nation states including the regime in cuba? >> yes, of course. frankly this is consistent with the attempt to interfere in the united states is not limited to russia. the cubans have deep ties. it is in their deepest tradition to take american visitors and do their best to influence them in a way that's adverse to u.s. interests. >> president trump: sir, fully agree, we couldn't share your concern about that issue >> president trump: is of the opinion of all of you that even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election that the russians continue to use active measures even at this moment, even on this day to try to use it in multiple different ways.

in essence, these active measures pose a threat, not just something that happened in the past. >> yes, sir, that's right. this has been going on for a long time. there's nothing new, only the cost of doing it. >> the use of cyber social media increased the impact of capability is russia has. the ability to use the interconnectedness and all of that provides but it didn't provide before, they literally upped their game to having a significant impact.

>> from my perspective, that's just another tool americans require information, the manipulation of life. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. where there is obviously more than one threat to our country, i would argue that the greatest danger to the united states is north korea. i am one of those that have been trying to follow this as close as possible. in the statement for the record, you state and i quote "north korea's nuclear weapons and missile programs will continue to pose a serious threat to u.s. interests and a security environment in 2017.

"you go on to state pyongyang is committed to developing a long-range nuclear missile but is capable of posing a direct threat to the united states." recent ballistic missile launches and proximity to u.s. forces and allies in asia is deeply concerning. for the purpose of this open hearing, could each of you express a threat posed by north korea in this public setting and then address, most importantly, some of the specific actions we are taking as a nation? some of it you may want to do enclosed hearing later. >> i think we could get into greater detail in a closed hearing, but it's clear that we have assessed this is a very

significant, potentially x essential threat to the united states and it has to be addressed. you are aware that there has been considerable discussion among the policymakers, without providing intelligence with the administration, relative to steps moving forward. general mattis is taking a major role in this as well as a secretary of state and others. the interaction with the chinese as of late play a significant role for how we deal with this. we've dedicated a very significant amount of our intelligence resources to the issue of north korea. we can go deeper into all of that at a classified session. >> is it possible in this hearing to estimate when they

will have an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of taking a nuclear warhead? >> i think it would be best if we save that for the closed session. >> can you say in the session how effective china has been? >> let me try to answer out as best i can. i returned from korea, i was we. i had a chance to be with our great soldiers as well as the great soldiers of the republic of korea army. there on the front lines, they're doing amazing work. with respect to the chinese, they have made efforts in a way that they have not made before and an effort to close down the trade that they have in putting diplomatic pressure on the north koreans. the intelligence would suggest that we are going to need more to shake free the terribly challenging problem. and they could do more and they have the capacity to do more as

well. >> could you be specific? have they entirely stopped cold, to what degree have they reduced it, how about oil and other commodities? >> i would prefer to defer the details of that to the classified setting, but there have been restrictions on coal. >> is there any other comment? >> if i could, north korea has accrued its intent. publicly, it produces propaganda images, it shows their intent to develop intercontinental muscles, nuclear arms, but we have not seen them do a complete end to end test of a nuclear device. in a closed session, we can talk about how close they might be to doing that, but there are certainly unparalleled paths. nuclear device, processing enough material for nuclear warheads and developing a wide

range of technology. they are going to put those two together some point, but we have not seen them do that, test it end to end, missile launch, intercontinental range, militarization, and survival. but they are on that path and they are committed to doing that. >> thank you. >> i would just add that they are in a race. he's pushing very hard on the accelerator here. this whole panel is well aware of that and we are doing everything in our power, we can give you the details enclosed to make sure that we give you and our customers the advantage to winning that race. >> i might just say, you've given us very good information, very solid information. it is much appreciated. i think it is time for the american people to begin to

understand that as the director said, we do have an x essential threat in the pacific ocean and we need to come to grips with i it. >> thank you. let me join everybody else in welcoming you back to the committee, this time on the other side of the hearing table, but please, -- it's my understanding, i want to talk about two executive orders on vetting that the president has been challenged on in court. my understanding is you're involved in that vetting, and that process, is that right? >> the screening process, is that for you? the extreme vetting with the president has issued the first executive order was january 27th

where the president's order said that we would suspend refugee admissions from certain countries for 90 days pending a review. there is also 120 days mentioned in that order. since we are on 90 days and approaching 120 days, my real question is are we, in spite of what's happening outside of the organization, are we continuing on that timeline and are we about to get to the 120 days of having that review. behind us? >> i would like to get back to you and the specifics of the days away, what has been done to this particular date and are we on target? obviously this is going forward. i don't have the details in front of me right now. >> if we are now over or close

to 120 days in that time frame to find out that 120 days and get the job done because we were waiting to figure out how the order could be properly enforced. i would be very interested in that. on the cyber front, director cardillo, your organization has conducted what you have called hacky funds. what has that done in terms of bringing other people into the discussion of how we protect ourselves better from these cyber attacks? >> thank you, senator . we are quite proud of our history of support. historically, closed systems, and government owned systems, as the committee has already discussed, the high-tech reality of our world, the

interconnectedness of the internet, et cetera, what we are trying to do is take that historic success of our expertise and our experience and then engage with the community and away that we can better leverage our data and forewarn you. i'm trying to tap into the agility and the innovation of that community. we use these situations to challenge history and academia and a way that will enable us to do our jobs better. >> one more question. we had a witness before this committee -- must be on the testimony goes on in front of the intelligence committee. the world is a scary place as we listen to what the members of the intel committee are telling those senators assembled there in the hearing room. we are going to take a quick break, be back with more coverage of this until committee hearing in just a moment

dear predictable, there's no other way to say this. it's over. i've found a permanent escape from monotony.

together, we are perfectly balanced, our senses awake, our hearts racing as one. i know this is sudden, but they say: if you love something... set it free. see you around, giulia ♪

>> jon: a fox news alert, the testimony goes on in front of the senate intelligence committee. leaders are testifying to the committee about the threats that the nation faces, but it got underway and a most unusual way or so it seems to me. i want to bring in our panel with abby stoddard. stevie diamond is a political editor of "the washington times "the washington times." the chairman, richard burke, the chairman of this committee had a most interesting question to open it up with and i want to play that for you now. >> did you ever hear director comey tell the president that he was not the subject of an investigation? >> jon: the answer was i cannot talk about conversations i may have overheard with the president. were you surprised at that opening question? >> i was surprised that it came from chairman burke, but it's a

good sign that that committee, which had a pretty bipartisan reputation until a few weeks ago where it had a bump and then they to rectify it. they remain engaged on both sides of the aisle working together in a really un-partisan way. i think that's great news to everybody worried about the events of this week and in general, what the congressional committee has been able to do in terms of resources and overcoming partisanship to actually move forward with these probes. i think that will be a heartening message &-ampersand two democrats and republicans worried about what's going on here that -- the subject of what he asked about is really important, it's an indication

that much of this conspiring had to do the about the russian probe. he tried to make it clear that he had been exonerated and no one until now has come up with a response to actually back up the president's words in that letter. to the contrary, they say no fbi director, particularly james comey would do that. >> jon: paraphrasing with the president had to say in that letter where he fired jim comey, he said i appreciate you telling me on three separate occasions that i am not the subject of an investigation. that's obviously -- it surprised me that it is a republican senator who is asking that question. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you, but they're talking about james comey's firing in the hearing right now.

>> when you refused to discuss his investigation between russia and trump associates, i stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day, ed might never come out. with all the recent talks in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, i fear some colleagues have forgotten that donald trump urged the russians to hack his opponent. he also said repeatedly that he loved wikileaks. the question is not whether donald trump actively encouraged the russians and wikileaks to attack our democracy, he did. that is an established fact. the only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the russians. mr. mccabe, the president's letter to director comey asserted that on three separate

occasions, the director informed him that he was not under investigation. would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? yes or no? >> sir, i'm not going to comment on any conversations are the director may have had. >> i didn't ask that. would it have been wrong with the director to inform him that he was not under investigation? is not about conversations, it's yes or no. >> as you know, we typically do not answer that question. i will not comment on whether or not the director and the president of the united states have a conversation. >> will you refrain from alleged updates? >> i will. >> director pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire michael flynn after acting attorney general yates warned the white house that he could be

blackmailed by the russians. did you act upon the attorney general's warnings to the white house or were you aware of the concerns behind the morning? >> i don't have any comment on that. >> were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? this is a global threat. this is a global threat question, it's a global threat hearing. >> senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with. i don't understand the question. >> the possibility of black male, black male by an influential official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to black know by the russians. they reckon people deserve to know whether these extraordinary circumstances if the cia kept them safe.

>> yes, yes, the cia has kept a safe. we are committed to that and we will remain committed to that. >> you'll answer the question. >> we will do that in the face of challenges that come from any direction. >> you'll not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the gates warning. >> sir, i don't know exactly what you're referring to. i wasn't part of any of those conversations. >> they gates warning -- go >> i have no first-hand information with respect to the warning that was given. she did make that warning to me, i can't answer that question as much as i would like to. >> director coates, how concerned are you that a russian government oil company run by a prudent cronies could end up owning a significant percentage of u.s. oil refining capacity

and what are you advising the committee on foreign investment in the united states about this? >> i don't have specific information relative to that. i think that's something that potentially we could provide intelligence on in terms of what situation might be, but a -- >> i would like that and writing. let me see if i can get one other question in. there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections between russia and trump and its associates. the matters are directly relevant to the fbi. my question is, when it comes to illicit russian money, and particular, its potential to be laundered on its way to the united states, which of the committee be most concerned about? we hear stories about the bank

of cyprus, shell companies, the british virgin islands, i would like to get your sense because i'm over my time. director mccabe, which we most to be concerned about with respect to illicit russian money and its potential to be laundered on its way to the united states? >> as you know, i am not in a position to talk about specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. however, i will confirm for you but those are issues that concern us greatly. they have, traditionally, and they do even more so today. as becomes easier to conceal the origin and the track and a destination purpose of illicit money flows, as the extent of information becomes more clouded in encryption and warrant to us, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations that would shed light of most issues. >> thank you very much.

gentlemen, the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed as to give the american people some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. what i want to do is make an observation and then i want to get your take on it. i'm going to start with you director coates. i've been on this committee all the time, i've been in the senate through the last administration and i have been briefly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first 100 days. as far as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. the national media here is focused on domestic issues, which is of great interest to the american people, be it

health care, personnel issues and the government, the media -- >> jon: the senate intelligence committee hearing goes on, but the issue that is really going through washington right now is the president's firing of the fbi director, james comey. let's get back to our discussion of that with our panel, a.b. stoddard and stephen dimon. i was asking about that first question from the chairman of this committee, chairman burr who wondered about the firing of the fbi director. >> acting director mccabe said he's not going to get into detailing those discussions that the former director might have had with president trump. interestingly enough, across the senate, and the senate judiciary committee, you have the top democrat in the top republican who both had a meeting with director comey a week ago confirming or saying that after

their talk with mr. comey, they got no information but the president was wrong. it's a bipartisan backing to the presidents for a pointed statement that he had been told he was not a subject of that investigation. it's probably right that the fbi clams up about this sort of stuff. obviously, the excessive talking of investigation as part of what helped sink director comey. the fact that mccabe is not talking about this is probably a good thing. both of those senators, both said they wished for more transparency to clear up this issue about whether the president is under investigatio investigation. >> jon: it's awfully hard to find out where the truth lies in this particular scenario. >> the problem is, it might be the case of the president himself is not under investigation. when he's not allowed to do is demand loyalty from the fbi director. he fired him because he was an independent man, he said he was his own man, he was enraged that

he would not preview his testimony with trump top aides before he gave it where he said things like he couldn't back up the president's tweets. he wanted someone working for him and loyal to him. that's exactly what a president is not allowed to do with an fbi director. he is not allowed to conspire about whether he is a target of investigation and then fbi director is not permitted to tell him. that is why people are so spooked right now and both parties about whether or not there can be an independent fbi or department of justice for that matter. those people in charge, former senator sessions, rosenstein, mccabe, everybody will come under tremendous scrutiny because they believe an independent fbi and possibly the entire department, which the congress is tasked with overseeing is under threat from intimidation from the president. >> jon: a.b. stoddard and stephen dinan, thank you both.

we will continue to keep an ear on the senate intelligence committee. will take you back there live when it gets interesting. >> jenna: democrats are stacking up a call for a special prosecutor in the rush investigation at the firing of james comey. what this controversy means for the president's agenda going forward, we will ask rick stein about that. first, here's how speaker, paul ryan. >> i think the president lost patience and i think people in the justice department lost confidence in director comey himself. i think the president was looking for a situation where he had seen officials losing confidence and he does not want to see the fbi and disarray. he wanted to see the fbi up and running and moving well. director comey became an issue. , tomorrow is not a given. but entresto is a medicine that helps make more tomorrows possible. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow... ♪ i love ya, tomorrow

in the largest heart failure study ever, entresto helped more people stay alive and out of the hospital than a leading heart failure medicine. women who are pregnant must not take entresto. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren. if you've had angioedema while taking an ace or arb medicine, don't take entresto. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure... ...kidney problems, or high potassium in your blood. ♪ tomorrow, tomorrow i love ya, tomorrow ♪ ask your heart doctor about entresto. and help make tomorrow possible. ♪ you're only a day away.

>> is accurate that the ringing file no longer supported director comey? >> no, sir, that is not accurate. i can tell you that i worked very, very closely with director comey from the moment he started at the fbi, i was his executive assistant director of national security at that time. i worked for him running their washington field office and of course i served as deputy for the last year. i can tell you that i hold director comey in the absolute highest regard, i hugged the highest respect for his considerable abilities in his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor my professional life to work with him. i can tell you also that director comey enjoyed broad support within the fbi. he still does to this day. we are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe.

we have a diversity of opinions about many things, but i can confidently tell you that the majority, the vast majority of fbi employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to director comey. >> thank you for your candor. do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the bureau is invested in right now to follow them wherever they may lead? >> sir, if you're referring to the rush investigation, i do. i believe we have the adequate resources to do it and i know that we have the resources to do it adequately. if you're referring to the counterintelligence threats we face across the spectrum, they get better gear and more challenging every day.

in terms of that investigation, i can assure you, we are covered. >> thank you. director coats, welcome back. would you agree that it is a national security risk? >> is a broad matter, yes. >> of the attorney general came to an said one of your employees was compromised, what sort of action would you take? >> i would take the action as prescribed. nr procedures relative to how we report this, and how it is processed, it's a serious issue.

as to how best to proceed this -- >> would one of the options be dismissal? >> a very potentially could be dismissal, yes. >> thank you. >> senator collins. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. mccabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into russian attempts to influence our elections last fall still in charge? >> we hlmost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions. >> has there been any curtailment of the fbi's activities in this important investigation? since director comey was fired? >> ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. as you know, have our people

been experiencing questions and reacting to the developments this week? absolutely. as i could in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation? no, ma'am. we continue to focus on our mission and get the job done. >> i want to follow up on a question on resources that senator heinrich asked your opinion on. press reports yesterday indicated that director comey requested additional resources from the justice department for the bureaus ongoing investigation into russian active measure. are you aware of that request? can you confirm that the request was made? >> i cannot confirm that request was made. as you know, when he weaned resources, we make those requests here. i'm not aware of of that requet and is not consistent with my

understanding of how we requested additional resources. that said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. as i mentioned, i strongly believe that the russia investigation as adequately resourced. >> you've also been asked a question about target letters. it's my understanding that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying the individual that he is a target. is that correct? >> no ma'am. i don't believe that's correct. >> before there was going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the justice department? >> not that i'm aware of. >> that's contrary to my understanding. let me ask you the reverse.

>> again, i'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. it's not part of our normal case investigative practice. >> that would be the justice department. i'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and on the verge of being indicted that the justice department sends that individual what is known as a target letter? >> i will have to differ that question to the department of justice. >> let me ask you the flip side of that. perhaps you don't know the answer to this question, but is it standard practice for the fbi to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigatio investigation? >> it is not. >> so it would be unusual and not standard practice for their

to have been a notification from the fbi director to president trump or anyone else involved in this investigation informing him or her that that individual is not a target? is that correct question mike >> again, i'm not going to comment on what director comey may or may not -- >> i'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, i'm trying to find out what standard practice. >> i'm not aware of that being a standard practice. >> admiral rogers, i want to follow-up on senator warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the french election. some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm flashpoint claim that a pt 28 is the group that was behind the

stealing and the leaking of the information about the president-elect of france. the fbi and dhs have publicly tied a pt 282 russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement. is the ic in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place to the french election, should be the result of activities by this group which is linked to russian cyber activity? >> right now, i don't have a complete picture of all the activity associated with france, i said publicly both today, we are aware of russian activities, particularly in the last few weeks to the point where we felt it was important enough to reach

out to our french counterparts to inform them and make sure they were aware. and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you're seeing? >> thank you. >> senator kane. >> mr. mccabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances. we appreciate your candor and your testimony. on march 20th, director comey, then director comey testified to the house of representatives, i have been authorized by the department of justice to confirm that the fbi, as part of our counterintelligence mission is investigating russian governments efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign in the russian government. whether there was any coordination between the campaign and russian efforts. this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. is that statement still accurate? >> yes, sir, it is.

>> how many agents are assigned to this project? how many personnel generally within the fbi roughly? >> i can't really answer those sorts of questions in this foru forum. >> yesterday, a white house press spokesman said this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the fbi. is that an accurate statement? >> is in a small investigation in relation to all the other work you're doing question mike >> sir, it's a highly significant investigation. >> you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in? >> i would not. >>ou. let me change the subject briefly. we've been talking about russia and their involvement in the selection. one of the issues of concern to me and perhaps i can direct this

all directed to anyone on the panel. russian involvement and our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that and is not being followed up by this investigation? mr. mccabe, as a part of your investigation? >> i'm not talking about the presidential election, and talk about state-level infrastructur infrastructure. >> yes, sir, . obviously, not discussing any specific investigation in detail, but the issue of russian interference in the u.s. democratic process is when it causes us great concern. quite frankly, it's something that we spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that dr. coates handle handled, i think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in

those areas. we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see the next time, we are able to improve not only our coordination primarily through the department of homeland, through dhs, their expensive network into the state and local election infrastructure, but to interact with those folks, to put them in a better position to defend against whether it's cyber attacks or any kind of influence driven interaction. >> i think it's very important part of this issue, thank you. admiral rogers, yesterday a camera crew from task was allowed into the oval office, there was no american press allowed. was any consultation with you with regard to that action to the risk of some cyber penetration in that incident? >> no. >> your agency wasn't consulted

in any way? >> not that i'm aware of. i wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case, but not that i'm aware of. >> didn't raise any concerns? >> i wasn't aware where the images came from, i'll be honest. >> thank you. dr. coates, you lead the intelligence community, or you consulted at all with regard to the firing of director comey? >> i was not. >> there were no discussions with you even on the fbi is an important part of the intelligence community? >> i was not consulted. >> mr. chairman, thank you. >> let me just run through some quick questions. dr. mccabe, thanks for being here. it lemmie had some high points and what i've heard already just to be able to confirm. you have the resources you need

for the rest investigation? >> sir, we believe is adequate. >> there are no limitations, you have what you need? the actions about jim comey and his relations do not curtail the investigation from the fbi question rockets to moving forward? >> the investigational move forward, absolutely. >> no agents have been removed? >> no, sir. >> is that your impression but the fbi is unable to complete the investigation and a fair way because of the removal of jim comey? >> ed is my opinion and belief of the fbi will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously. >> two tradesmen to take this away from you and someone else to do it because mark >> no, sir, . >> okay, let me ask a separate question. as i go through the report and tracking the worldwide threats that director coats put out, there's a section on narcotics and the movement of illegal drugs and there's a section about tens of thousands of

illegal pharmacies that are online at this point disturbing narcotics. 18-20 of those go on line a day still. can you help me understand a little bit more about the fbi is doing to be able to engage, how many are american, how many are international, and what we can do to be able to stop the movement of narcotics through our mail system? >> it's a great question and one that we spend a great deal of time on. as you know, the traffic of illegal narcotics is something that we along with our partners at the dea and other partners have focused on for many years. we've had great success, but the issue that continues to change -- >> jenna: lots of interesting comments coming from the acting fbi director. standing by with us is governor rick scott. we appreciate the time, so i want to make sure we had a little time to talk. what's your reaction so far from what you're hearing from the hearing and watch your reaction

overall to the firing of james comey? >> i haven't had the opportunity to follow the hearing, but i think the president needs a fresh start. clearly, director comey was a lightning rod for the right and the left. we need an fbi director that's nonpartisan. i believe the president is going to do what he's done in other areas which is try to find the right person. i've had the opportunity to work with the fbi after the attack in orlando last year. there are a class act. they work hard, they want to do the right thing. my experience with the fbi is governor has been outstanding. >> jenna: we certainly know there's a lot of fbi people hard at work right now while we are talking to make sure we are staying safe. there are some comments coming from the white house at just over the last several minutes were rejected by the no leader of the fbi. for example, the white house said yesterday that the investigation into russia's

meddling was one of the smallest things on the plate of the fbi. the acting director mccabe said that's just not true. it is a significant. how concerned are you about some of the disparities that seem to be coming out based on why comey was fired and where the investigation stands now? >> i know the fbi has a lot of obligations. one thing in our state, we are focused on terrorism. they have a lot of things on their plate, i wouldn't know the internal workings of the fbi and what's most important thing for them. i think all these things are important. in my state, i want the fbi to be focused on keeping everybody safe. i think that director comey became a lightning rod. >> jenna: it you're not concerned about the firing of james comey and how it's being handled at the white house? >> i think we need a fresh

start. we need someone who is not partisan. mike's branch of the president, i've known him for a long time, still trying to find good, solid people to do the job, and i believe the quality of people at the fbi, they're going to do their job, where was and then leads them, they'll do their job. >> jenna: one thing we'll talk about is health care and i know it's something and affects our viewers. health care is a big topic for so many states, florida of course included. how do you think that what's happening with the fbi, the firing of james comey, all the attention on it is impacting the agenda to get health care solution together for the g.o.p.? >> i hope it didn't have an adverse impact. i know their feelings don't have have health insurance often. we have to find a solution to this. what was left to president trump is an absolute mess. prices are skyrocketing, you saw today insurers are stepping away from the exchanges.

it's already happened across florida. we have to get these costs down. i think the right way to do it as competition, let people buy the insurance they want, sell and search across state lines, where people for taking care of themselves. i'm looking to a solution that's going to make sure you and your employer and the government can afford health care for americans. >> jenna: one of the things bubbling up is a claim by some that we are moving towards a version of a single-payer system. i know that's a lightning rod, even saying single-payer creates many emotions. we would love for you to come back and talk about this in detail. thank you for your patience, we appreciate it. spew on fascinating testimony continues in front of the senate intelligence committee as the nations aspects and tele- committee what they are up to you. it's bouncing around from topic to topic. we'll continue to keep an eye on them. take you right back there as the testimony continues numbers:

4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now tow to learn more.

>> jon: fascinating morning on capitol hill as the senate intelligence committee takes open testimony from the leaders of the various defense intelligence -- i'm sorry, intelligence services that this nation has, the cia, defense intelligence agency and others. the director of national intelligence is also there. we also just learned today that the cia has established a korea mission center to keep an eye on north korea. let's get the person who can give us the best distillation of what we are hearing now, catherine herridge, or achieve intelligence correspond or live from capitol hill. >> thank you, we had a number of headlines this morning about the firing of james comey and that has come from the acting director of the fbi, andrew

mccabe. he has testified this morning that the firing of his old boss has a "no" way disrupted fbi investigations and that would also include probes into alleged contacts between the trump team and individuals in moscow. we also had testimony this morning that he also believes that the morale within the fbi has been strong and that there was, despite what the white house has said, a lot of confidence in the leadership in the fbi director, james comey. with the last few minutes, based on my experience with the subject, for the first time, for a senior member to say on the record that there is a decision not to pursue charges they were very vocal about their feelings they are. we also heard earlier from the senior republican on this hearing and to kind of set the stage here, this is the biggest

hearing of the year where we look at the worldwide picture and it's from his testimony that budgets are dictated. senator burr said earlier that cyber is the number one threat based in the united states and that played out in the last section. the >> nothing worries me more than the threat of a well-planned, wide scale attack on the computer networks and systems that make america work. from banking and health care to military and critical infrastructure, the functionality of our modern society is dependent on computers. >> they said meddling in the russian election has emboldened them. russia is taking the same tactics to damage other democracies, most recently in the french election. >> jon: catherine herridge, will let you go back to the hearing, thank you. we are back in a moment

♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new.

you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon,

it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

>> jon: we'll see you back here in one hour. >> jenna: "outnumbered" starts right now. >> sandra: another dramatic day on capitol hill where we are hearing from former fbi director comey's replacement for the first time, andrew mccabe testifying in comey's place at a hearing that was previously scheduled. all of this has the white house continues to defend president trump's decision to dismiss the fbi chief. this is "outnumbered." i'm sandra smith coming here today, harris faulkner, meghan mccain, republican strategist and former spokesperson for president george w. bush, mercedes slap, and congressman peter king is here and he is outnumbered. thanks for being here, welcome back