, sir. >> the state of wisconsin? >> no, sir. >> state of north carolina. >> no, sir. >> the state of ohio? >> no, sir. >> so you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that suggests any votes were changed? >> nothing indicated, sir. >> director comey do you have evidence votes were changed in the states i mention to admiral

rodgers? >> no. >> admiral rodgers, i know there is a leak of information regarding director clapper and former secretary of defense carter were looking at relieving you of your duty. are you aware of those stories? >> i'm aware of media reporting of that. >> those stories were leaked after you met with president trump. >> i interviewed for a position which i did. >> did the leak of that information at all pact your -- impact your ability or assessment for the intelligence community? >> no, if i spent time worrying about unsourced media reporting i'd never get work done.

>> director comey i remain concerned about the leaks you mentioned in your testimony. i want this on the record, does the section of espionage act on transmitting classified information? would the information violate a section of the espionage act that criminalize the disclosure concerning the community of the united states? >> in addition with the breach of trust with the fisa court in the use of those authorities. >> i'll yield to mr. rooney for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to direct my questions first and foremost to admiral rodgers 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 conclusion in the public about what the nsa is and is not legally collecting in the safe guards the nsa has put in place to protect personal data. so i'd like to clarify as the chairman of the subcommittee on the nsa i met your deputy admiral and we visited and spoke and what we can talk about here today publicly, if you can, if you can't, you can't but i think it's important for the people in the room and listening outside 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 the united states. >> yes, sir. >> and to be clear the section

of the fisa that is expiring later this year the 702 which we'll be talking about a little bit cannot be used to target u.s. persons or persons in the united states is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> section 702 focuses on nine u.s. persons outside the united states primarily, correct? >> yes, sir. >> do you believe 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 the nation needs. >> in the media there's a lot of reporting on incidental collection. can you talk about what that is? >> yes, sir. that's when we are target being a valid foreign target and in the course of the targeting we

either get a reference to a u.s. person or suddenly a u.s. person appears as part of the conversation that's what we call incidental collection. >> what do you do when something like that happens when there's a u.s. person part of an incidental collection. what safeguards are put in place? >> it depends on the legal authority we're using to execute the collect in the first place but in broad terms it varies by the specific authority to get the collection. we step back and ask ourselves first are we dealing with a u.s. person here. is there something we didn't expect to encounter we have now encountered and ask what leads us to believe it's a u.s. person then we ask ourselves are we listening to criminal activity or is there imminent threat or danger or receiving something that nothing to do with our

valid collection authority. based on that we'll take a series of action. in some cases we'll purge the collect, make no reporting and has no intelligence value and wasn't the purpose of what we were doing. in some places and if we believe there is intelligence value for example whether it's a reference to a u.s. person as an example in our reporting then we will mask the identity of the individual. we'll use afraid like u.s. person one or u.s. person two. i would remind everyone for our purposes u.s. person is defined broadly. it's not just a u.s. citizen it's a corporation, an aircraft, an internet protocol address, for example. it's not a particular individual. the term for us is much broader because it's designed to ensure our protection of u.s. persons. >> the procedures and protections you talked about are

required and approved by the fisa court is that correct? >> yes, sir and the tattorney general. >> and you mentioned for that kind of information to be disseminated outside of your agency and the nsa that dissemination would be strictly on a need-to-know basis. >> there's two criteria, the need to know in the course of the person or group asking for the identification is there a valid need to know and the execution of their official duties. >> who might that be? >> another element within the intelligence community or within the nsa or a military customer for example reading some of our reporting. it could be a policy maker. i apologize there was one other point i wanted to make but i lost the thread in my mind. >> let's get back to masking briefly. you spoke about masking and

trying to keep a u.s. person's identity concealed. when it is disseminated we often talk about in the intelligence community about the exceptions to if some of the masks -- how you unmask them. what are the exceptions to the masking be before it's disseminated? >> again two criteria the need- need-to-know and the execution of official duties and is itry for the intelligence value the report is designed to generate. those are the two criteria we use. >> and is the identity of a person is that disseminated in the masked or unmasked. . >> it's normally disseminate. if we make the determination there's intelligence value and

we'll report on it it's normally disseminated in a masked form. again, as i said we use a reference u.s. person one, u.s. person two. i would highlight if you look at the breadth of our reporting involving u.s. persons at all is an incredibly small is subset of our reporting. >> who would make the determination to unmask? >> there are 20 individuals including myself. >> and does the level of approval change depending on the reason for unmasking? if it was somebody or something important? >> it's not designated that way but at times requests will be pushed up to the senior most of the 20 individuals requests will be pushed to my level saying hey, sir we want to make sure you're comfortable with this.

>> twenty people. what procedures or safeguards to put in place those 20 people are not unmasking wrongly? >> there's specific training and controls in place in our ability to disseminate information from the database for a person associated. >> let's run through the ceptions quickly. if the nsa collects a communication where a target under surveillance is talking to a u.s. person how will the nsa determine whether the disseminating the information is necessary to understanding the foreign intelligence or assess its important? >> understanding the nature of the conversation. is it something that involves national security for the united states or just reasonable conversations in which case we have no desire to have awareness of it. it's not to our mission and in that case normally we'll purge the data.

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

>> i won't discuss hypotheticals about individuals, i'm sorry. >> if i could make reference to a "washington post" article from february 9 it 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 assertion business trump officials current and former u.s. officials said the article goes on to say nine current or former officials who were in senior positions multip multiple agencies at the time of the call spoke under the condition of and anonymity. >> it doesn't necessarily ring a

bell. i've seen plenty of media reporting but i won't comment on specifics. >> 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 chairman comey and the chairman speak about this as a potential crime, a serious crime under the espionage act assuming if this article is accurate who would be in a position to request the unmasking of general flynn's identity. would that be you? >> i would have the authority to do that. >> who else would? >> the 19 other individuals. >> would that include director comey? >> within the national security agency and nas reporting -- >> 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 the list? >> again, i'm not going -- in general, yes. i can't talk about individual or hypothetical scenarios.what i'mt at. if what we're talking about is a serious crime it's 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 press hurt or help our ability to conduct national security matters. >> hurt. >> if it hurts, this leak which through the 702 tool is vital or at least you and i agree to that

do you think that leak threatens our national security? if it's a crime and if it's unveiling a masked person and this tool is so important it can potentially jeopardize this tool when we try to re-authorize it in months if it goes against us re-authorizing the tool and can't get it done because the leak or the nine people who created the leak created such a stir in our legislative process or whatever that they don't feel confident a u.s. person under the 702 program can be masked successfully and not leaked to the press doesn't 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 professional not just the legal requirement but theics of -- the ethics of the professional is we do not engage in this activity and remembered the men and women of the national security agency if i become aware of conduct there is no place for you on this team. it's unacceptable for the citizens of the nation. >> i think as we move forward i think what you're speaking of is the sacred trust the intelligence committee has with the american people and the people representing them here and i think it's vital for those who break that sacred trust if they're not held accountable whether by the nsa, internally or fbi through conviction or

through the attorney general's office through that crime it's difficult to keep that sacred trust to know what we're doing is valid and what we're doing has no nefarious motivations and for us to be able to keep america safe without violating the constitutional protections we all enjoy. mr. chairman, i'm not sure how much more time i have left -- >> congressman, can i make one comment that comes to mind i want to remind everyone general fisa collection in the united states has nothing to do with 702. that's collection overseas against non-u.s. persons. >> right. and what we're talking about here is incidentally if a u.s. person is talking to a foreign person we're listening to whether or not or not that person is unmasked. >> i just want to make sure we understand the context.

>> and whether someone 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 the reason may be. but it's really going to hurt the people on this committee and you all in the intelligence community when we try to remain this tool this year and try to convince our colleagues it's important for national security when someone in the intelligence community says the hell with it i'm going to release this person's name because i'm going to get something out of it. we're all going to be hurt by that if we can't re-authorize this tool. do you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> do i have enough time to talk about the letter? the committee send to you march 15 a letter to admiral rodgers and to director comey. have you had a chance to look at

the letter? >> yes, i've given you a reply on the 17th. >> can you give us a sense how many unmasked persons' identities have been unmask. >> we're compiling the information but until the work is done i can't comment. >> can you tell us whether the disseminations involved donald j. trump or hillary clinton? >> i can't speak to that until i have the. >> and relating to the 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. person's information related to either presidential campaign who would have approved dissemination? >> one of the 20 and i provided that in my national response and outlined the procedure. >> thank you, admiral. i look forward to working with you on the subcommittee. >> mr. gowdy is recognize >> director comey we'll begin the lining questioning and finish at the next round. similar programs have been described this morning as vital, critical and in dispensable to our national security and many of us believe fisa and similar programs prevent terrorist attacks and protect u.s. lives but fisa and other programs are intentionally designed to

preserve the privacy of u.s. citizens. they're intentionally designed to ensure the information is collected and used only for legitimate national security and criminal investigative purpose. there are statutory safeguards. there are warrants based on probable cause. there's a fisa court involved. there are audits on the back end and we think so highly of this material it is a felony punishable by up to ten years in federal prison to unlawfully disseminate it. all of this was 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 give you the tools you need even if it infringes and in return government promises to safeguard the privacy of the u.s. citizens and when that deal is broken it jeopardizes american trust in these surveillance programs. so 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 but that's the primary goal i believe. >> it wasn't an afterthought or accident. they're intentional safeguards we put in place to protect u.s. citizens is that correct? >> correct. >> do you agree much of what is learned from the programs is classified or otherwise legally protected?

>> all fisa applications reviewed by the court, collection by us pursuant to our fisa authority is classified. >> is the dissemination of which is punishable by up to ten years. >> unauthorized classified. >> up to ten years in federal prison. >> yes, as it should be. >> all right. in january of this year the "washington post" reported according to a senior u.s. government official a named citizen and i will not use the name. a named u.s. citizen phoned a russian ambassador several times on december 29. 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 call spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters and at that officials began pouring over intelligence reports, intercepted communications and diplomatic tables. in february this year it was reported that a u.s. citizen, whose name i will not use, disgusted sage trends with the ambassador in a phone call. according to officials who have seen a transcript of the wire tap conversation. and again, and 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 out, so i will say this for this run, i thought that it was against the law to disseminate classified information. is it? >> oh, yes. it is a serious crime. i'm not going to comment on those particular articles, i do not want to in any circumstance compound a criminal act by confirming that it was classified. but in general, yes. it is a serious crime. it should be for the reasons i said. to >> we will take it back up the next round, mr. chairman. >> i will yield us back. 10 minutes to mr. schiff. >> comey, i want to put into attempt several claims with the

president and its predecessor mainly that president obama wiretapped his phones. i want to preview what the president said and ask if there is any truth to it. first, the president claimed "terrible. i just found out that obama had my wires tap in trump tower, just before the victory. nothing found, this is mccarthyism." this was the statement that obama had his wires tapped a true statement? with respect to the president's tweets about wiretapping to him, i have no information that supports those tweets. 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 in all of 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 that president obama or the fbi was engaged in such conduct? >> i'm not going to try to characterize the tweets themselves, all i can tell you is that we have no information that supports him. >> where you engaged in mccarthyism, director comey. >> i try very hard not to engage in any isms of any kind. >> is illegal for a sitting president to do this? turned down by a new low, 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 a response to the tweets themselves, i can tell you in general, as we were just saying, there is a statutory framework in the united states under which courts grants permission for

electronic surveillance, either in a criminal criminal case or seen its rigorous, rigorous process that involved all three branches of government. it is one that we have lived with since the late 1970s. that's how it works. >> no individual can direct surveillance of anyone? it has to go through a application process. the judge can make the order. >> president obama could not order a wiretap of anyone? >> no president code. -- could. >> was there any request made by the fbi or justice department to wiretap donald trump turned down by a court? >> this is one of the subjects that i cannot comment on one way or another. please do not interpret that in

any one way. but i cannot relate to anything with the fisa process in an open setting. >> third, the president stated that i bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that president obama was tapping my phones in october just prior to the election, director comey, you are a good lawyer. can you make a case that mr. obama wiretapped mr. trump's phones prior to the election in light of the fact that you said there is no evidence? >> all i can say is what i said before. we do not have any information that supports the tweets. >> in my view then, you would be an unethical lawyer to make the case. and then how blow has president obama gone to him to have my phones in the sacred election process? this is nixon watergate, bad, sick guy. president has reported him -- as another watergate, what was the

offense by nixon in his operatives with watergate? a lot of people who may be watching may be too young to understand what that was about, what was the government of that offense? >> as i recall when i was a kid, i studied it quite a bit in school. of the government was a an abuse of power including obstruction of justice, wiretaps, sort of the cycle of criminal conduct. >> it was a bargain in the democratic headquarters by the president, was it not? >> that is my understanding of how it began. >> it also involved a cover-up by the president? >> yes, as i said. >> here i think you said that there has been no evidence of an illegal wiretap by president obama, is that correct? >> has had the fbi on the department of justice have no information to support those tweets. >> but there is information of

the break-in using cyber means? >> yes, there was. as the intelligence community reports, it was reported in january that the russian intelligence services hacked into a number of enterprises in the united states including the democratic national committee. >> there was an effort by the russians to cover up their breaking of the democratic party headquarters by using wikileaks to help us the stolen material, is that right? >> certainly to cover up that they were the ones releasing it. >> director rogers, in an effort to explain why there was no evidence supporting the claim that obama had wiretapped him, the president and his spokesman sean spicer have said that british intelligence through its nsa, or gchq did this on their behalf. did you think that they would

wiretapped mr. trump on behalf of president obama? >> no, sir. i would never do that. i would be against the fisa agreement that has been in place by decades. >> the five eyes are part of our partners, and britain is one of them. have you seen evidence that anyone else made such a request? >> no, sir. my view is the same as director comey. i've seen nothing on the nsa side that we engaged in any activity or that anybody asked us to engage in such activity. >> if you were toitish to spy o, that would be a violation of u.s. all win law? >> yes, sir. >> our relationship with british intelligence is one of the closest we have with any service? >> yes, sir. >> now the british allies are ones that have called the president's suggestion that they wiretapped him for obama nonsense, other early ridiculous, would you agree? >> yes, sir. >> doesn't 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. >> it certainly wouldn't not endear the british intelligence services to continue working with us, would it? >> i believe that the relationship is strong enough that this is something we will be able to deal with. >> but it is not helpful? >> yes. >> director rogers, president trump met with angela merkel, saying that they both had something in common that they had been wiretapped by president obama, director comey has demonstrated why the claim about the president being wiretapped by obama was unsupported by any evidence, but the claim that he made about wiretapping directed at merkel refer to something that came up in the context of this note and

disclosures. i'm not going to comment on the 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 said her discern at the time? >> yes, sir, . >> is it helpful for our relationship a german intelligence to bring this up again in a public forum? >> it certainly complicates things. but i would like to think that our relation is such that we will deal and keep moving forward. >> so our relationships with the british and the germans coming you hope that are strong enough to withstand any damage done by these comments? >> by anything in general, sir. we have interest with each other. we need to keep working togethe together. >> at this time, director comey, let me ask you some questions that you may or may not be able to answer. do you know who roger stone is?

>> generally, yes. >> are you aware that he was a partner up all manifold? >> i am aware that we are going to a place where i do not want to go, commenting on any particular person, i do not think that i should comment. i am aware of public accounts, but i do not want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having direct conversations with somebody who is of russian intelligence? >> i have read media accounts, i do not want to hurt anyone's feelings, but i do not know if that is accurate. >> if mr. stone acknowledged that the time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016 2016 t that had been prior to the public release of any stolen

release of podesta? >> i believe that is correct. >> do you know how he would have known that his emails were going to be released? >> that is not something that i can comment on. >> do you know that he said at the time that he was not even aware of whether his emails have been stolen would be published? >> that is not something i can comment on. >> at this point mr. chairman, i'm going to yield. >> thank you to the ranking members and gentlemen. thank you for being with us today. let me when i get my own time, i will have some follow-up questions, but let me start with the point that the chairman brought up very sick specifically, no evidence that votes were technically changed in any of the jurisdictions that he named. thank you for confirming that. but am i correct that's when we state russian hacking, what we

are referring to is the fact that the intelligence community believes that the russian penetrated the networks of the dnc? of john podesta and other individual stolen information and then disseminated that information? is that a fair characterization of the conclusions of the intelligence community? >> yes, sir. >> ended the intelligence community ever do an analysis as to whether the dissemination of that adverse information in a closely fought election had any effect on the american electorate? >> no, sir. they do not do assessments. >> of course not. that is not your job. the fact is those of us who go through campaigns know that that is something that 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 any individuals associated

with the term campaign? >> no. >> thank you. director comey and the remaining movements, i appreciate your frankness on the topic of an ongoing investigation, and i appreciate your inability to go too much further than you went. i do want to ask you a question to try to clear up some confusion. this committee is engaged in an investigation about links as you said between the trump campaign and the russian should there be any possible collusion, we have had a number of statements early in the investigation that there was no evidence of collusion. this is still very early in our investigation, is it fair to say that you are still relatively early in your investigation? >> it is hard to say. i do not know how much longer it will take. we have been doing this

investigation began in late july, so for counterintelligence investigations, that is a very short period of time. >> you use the word coordinatio coordination, which suggests that 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 should not simply dismiss the possibility that there was coordination or collusion? between the russian effort and u.s. persons as an investigatory body? >> all i can tell you is what we are investigating. if whether there was any coordination between people associated with the trump campaign and the russians. >> okay, i will yield the time to the ranking member. >> i will yield the remaining time. >> thank you. with respect to the coordinatio coordination, director comey. i want to continue this line of questioning.

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

great, great people. we can order dated with our brothers and sisters in the other parts of the community to see what they may know from other parts around the world that could be useful. use all the different tools and techniques that we use in our investigations. i'm not sure that's useful, but i can say that. >> how long does an investigation like this usually take? you said it started in july? >> there is no usually. it is hard, it is impossible to say, quite frankly. >> i yield back my time. >> thank you, sewell. i will yield myself 15 minutes, we will go back to mr. gowdy. >> we were talking about the insemination of the investigation. as their plans for former u.s. officials who requested anonymity? >> to release the classified information? >> yes, sir. >> no. >> is there room for reporters who want to break a story? >> that is a harder question as

to whether a reporter has criminal liability with classified information, i am not as good a lawyer as mr. schiff said i used to be. >> i don't know about that. but they do use published, does it? >> does. but this is something that the department of justice have struggled with. >> i know the department struggles with it, the circuit has struggled with it, lots of people have struggled with it. you are not aware of an exception in the current dissemination of statute carving out for reporters? >> no, i am not aware of anything carved out in the statue. i do not think it has been reported in my lifetime. >> there've been a lot of statutes in this investigation for which no one has ever been prosecuted or convicted, and that does not keep people from investigating those statutes, mainly in the logan act. in theory, how would reporters know that a u.s. citizen made phone call to an age in a foreign power?

>> how would they know legally? >> yes. >> if it was declassified and discussed in a judicial proceeding, something like that. >> and assuming none of those facts are in play, how would they know? >> someone told them who should not have told them. >> how would they know about the existence of intercepted phone calls? >> the same thing. in a legitimate way through appropriate proceeding where there is minute classification. or 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, a appropriate proceeding. the legitimate way would be some but he told them. >> what does the term mask mean in terms of fisa and other surveillance programs? >> as was explained, it is 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. masking means as mike rogers said. i will seek u.s. person number one, u.s. person number two, u.s. person number three, and there is no other further identification. >> singh that there were 20 people of the nsa that are part of the on masking process, how many people in the fbi? >> i do not know for sure. probably more given the fbi's work. we come into contact with u.s. persons are a whole lot more than the nsa does because we only conduct our operations in the united states to get electronic surveillance. i can find out the exact number, but i do not know as i sit here. >> i think director comey, we say that this is critical, vital, indispensable, a similar program is coming up this fall with a pretty strong head wind right now. it would be nice to know the universe of people who have the

power to unmask a u.s. innocent's name. that might provide something of a road map to investigate who might have actually disseminated a masked u.s. citizens name. >> sure, there are is relevant, but what i hope the american people realizes the number is important, but the culture behind it is more important. the training, the rigor, the discipline, we are obsessive about fisa in the fbi for reasons that i hope makes sense to this committee. we are everything that fisa has to has to be labeled in such a way to warn people that this is fisa. we treated in a special way. we can get you the number. about the culture of the fbi and the nsa around how we treat u.s. person information is obsessive. i mean that and a good way. >> director comey, i am not arguing with you. i agree that the culture is important. if there are 100 people who have the ability to unmask and the knowledge of a previously masked name, then that is 100 different

potential sources of investigation. and to the smaller that the number is the easier your investigation is. so the number is relevant, i conceive that the culture is relevant. nsa, fbi, what other u.s. government agencies have the authority to unmask a u.s. citizens name? >> well, i think that all agencies that collect information, pursuant to fisa, they have standard administration procedures. that is approved by the fisa court to govern how they will treat u.s. person information. i know the nsa does, the csi does, the fbi does come i'm not sure beyond that. >> how about main adjustment? >> main justice does have those. >> that is four. just -- does the white house have the authority to unmask a citizens? >> other parts of the government

that are consumers of the product can ask the collectors to unmask. to the unmasking resides with those who collect the information. so if mike rogers collected something and they gave it to me in a report and it says u.s. person number one, it is important for the fbi to know who that is, our request will go back to them. the white house can make similar requests, but it cannot collect on their own. they cannot on their own unmask. >> i guess what i'm getting at, director comey, you see it is vital, critical, indispensable. we both know that it is a threat to the real lateralization of 702, and also a fun felony, 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 any particular investigation. >> that's why i said in the area. >> you would talk about who are

the suspects. who touched the information that came up unlawfully in the newspaper, and then use the tools and techniques to see if you can eliminate people or include people as a more serious suspect. >> do you know whether director clapper knew the name of the u.s. citizen that appeared in "the new york times" and "the washington post"? >> i cannot say. i do not want to confirm that there was any classified information. >> would he have access to an unmask training? >> and some circumstances for sure. >> what director brennan have the access to an unmask u.s. citizens name? >> in some circumstances, yes. >> what susan rice have access to an unmask u.s. citizens name? >> yes, in general. any of the national security advisor would as a matter of the ordinary course of their business. >> would former white house advisor ben rhodes have the

access to an unmask u.s. citizens name? >> i do not know the answer to that played >> would loretta lynch have the access to an unmask u.s. citizens name? >> yes, as would any attorney general. >> that would also include sally yates? >> same answer. >> did you brief president obama on -- i will just ask you. it did brief president obama on any calls involving michael flynn? >> i'm not going to get into that particular case matter, or any conversations that i had with the president. i cannot answer that. >> director comey, some speculation this morning on motive. i am not all that interested in motive. it is really hard to prove. secondarily, you never have to prove it. but i guess that people want to know. i guess that the jury always wants to know why.

i think that you and i can agree that there are a couple of reasons that you would not have to unlawfully disseminates classified material. it certainly was not done to help an ongoing criminal investigation. you already had the information, didn't you? >> again, i cannot answer in the context of this matter. >> how about in theory? is there something a reporter would have access to that the head of the fbi would not? >> it is hard for me to answer. i would hope not. >> i would hope not too since it is part of our surveillance programs but i would hope that you had access to everything as the head of the world's premier law enforcement agency. i would hope that you had it all. so if you had it all, the motive could not have been to help you already had it. and admiral rogers, the motive could not have been to help you, because you already had it. so in the universe of possible

motives for the polonius dissemination of classified material, we could rule out wanting to help the intelligence community's and the forwardness -- law enforcement communities. those are two motives that are gone now. that leaves some more nefarious motives. is the investigation into the leak of classified information, has not begun yet? >> i cannot say. i do not want to confirm that what that was classified information. >> i want to pull away, director comey. i understand that you cannot confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. but you did at this morning citing the gravity of the fact pattern. would you not agree that surveillance programs that are critical, indispensable, vital to our national security, some are up for reauthorization this fall, that save american lives and prevent terrorist attacks also rises to the level of

important? >> i think that those programs are vital. and leaks of information under those programs are terrible. and as i said in my opening statement, it should be taken very, very seriously. what i do not ever want to do is compound what bad people have done. and confirm something in the newspaper. sometimes the newspaper gets it right. there is a lot of wrong information about classified activities in the newspaper. we do not call them and cracked them either. that is a big challenge. we do not go anywhere near it. because we do not want to can pound the offense. >> i understand that, director comey. i'm getting -- trying really hard to not discuss those effects. but including the word transcript, a very unique use in the matters that you and i are discussing this morning. 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 said adulatory lee be protected is no longer

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

>> well, i'm not going to argue with you, director comey. but we are going to discuss a lot of important things today. whether russia attempted to influence the credit process is incredibly important. whether they sought to influence it, and that is important. motive behind that influence is incredibly important. our u.s. response, 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 that you and i agree on is the 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 humbly ask you to seek authority from whoever 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 the american people give certain powers to government to keep us safe. and when those are misused, and the motive is not criminal investigations or national security, then i will bet you that my fellow citizens are rethinking their side of the equation. because that u.s. citizen could be them next time. it could be you. it could be me. it could be anyone. that's until we started to investigating and prosecuting what congress thought was serious enough to attach a 10-year felony two. >> i agree with you, mr. gowdy. two things that folks that home should know. and on authorized disclosure of fisa is an unusual event. we will take it very seriously. our trust of the american people in the federal judges that

oversee our work is vital. second, this conversation has nothing to do with 702. people mix them together, that is about targeting non-u.s. persons overseas. pursuant to the fisa statute, the fbi can apply to collect surveillance in the united states, but that is a different thing than 702. the conversations that you and i are having is about this. it is vital and important. but i want to make sure -- >> director comey, you are 100% correct. and i am 100% correct saying that that is a distinction that does not make a difference to people watching television. 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 having governments pursue certain things with the explicit promise that it will be protected. so you are right, they are different. but in the eyes of people watching, it is the u.s. government officials leaking the name of a u.s. citizen. if it can happen here, it may

happen there. trust me, you and i both want to see a tree. it is in jeopardy if we do not get this resolved. >> our term has retired, i will retire 15 minutes to schiff. >> thank you, i want to speak about a few questions with roger stone. before i pass it to my colleagues. director comey, are you aware that director stone had a role in the trump campaign? >> i'm not going to talk about any particular person here. >> i'm going to ask these questions because i want to make sure that you are aware of these facts. have you read press reports where mr. stone boasts in going on with political dirty tricks. >> i will give you the same answer. >> i said before that mr. stone was in direct relation with advisor, mr. stone, on

august 17th are you aware of received communication that i am 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 relation to mr. stone? >> i have to give you the same answer. >> are you aware that he also said that he was in direct communication with julius johns and wiki links? >> same answer. >> are you aware that he was directed with a media advisor? >> same answer. >> want this when i think you can answer. do you think that there directed with wikileaks, or that they used in intermarried ore? >> they used a cut out. they do not deal directly with wikileaks, .

>> in early october are you aware that mr. stone tweeted that my hero julia sans will contact the american people soon? >> same answer. >> are you aware that it was only several days later that wikileaks released the podesta emails? >> same answer. >> i'm going to yield now to mr. himes. >> thank you. i know that we are going to the 90 minute mark in the hearing, let me step back and chest to review the topics. there is a lot on the table. and i think that my friends on the republican side will get no argument from the side on the importance of investigating prosecuting leaks, they are a threat to our national security whether they are perpetrated by edward snowden, people outside the white house, or perhaps we have seen in the last 60 days, may be people inside the

white house. but mr. comey, if i can use your phrase, intend to public interest, there is public interest in the fact that our new president will attack anyone and everyone coming he will attack the cast of "hamilton," chuck schumer, our allies, germany, he will attack the intelligence community that you lead. associating you with mccarthyism. there is one person in one country that is immune, which is inoculated from any form of presidential attack no matter what the behavior. no matter if there is a violation of the inf nuclear treaty, no matter if vladimir putin kills opponents. the new president defends, does not attack. and people around the president, michael flynn, jeff sessions, paul man apart, they have an odd connection to russia. a series of odd connections. we all campaign. i don't think that any of the

people have connections with foreign power, much less one that is an adversary to the united states. and apart from these weird links, without exception, the individuals have assembled, misled, maybe even lied about the connections until the political pressure has gotten to a parts where they have been fired or were cruised in the case of the attorney general. so i want to look briefly at one of these individuals. and i understand your restraint. but let me ask a couple of questions regardless. paul man apart, roger stone's business partner, and the former campaign manager, i want to ask a few questions about him. can you tell me what the foreign agents registration act is? >> sure. not an expert way, but it is a statute that requires people who are acting as agents of a non-u.s. government to registered with the

united states. >> so the national security division of the department of justice writes that this is their manual part of the purpose of it is to ensure the u.s. government informed of the source of information and the identity of persons attempting to influence public opinion, policies and laws, would you agree that guarding against foreign espionage or foreign influence measures falls under this heading? >> yes. >> in general is will -- willful violation to not follow this law a crime? >> i believe it is. i am not an expert on fara, but i believe it is. >> and this is the intelligence concern, correct? >> yes. >> paul manafort has reported in "the new york times" and other outlets, and running a campaign in option to lobby officials and push press coverage of

pro-russian ukrainian officials, paul manafort began officially working for the ukrainian president at least as far back as 2007 according to "the washington post." the lobbying was only prevented by the -- almost $13 million in undisclosed cash payments from ukrainian government offers to paul manafort for lobbying done between 2007-2012. that was -- did paul manafort ever register as a foreign agent under fara? >> that is not something that i can comment on. >> whether he registered or not is not something that you can comment on? >> no. >> okay. paul manafort was however donald trump's campaign manager in july 2016, correct? >> i really do not want to discuss questions about any individual u.s. person.

it is obvious from the public record, but i do not want to go down the road of discussing questions about somebody. >> well, i think the facts which show that he never did register. but as a ranking member pointed out, it should perhaps come to no surprise that the republican platform which was drafted at the republican convention in july of 2016 underwent a pretty significant change with respect to the american response to russia's illegal invasion of ukraine in their impression in that country, it agrees -- appears from our standpoint to that we had somebody who should have registered under fara pulling the strings. there is more. i do not know how much you will be able to comment. i want to explore for a second nature of the russian government. because often times the question becomes what is their contact with russian officials? i want to read you a brief quote from a book on vladimir putin's

government. they wrote, instead of seeing russian impala clinic politics is a democratic system being pulled down by history, accidental autocrats, popular and no-show, or poor western advice, i conclude that from the beginning, vladimir putin thought to give an authoritative regime by a close knit couple who uses doc democracy for decoration rather than direction. is it fair to say that the line that exists between government officers and government officials is blurred in russia? that there may be oligarchies or other individuals who appear to be private citizens, but that have connections to the close knit couple, and they might be doing the kremlin's bidding in contact with others? >> that is fair to say. one of the counterintelligence missions is to understand who are those people. are they acting on behalf of the government?

>> is it generally true that there is a category of russian oligarchs that are probably in this close knit? >> in a general sense. >> if they go way back with vladimir putin, does it increase that they might be with the kgb? >> the longevity of the association can be a consideration. >> and the kgb was a russian intelligence service under the soviet union? >> correct. >> and that you carried as part of that? >> yes. >> i will just observe that the oligarch is the richest man in ukraine, and a strong vladimir putin ally. he reportedly directed paul manafort. the last set of questions for me. i have a report that appeared in cnn yesterday, the headline is "former campaign chief, paul manafort, wanted for corruption

case." i raise this with you because the story is told of paul manafort acting on behalf of ukraine's former justice and minister -- administrator. he was the justice minister under the pro-regime, and i will read it from the story here. he was involved in jailing the former prime minister. the main political rival of the kremlin backed president victor janik povich who advised him until he was advised in 2014. he was released from jail at the same time that it was ousted. many saw her sentencing as politically motivated by the pro-russian government. in response to the deteriorating national claimant, they say that paul manafort drafted a strategy that included hiring statin arts

in government and showed that conviction had a sound legal basis. of the story goes on to talk about the transfer of over $1 million, potentially illegally from ukrainian coffers to statin arts. and the reason i bring this all up with you is because that the story said, and it appears to be confirmed by the department of justice that the current regime is hardly a friend of the russians, very much targeted by the russians, has made several requests for assistance under the mla treaty in securing the assistance of paul manafort as part of this anticorruption case, and in fact the story says that you were presenting personally with a letter asking for that assistance could my question is is that all true? have you been asked to provide assistance to the new ukrainian government, and how do you respond to that request? >> that is not something i can comment on. i can say generally w

very strong relationship and cooperation in the criminal and national security with our ukrainian partners. i cannot talk about the particular matter. >> the story says that the doj confirmed that there have been requests for assistance on this matter. you cannot go as far as confirming that in fact there have been these requests? >> if they have done that, i would need them to do it again. i cannot comment on it. >> okay. i appreciate that. and with that i will yield back the remainder of my time to the ranking member. >> and i yield to sewell. >> thank you mr. ranking member, am i questions revolve around the security advisor michael flynn, director comey, much has been made about the russian historical interference with political elections around the world. meant to cause discord and disunity. especially in western alliances.

does the fbi generally assume that russian ambassadors to you the united states like ambassador or at least overtly correcting intelligence on influential americans especially political leaders? >> that is not something that i can answer and an open sit setting. >> am i right that in the russian playbook to use diplomats and businesspeople and russian intelligence officers whether declared or not to collect intelligence on influential americans for the effect of u.s. policy? >> i can answer as a general manner, the nation states that adversaries of the united states use traditional intelligence officers. sometimes use that intelligence officers under diplomatic cover. use people that we call co-op teas. may be private citizens, students, academics, business people, all manner of human beings can be used in the

intelligence operation. i will not talk about the particular. >> will somebody like ambassador paul manafort teen play that type of role for russia? >> i cannot say here. >> the declassified assessment report that your agency help draft reports that is assessing russian activities and intentions in the recent u.s. elections specifically states that since the cold war, russian intelligence efforts related to the united states elections have focused on foreign intelligence collections that could help russian leaders understand a new u.s. administration's plans and priorities. so knowing what we know about russia's efforts and the role of the russian ambassador, 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 employee of any kind it would be

concerning. and i would say that a private one that is not disclosed are part of their activity -- >> what you expect that agent to report that meaning? >> yes. >> admiral rogers, a similar question. would you be concerned if one of your intelligence and officers had a private meeting with the russian ambassador? would you expect him to report that meeting? >> disclosure of interactions with foreign governments is a requirement for all of our employees to include, myself, for example. >> asked these questions because on at least four occasions that i can count, mr. flynn, a three star general and a former intelligence officer, somebody with influence over the u.s. policy and somebody with knowledge of state secrets and the incoming empires are communicated and met with the russian ambassador and failed to disclose it. so i ask you, directors, if you would not stand for your own staff to do this, why should we

the american people accept michael flynn doing it? >> i cannot speak to what disclosure obligations are for other people in the government, so it is hard for me to answer that. i can answer. i hope i answered accurately to the fbi special agents. >> i likewise would answer the same way in terms of the nsa. >> the time has expired. i yield myself 15 minutes. director comey, you announce this morning that there will be an investigation into trump associates, possible president trump, anyone around a campaign with the russian government, if this committee or anyone else from that matter 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? that they have ties to russian intelligence services, russian agents, would that be something

of interest to you? >> people bring us information about what they think is improper and unlawful activity of any kind, we will evaluate it. not just in this context. folks give us off all the time. if you keep doing that. >> do you think it's possible that the russians would not be trying to infiltrate the campaign and get information on hillary clinton and get to people around that campaign or the clinton foundation? >> i'm not prepared to comment about the particular campaigns. but russians in general are always trying to understand 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 campaigns that we would take that serious also if the russians were trying to infiltrate those campaigns around them. >> of course we would. >> i yield to mr. conway. >> thank you for being here. admiral rogers, you answered

general standards, are those the same for all intelligence analysts across the various agencies? >> there is a broad set of standards for all of us, then there are specific issues associated for the particular authority that you are using to collect the information in the first place. >> so the same thing with your agency. your analyst would have similar standards? >> correct. that is one of the really good things that has happened since 9/11, especially since 2004, the adoption of a common set of provisions. >> so we have generally accounting standards, over their presence, are those standards publicly promulgated? or disseminated to all of your analyst? they have some sort of test that they know the standards? >> i think the specifics of the standards are pacified. >> when i see attributes of

packing, you do that through generally forensic evidence, but when it comes to intent, foreign leaders, can you walk us through how the nsa does that? or the fbi does that? >> yes, we assess the range of information that we have collected, we attempt to generate the understanding as to not what just has occurred, but the intelligence profession, trying to understand why, what was the intent. we will use the range of information that we have available to us. we are a single source organization. it is the one reason that cia, the defense intelligence agency take multiple sources and tried to put together a complete picture. we are one component. >> anything different than that, comey? >> >> know it is putting togetha puzzle. sometimes (like you can get a indication of what they are trying to accomplish, sometimes it is a signals intelligence to give you that sense.

>> some of you agree that it is a precise art or science of any foreign leader. >> all of that's requires judgment, that is at the center of it. >> i will say in some places it is a much clearer case than in others. depending on the sources inside a particular foreign leaders shot. >> i'm not going to get into specifics. >> in general, if you had somebody who was your next-door neighbor -- never mind. to january 6, the intelligence community assessment, both of the agencies agree with the assessment that the russians go to undermine the public faith in the democratic process, is that still your assessment? >> yes. >> that also said that russians wanted to denigrate secretary clinton and harm the electability and potential presidency, and that vladimir putin wanted to discredit secretary clinton because he blamed her since 2011

for inciting mass protest against his regime in late 2011, 2012, do you all agree with that assessment? >> yes. >> and admiral rogers, that assessment went on to say that president putin and the russian government aspired to help the trump's elections process? you had a lower confidence level is that still the case? >> yes, sir. >> can you tell the group? >> i'm not going to get in the specifics in an unclassified form, but it went to the level and sourcing on that's one particular judgment. it was slightly different to me than the others. >> to be clear, we all agreed with that judgment. >> but you really agreed. and he almost really agreed. >> that is not a term of ours. >> i understand.

director comey, in terms of laying out the three assessment assessments, and whether or not the ic was consistent in its view of the two assessments across the entire campaign, can we walk through the fbi's walk down that path? as of early december of '16, did the fbi assess the active measures were to undermine the faith and u.s. democratic process? did you come to that conclusion by december? >> yes, december of last year. we were at that point. >> in an active measures against secretary clinton to denigrate her campaign and also undermine her presidency? >> correct. >> the conclusion that active measures were taken specifically to help president trump's

campaign, you had that by early december? >> correct, that they wanted to hurt our direct selling bank democracy. hurt her, help him. we were confident in that at least as early as december. >> the paragraph that is a little bit concerned there and, in of timing of when that all occurred. because i'm not sure if we went back and got that exact same january assessment six months earlier it would have looked the same, because you say when we further assess the russian government, developing a clear preference for president-elect trump. any idea when that clear preference in the analysis? when you are talking back and forth between yourselves on unclassified basis? >> i do not know for sure, but i think that was an easy judgment for the community. putin hated secretary clinton so much that the flip side of that

coin was that he had a clear preference with the person running against a person that he hated so much. >> that might work on saturday afternoon when my wife's red raiders are playing the texas longhorns, she really likes them, the red raiders. but all of the rest of the time, the logic is that because he did not like candidates clinton that he automatically liked trump, that assessment is based on what? >> it is based on more than that. part of it, we are not getting into the details, but part is the logic. wherever the red raiders are playing, you want them to win, by definition you want their opponent to lose. >> this says that you wanted her to lose, him to win. >> they are inseparable. it is a two person events. >> i got you. but i'm wondering when you decided that you wanted him to win. >> logically when he wanted her

to lose. >> i am not talking about putin, i have that. i am talking about, let me finish up, so you will do about the clear preference for donald trump, and we do not know when that was the case. but when it appeared to moscow that secretary clinton was likely to win the election, the russian influence campaign focused on undermining her expected presidency. and then the next one says, the russian government aspired to help president-elect trumps chances, so when did they not think that she was going to win? >> the assessment of the intelligence community was as the summer went on and the polls appear to show that echo terry was going to win, the russians gave up and simply focused on trying to undermine her. the red raiders, you know that they are not going to win, so you hope that other people on the other team gets hurt so that they are not a tough opponent. >> so you believe that the fbi

was consistent through early december on that that was the case? that they really wanted trump to win, they were looking at him winning and her losing customers >> yes. our analysts had a view from late fall through january 6th it had those three elements. >> so that on the ninth, well in advance of the january 6, deal. "washington post" put out an article, and again cia, they are not here today, but we hope to have them next week, concluded in the '16 election rather than to undermine the confidence of the electoral system, rather than to just undermine it, they do not mention ms. clinton at all, and then to help trump get elected, the u.s. senior briefed on the intelligence position --

the u.s. official, brief of intelligence said that that was the consensus view. did they have draft of the january 6 occupant? >> i'm sorry. >> did those writers from "the washington post" help you write the january 6, assessment? >> no, they did not. >> i'm wondering how they got the exact language on december the ninth. >> it had not been written yet. i do not know. this is the peril of trying to comment on newspaper articles. i cannot say much about them. they are often wrong. >> you mentioned earlier in one of our hearings that when anybody uses the, i cannot talk because i am bound by a position of an amenity, that that is code for breaking the law, generally, right? when somebody says that i am talking to a reporter, secret information, you canno