i'll look forward to their response after they read the president's executive order. one arose when they read the voluntary call of the president's executive order which i brought today that we reduce greatly the number of bot attacks in the united states. that's gonna require voluntary cooperation among all the different owners and operators of privately held companies. those things are gonna have to happen voluntarily. what the president calls for is for the government to provide the basis for that coordination without defining who's in, who's out. it's a voluntary operation. we know they have the technical capacity, if they have the will, to come together and reduce those numbers dramatically. the president is asking for secretary of homeland security and commerce to facilitate that. what we thought we saw was reflections of a concern that there would be a compulsion. that's something i can put to rest today. then if i could, the broader

question, i don't really much take that either. sometimes we've been criticized for doing things too quickly. now maybe we're being criticized for doing things too slowly. maybe i'm right in the middle of the sweet spot, i would argue. i think the president hit this timing perfectly. i'll tell you three reasons why. one of the block and tackle things he directed us to do is to get the money right. he picked a cabinet full of people who know business operations. policy set direction and vision. if you don't have the right money then you have to ire change your vision or change your amount of money. off the top of my head, i thought you might ask that question. first i already answered. that is that we learn a lesson here that we don't want to innovate with the policy innovation side and secure on the security side without doing that in tandem. you saw the president signed on friday technology counsel. he signed today the cyber

security order. that was done intentionally. in between now and then, the president fy 18 budget allocated 18 million to the cyber security alone increased a budget of $1.5 across all departments. from my perspective, his first budget request and future ones have the right amount of money keeping america safe. with that i know sarah wants to pull me away. thank you very much for your time. >> do you have concerns that americans might have about political that these cyber organizations. facebook, very political. >> i'm sure he will be happy to come back to questions later. thank you very much. actually, he was wrong on one thing. i would have gladly let him stay up here and talk cyber security with you all day. few announcements then, as promised, i will get to, i'm sure all of your many pressing questions. i'd like to announce the

president just signed another executive order establishing the bipartisan presidential advisory commission on election integrity. this will be chaired by vice president mike pence. the president's committed to the thorough review of registration and voting issues in federal elections. that's exactly what this commission is tasked with doing. the bipartisan commission will be made up of around a dozen members, including current and former secretaries of state with kansas secretary of state serving adds the vice chair. it will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in elections, election management, election fraud and detection and voter integrity ef forts. five additional members that have been announced. connie lawson, secretary of state of indiana, bill gardner, secretary of state of new hampshire, matthew dunlap, secretary of state of maine, ken blackwell, former secretary of state of ohio, and christie mccormack a commissioner on election assistance commission. the commission will review policies and practices that

enhance or undermine the american people's confidence in the integrity of federal elections and provide the president with a report that identifies system vulnerabilities that lead to improper registration and voting. we expect the report will be complete by 2018. the experts and officials on this commission will follow the facts where they lead, meetings and hearings will be open to the public for comments and input, and we will share those updates as we have them. secretary purdue is in cincinnati, ohio, to announce the agricultural department plan for reorganizing to provide better service to the american people as the president directed in his march 13th executive order. with the barges of the ohio river behind him, many of which contain products that are beginning a journey that will ultimately take them to markets overseas, secretary purdue will announce a new mission area for trade and foreign agriculture affair, recognizing the growing importance of international trade to the agriculture sector of the economy.

united states immigration and customs enforcement will hold a press conference at 2:15 today. probably not too far away. to announce the results of a highly successful recent gang surge operation. the president has made enforcement of our nation's immigration law the top priority and today's announcement will under score not only that commitment, but his focus on targeting transnational gangs and prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens who pose a threat to public safety. also today secretary mattis met with the turkish prime minister to discuss a range of bilateral security issues and the secretary reiterated the united states commitment to protecting our nato allies and both leaders affirmed their support for peace and stability in iraq and syria. one other thing i wanted to point out. last night obamacare suffered another serious blow as aetna announced its decision to pull out of the nebraska and delaware marketplaces which ends their phar teus payings in exchanges

completely. they sustained hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years and it's projected to lose more than 200 million in 2017. the company attributes those losses to structural issues within the exchanges, quoted, that have led to co-op failures and subsequent risk pool deterioration, end quote. this latest news adds to the mountain of evidence that obamacare has completely failed the american people and reinforces why there is no time to waste in repealing and replacing this law before it takes our entire healthcare system down with it. finally, i know -- those hands. i know we sent out a timeline regarding the firing of director comey yesterday because there seemed to be some misperceptions about the meeting between the president and the attorney general and the deputy attorney general on monday. but i'm going to read it to you all again just to make sure we're all on the same page because i want the sequence of events to be perfectly clear to everyone. the president, over the last several months, lost confidence

in director comey. after watching director comey's testimony last wednesday, the president was strongly inclined to remove him. on monday, the president met with the attorney general and the deputy attorney general and they discussed reasons for removing the director. the next day, tuesday, may 9th, the deputy attorney general sent his written recommendation to the attorney general and the attorney general sent his written recommendation to the president. hopefully that clears up some of those things. with that, i will take your questions. >> sarah, why did the lester holt interview the president just had, why did the president think was a show boat and grandstander? >> i think probably based on the numerous appearances that he made and i think that it's probably pretty evident in his behavior over the last year or so with the back and forth and i think that it speaks pretty

clearly. those words don't leave a lot of room for interpretation, so i think it's pretty clear what he meant. >> where were these three kofrgss that the president had with james comey about whether or not he was under investigation. he said two phone calls. is that since january 20 or when? >> best of my understanding, i don't have exact dates on when those phone calls took place. john? >> sarah, two parts to the comey question regarding the interview the president just gave. first of all, isn't it inappropriate for the president of the united states to ask the fbi director directly if he is under investigation? >> no, i don't believe it is. >> one of these conversations the president said happened at a dinner where the fbi director, according to the president, was asking him to stay on as fbi director. don't you see how that's a conflict of interest. fbi director saying he wants to keep his job and the president is asking whether or not he is under investigation. >> i don't see that as a conflict of interest and neither do the many legal scholars and others that have been commenting

on it for the last hour. so, no, i don't see that as an issue. >> sarah, the other thing i want to ask you about. i asked you directly -- >> we're up to three now. >> related to comey. i asked you directly if the president already decided to fire james comey when he met with the deputy attorney general and attorney general. and you said no. also the vice president of the united states said directly that the president acted to take the recommendation of the deputy attorney general to remove the fbi director. sean spicer said directly it was all him, meaning the deputy attorney general. now we learn from the president directly that he had already decided to fire james comey. why were so many people giving answers that just weren't correct? were you in the dark? was the vice president misled again? >> i know you'd love to report that we were misled and we want to -- hold on, jonathan. i let you finish and read off

every single one of those statements. unless you want to trade places, i think it's my turn now. i think it's pretty simple. i hadn't had a chance to have the conversation directly with the president to say. i had several conversations with him. but i didn't ask that question directly. had you already made that decision. i went off of the information that i had when i answered your question. i have since had the conversation with him right before i walked on today and he laid it out very clearly. he had already made that decision. he had been thinking about it for months, which i did say yesterday and have said many times since. wednesday i think was the final straw that pushed him and the recommendation i guess he got from the deputy attorney general just further solidified his decision. and, again, i think reaffirms that he made the right one. >> was the vice president in the dark, too? >> nobody was in the dark, jonathan. you want to create this false narrative. if we want to talk ab contradicting statements and people that were maybe in the

dark, how about the democrats. let's read a few of them. do you want to talk about them? here's what democrats said not long ago about comey. harry reid said comey should resign and be investigated by the senate. senator chuck shumer said i don't have confidence in him any longer. senator bernie sanders said it would not be a bad thing for the american people if comey resigned. nancy pelosi said comey was not in the right job. debbie wasserman schultz said she no longer thought comey was able to serve in a credible way. just yesterday representative maxine waters said hillary clinton would have fired comey. do you want to talk about people in the dark? our story is consistent. the president is the only person that can fire the director of the fbi. he served at the pleasure of the president. the president made the decision. it was the right decision. the people that are in the dark today are the democrats. they want to come out, they want to talk about all of these, they

love comey and how great he was. look at the facts. the facts don't lie. their statements are all right there. i think it's extremely clear that -- and frankly, i think it's kind of sad. in washington we finally have something that i think we should have all been able to agree on and that was that director comey shouldn't have been at the fbi, but the democrats want to play partisan games and i think that's the most glaring thing that's being left out of all of your process stories. john roberts. >> sarah, you said from the podium yesterday that director comey had lost confidence in the rank and file of the fbi. on capitol hill today the acting director of the fbi andrew mccabe directly contradicted that. what led you and the white house to believe that he had lost confidence of the rank and file of the fbi, when the acting director said that's the opposite. >> ky speak to my own personal experience. i have heard from countless members of the fbi that are grateful and thankful for the president's decision, and i think that we may have to agree to disagree. i'm sure there are some people that are disappointed, but i

have certainly heard from a large number of individuals. that's just myself. i don't even know that many people in the fbi. >> if i could, to what you were saying about the democrats. clearly they didn't like james comey too much after the october 28th pronouncement that he was reopening the investigation into hillary clinton. their point now is timing is different. that this was in the middle of an investigation. do they have a point? >> not at all. mr. mccabe made that point far better than i could today when he said that there's been no impediment to the investigation, and as i said before, any investigation that was taking place on monday is still taking place today. so i think that's, again, another sad story by the democrats that they're trying to pedd peddle. >> another comment from the hearings today. the acting deputy attorney general said -- i'm sorry.

mccabe said he considers the investigation into russian meddling of the election to be highly significant. in the past the president has said that the investigation was a hoax and he pledged recently whether maybe it wasn't russia, might have been china. does the president consider this investigation to be highly insignificant? >> look, i think he would love nothing more for this investigation to continue to its completion. i think one of the reasons that the hoax component is the collusion component that has been the false narrative that you guys have been pushing for the better part of a year. i think that's the piece that he is repeatedly talking about being the hoax. >> but in terms of the threat to national security, does he take that seriously? does he think that's significant? >> of course he takes national security seriously. to even hint that he doesn't i

think is to misunderstand this president completely. from the very moment that he stepped onto the campaign stage, to the day that he took the oath of office to become president, he has talked about national security. he's made that one of the biggest priorities in the administration. you just saw tom bosser here talking about cyber security. on all fronts, whether securing the border, whether it's protecting people abroad here, the president has been focused on national security. >> what about the election and the threat to national security. >> i haven't had chance to ask him about that. we're still waiting on the final conclusion of that investigation. i think any time we have somebody interfering with our election, that would be considered a problem, and i think the president would certainly recognize that. matthew? >> two questions. first, as has been mentioned, vice president pence yesterday said the firing was based on the recommendation of the attorney general and deputy attorney general. we know now that that's not

true. was the vice president misled again or did he mislead the american people? >> i believe i answered that. >> if you have, i don't think i caught it. the vp said yesterday that the president chose to support the decision of the deputy attorney general and attorney general. >> he certainly accepted the deputy attorney general -- that doesn't mean that he wouldn't still accept his recommendation. they're on the same page. why are we arguing about the semantics of whether or not he accepted it. they agreed. i mean, i'm not sure how he didn't accept the deputy attorney general's recommendation when they agreed with one another. >> if i may just switch topics slightly. if he knew -- if the president knew that he was going to do this, why ask for those memos to begin with? why not just fire comey? why have these memos put out and then explain that he did it because of the memos but then said he was going to do it either way. i'm confused to even why we got the memos. >> i think he wanted to get the

feed back from the deputy attorney general who the deputy of the fbi reports to. it further solidified the decision that he made. the only person that can fire comey was the president. he made that decision. it was clearly the right one, as evidenced by all of the comments, both by house and senate democrats, republicans and many people within the fbi. i think instead of getting so lost in the process that this happened at 12:01 or 12:02, did he fire him because he wore a red tie or a blue tie. he fired him because he was not fit to do the job. it's that simple. this shouldn't be a complicated process. the president knew that director comey was not up to the task. he decided that he wasn't the right person in the job. he wanted somebody that could bring credibility back to the fbi. that had been lost over this last several months. the president made that decision. he made it. he moved forward. it was the right one. i don't think that, you know, the back and forth makes that much difference.

>> sarah. did you call on me? thank you. sarah, going back to what you said about democrats. yes, there are some democrats saying comey should have been fired, but they're questioning the timing. why now. even though the deputy attorney general did do that, they're questioning why now. >> i think that i have answered this. i hate to again just keep repeating myself. we're kind of getting lost on the same questions here. he had decided that he wasn't fit. there's never gonna be a good time to fire one. whether it's on a tuesday or a friday. he decided he wanted to give director comey a chance. he did. he felt like he wasn't up to the task. >> last question. monday sean spicer, when he was at the podium, he said after the testimony with clapper and yates, he said, he talked about there was no collusion from what mr. clapper said. he also said there needs to be a

timeline when the russian investigation ends. yesterday he said it should continue. which one is it? should it continue or should it end? spicer said the president wanted it to end monday. now yesterday he said it should continue. i'm just trying to find out what it is. >> i said we want it to come to its completion. we want it to continue until it is finished, which we would like to happen soon so that we can focus on the things that we think most americans frankly care a whole lot more about. i think the people in this room are obsessed with this story a lot more than the people that we talk to and we hear from every day. we'd like to be focused on the problems that they have. that's the point. we'd love for this to be complete. but we all want it to be completed with integrity. that was one of the other reasons, frankly, that the decision the president made was the right one. because i think it adds credibility and integrity back to the fbi where a lot of people frankly were questioning it. >> we now know the president fired the fbi director with six

years left on his ten year term because he was a show boat. how important is it that the next fbi director not be a show boat or a grandstander? how important is it that it's a person with loyalty to the president? >> i think the main factor that they're looking for is that they are loyal to the justice system, they're loyal to the american people. this president is looking for somebody who can come in that is independent and has the support i think across the board, whether it's republicans, democrats, members of the fbi, certainly the american people. again, it wasn't just one thing that caused the president to make this decision. a large part of why he made this decision was because he didn't feel like director comey was up to the job. he had watched just an erosion of confidence that he had in his ability to carry out the task that needed to be done. he's looking for somebody who can do that. jordan? >> two questions. first i want to follow-up on

what john said about the rank and file. could it be the acting director of the fbi has a better handle on the rank and file than you do? >> look, i'm not going to get into a back and forth who has a better handle. again, i have heard from multiple individuals that are very happy about the president's decision and i know that it was the right one. i believe that most of the people that we've talked to also believe it was the right decision to make. >> about the meeting yesterday between president trump and the russian foreign minister. can you walk us through how a photographer from either russian state news outlet or the russian government got into that meeting and got those photographs out? >> yes, the same way they would who ever the president was meeting with when it comes to a foreign minister or a head of state. both individuals have official photographers in the room. we had an official photographer in the room, as did they. >> usually u.s. independent media the u.s. invited into

those meetings. why didn't that happen in this case? >> it varies. not always, particularly sometimes the protocol when it is not the head of state and prior to the president meeting with the head of state that wouldn't always take place. again, proper protocol was followed in this procedure. >> has the president been questioned by the fbi with regard to their investigation to russia interference in the election? >> not that i'm aware of. >> does he expect to be? >> i haven't had a chance to ask him that question, i don't know. i'm not going to guess on what he may expect. major? >> at the justice department there's a protocol that discourages conversations with the president of the united states and the fbi director about anything that might involve the president. that's protocol that's usually required to ensure there is no confusion about political interference or any kind or even the impression or appearance of political influence on the fbi. that's the standard procedure. you just said it was appropriate

for the president of the united states to ask whether or not he was under investigation. why is it appropriate? that's not consistent with the guidelines at the justice department to avoid that. >> we've talked to several legal scholars have weighed in on this and said there was nothing wrong with the president asking that question. >> so the department should change their protocol? >> i haven seen their protocol. i'm only speaking to what i said. >> that's what you think. >> that's not what i think. look at the people who followed up the interview. there were multiple attorneys who came on after and specifically stated it was not inappropriate, it wasn't wrong for the president to do so. again, i can only base it off. i'm not an attorney. i don't even play one on tv. what i can tell you is what i have heard from legal minds and people that actually are attorneys and that's their opinion. i have to trust the justice system on that fact. >> would you say based on the experience that you and sean and the communications office had tuesday and wednesday that you were given all of the best

information to relay to the american public through us and your job is to relay that information. we're on intermediaries. about what happened with this firing and the rational for it. >> intermediaries. you seem to take a much more pro-active approach most of the time, but i'll go with intermediaries for today. look, i think we were absolutely given the information that we could have at that time. it was a quick moving process. we took the information we had as best we have it and got it out to the american people as quickly as we could. >> would you say that information was accurate then or is more accurate now? >> i would say that after having a conversation with the president, you don't get much more accurate than that. >> so by that standard, should reporters and the country essentially wait for a pronouncement from the president before believing that which is stated on his behalf by the white house communications desk. >> look, major. i'm not gonna get into a back and forth. we have to have a direct quote

every single time. in this process i gave you the best information i had at the moment. i still don't think that it contradict sz the president's decision. you guys want to get lost in the process. >> i don't think asking you a question and getting an answer is getting lost in the process. >> and i'm answering those questions. it's very simple. the president decided to fire director comey. nobody else gets to make that decision. he made it. he stands by it. as do the rest of us. thank you. mike? >> two questions. following up on this. back in i think october of last year the former president was highly criticized by members of the fbi and others outside of the fbi for making comments on television that were sort of suggested that he had an opinion about how the hillary clinton e-mail case should and the charge was that he was interfering. he was putting his thumb on the scale of an on going active

investigation. lot of criticism by republicans about that. talk to me about how that -- how what this president did in his series of conversations with the fbi director doesn't go far beyond what former president obama did. and to major's point, how can you argue regardless of maybe some pundits on tv who might be saying otherwise, how can you argue that that doesn't have an appearance of trying to influence an investigation that's actively going on. >> i think the president's encouraged this investigation to take place and complete so that we can move forward. we've been as compliant as possible throughout the entire process. we will continue to do so. nobody wants this investigation to go forward and complete and end with integrity more than the president. >> everybody knows which way he wants to come out.

>> on the right side. he wants it to come out. he's very well aware of the actions he has or hasn't taken. he knows he didn't take any action. i think he's ready for the rest of you guys to understand that as well. >> one last question just to follow up on the fbi thing. and i'm not trying to be overly static here but you said today and i think you said again yesterday that you personally have talked to countless fbi officials, employees since this happened. >> correct. >> really? i mean -- >> between e-mails, text messages, absolutely. >> 60, 70? >> we're not going to get into a numbers game. i have heard from a large number of individuals that work at the fbi that said they are very happy with the president's decision. i don't know what else i can say. >> there's a report in "the wall street journal" that the general asked counsel to correct the

version of that initially after the comey firing. is that accurate? did that contribute to a different version of events that you've seen? >> i'm not aware of a specific ask for a correction. i know we all want to make sure we get this right. that's been our -- what we've attempted to do all along. the reason we said the update last night, there were several questions after the briefing yesterday. i addressed that in the opening today. our goal is to get this as right and clear as we can. >> did the president know that comey had reservations before he made his decision? >> no. i also think based on what i have seen the department of justice has pushed back and said that's not accurate. but i would refer you to them. >> sarah, was's it going to take for the white house to pen the decision to fire james comey on rod rosenstein. >> i don't think there was ever an attempt to pin the decision on the deputy attorney general. look, his recommendation, again, it was extremely clear.

the president, though, makes the decision. the buck stops with him. nobody's ever tried to say that this wasn't the president's decision, that he wassen the one who carried it out and to try to inflate those things is just not what took place. we know the president's been thinking ab this for a long time. wednesday it certainly i think expedited that, the director's testimony last wednesday. and then getting the recommendation from the attorney general, or deputy attorney general i think just further solidified the president's decision. >> just to clarify one thing. you said the president has encouraged this investigation into russia to see it reach its completion sooner rather than later. how has he encouraged it if he just fired a man overseeing the russian investigation? >> there are multiple people that are part of this. you've got the house committee, the senate committee. look, again, the point is we want this to come to its conclusion. we want to come to its conclusion with integrity.

we think, by removing director comey, we've taken steps to make that happen. thank you very much, guys. >> the white house press briefing just firing up. good afternoon, everyone. thanks for being with us. i'm maria bartoromo. the president commenting saying this of director comey. >> he's a show boat. he's a grandstander. the fbi has been in turmoil. you know that. i know that. everybody knows that. you take a look at the fbi a year ago. it was in virtual turmoil. less than a year ago. it hasn't recovered from that. p >> maria: first we go to john

roberts. >> reporter: good afternoon. from the podium today with sarah huckabee sanders, more confirmation that the president had been thinking about firing james comey farther back than we were led to believe. he said she gave us the best information she and sean spicer, communications team here gave us the best information they had at the time on tuesday. but that information was leading us down the road to believe that this was all on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general at the department of justice, rod rosenstein, and that this was all pegged to james comey's handling of the hillary clinton e-mail controversy going all the way back to july of last year. we learned that's quite different. the president became frustrated with james comey over the weeks and months preceding his firing. could go back to november or beyond that. you saw his testimony before the senate judiciary committee a week ago. that's really kind of when he came to the conclusion that he had to go. i'm told by sources here at the white house that the president

was quite open with his closest aide and talking about his desire to get rid of comey. then finally pulled the trigger on that tuesday night. now, the president, in an interview, with lester holt of nbc, said not too long ago that despite the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, it was his mind to get rid of comey. listen to this exchange here. >> what i did, i was going to fire comey. my decision. >> you had made the decision. >> i was going to fire comey. there's no good time to do it, by the way. >> you said i accepted their recommendation. you had already made the decision. >> oh, i was going to fire regardless of recommendation. >> reporter: you remember all in that termination letter that the president delivered to james comey electronically and in person by his former head of security, now his chief of oval office operations keith schiller to the fbi even though comey was in los angeles at the time. the president said that he appreciated the fact that comey had told him on three separate occasions that he was not under

investigation in connection with this investigation into possible collusion between the trump campaign and russia to influence the u.s. election. nbc news anchor lester holt tried to drill that with the president to find out on what occasion he was told that he was not under investigation and what the circumstances were surrounding those occasions. listen here. >> the phone call he said it and then during another phone call he said it. he said it once at dinner and then he said it twice during phone calls. >> did you call him? >> in one case i called him. one case he called me. >> did you ask him, am i under investigation? >> i actually asked him. i said, if it's possible, would you let me know, am i under investigation? he said, you not under investigation. >> reporter: the chairman of the judiciary committee charles grassley said not too long ago that it was his belief that james comey had said very much the same thing to him though perhaps not in such direct

words. so we expect we'll hear more on that as the hours go on here. maria >> maria: thank you very much. andrew mccabe also joining his national security colleagues today testifying before the senate intelligence committee in the wake of the firing of his former boss, james comey. catherine herridge live on capitol hill. what did we learn? >> reporter: everyone here had been expecting the fbi director until he was fired tuesday. then as the acting director andrew mccabe testified that the firing of his boss had not disrupted the russia probe. >> have the dismissal of mr. comey impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation or any on going projects at the federal bureau of investigations? >> simply put, sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the fbi from doing the right thing,

protecting the american people, upholding the constitution. >> reporter: mccabe was pressed on who the target of the investigation would be and whether, in fact, it was president trump. >> did you ever hear director comey tell the president he was not the subject of an investigation? >> sir, i can't comment on any conversations the director may have had with the president. >> reporter: and the committee's senior democrat had some harsh words for the president, criticizing the firing of fbi director comey, saying it has lost their search for answers. >> we anticipate asking director comey a series of questions about his actions and the actions of the fbi in terms of looking into which trump associates, if any, and some of their actions during the campaign as it relates to the russians. however, president trump's actions this week cost us an opportunity to get at the truth, at least for today. >> reporter: despite what we've heard at the white house over

the last couple days mccabe testified there remains strong confidence among the agents at the fbi. we all had a very rare admission, i don't think we ever heard this publicly before from a senior fbi official, that after director comey made the decision not to recommend charges for hillary clinton and her team for the mishandling of classified information, there was a lot of anger and frustration among the career agents involved, maria. >> maria: we'll be following that. want to bring in pete hexter. mr. chairman, thank you. your reaction to this? >> i'll tell you, there's so many angles to come at this. i think they've covered them all. the bottom line is we're going to have a few fbi director. the president takes responsibility for the decision to fire director comey. not a whole lot more there. the investigations are going forward. >> maria: the president could fire any director any time for

any reason which is what jim comey wrote in the letter to his staff. but, could the president have done it differently? should he have done it differently? what should have been done better? >> i think maybe you could take a look at the process. it should have probably been a direct meeting either with the presidented and director comey or with the attorney general sessions and the directser. director finding out what's going on the screen behind him. that's unseenly. you could have improved the process. but the bottom line as we've seen over the last number of months, democrats and republicans and now the president of the united states all have decided or had decided that we needed a new director of the fbi. >> maria: this investigation into the potential collusion between the president and his team and the russians has been going on now about ten months. started last july. is this typical?

how long do they expect this investigation to go on? they keep yielding the same thing, that there is no evidence of collusion. >> well, that's right. there is no evidence. they're looking for more information to collect more documents and more miles. keep going on one after the other. >> maria: this has been going on. we know where health care stands. now it's in the senate. senate said they'll tear up their own bill. we know the tax reform is supposed to be getting done this year. is this a distraction. >> one of the things that are

driving the american people crazy. they want tax reform because they have people individually have problems that they want to see an economy that is growing and booming creating opportunities. they want congress to act on that. then you've got all the foreign policy threats that we face, whether it's isis or north korea. they want these problems addressed. if the story coming out of washington for the next six or nine months are all these political games between the different parties attacking each other and they don't get these things done. it's not republicans that will get hurt in 2018. it's incumbents in washington, whether they are an r or a d. >> maria: right. then there's the cost of it. how much does this investigation cost generally speaking if you're going on for perhaps four years looking for that collusion that has not existed. >> it runs into the tens of

millions of dollars. the more important thing, and that was your last question, it's the opportunity cost. as we're doing this and not addressing the other issues. the opportunity costs to the american economy, to the american taxpayers, is tremendous. >> maria: we'll see if they get anything done. that's what the american people voted for. i think both sides will get impacted there. congressman, always a pleasure. >> thank you. >> maria: we appreciate it. donald trump is speaking out about this, firing of fbi director james comey. martha mccowan will weigh in and rand paul is on deck. stay with us. back in a moment. what's that? p3 planters nuts, jerky and seeds. i like a variety in my protein. totally, that's why i have this uh trail mix.

wow minty. p3 snacks. the more interesting way to get your protein.

>> maria: welcome back. this fox news alert. president trump giving his first on camera interview since the firing of fbi director james comey. the president offering new information to nbc news ab his contact with comey regarding the russia investigation. watch. >> did you call him? >> in one case i called him.

one case he called me. >> did you ask him, am i under investigation? >> i actually asked him, yes. i said, if it's, would you let me know, am i under investigation? he said, you are not under investigation. >> but he's given sworn testimony that there was an on going investigation into the trump campaign and possible collusion with the russian government. you were the center piece of the trump campaign. >> what i can tell you -- i know that i'm not under investigation. me, personally. i'm not talking about campaigns. i'm not talking about anything else. >> maria: martha mccowan, great to see you. >> great to see you. >> maria: your reaction? >> i mean, sarah huckabee sanders was just asked about this. she said the president basically has the right to ask. that's what the white house attorneys are saying. really falls into james comey's court, the answer to this question, whether or not he did answer the question, am i under

investigation? i think will turn out to be the more pivotal part of that conversation. i think the president can certainly ask if he is under investigation. >> maria: jim comey knows what to say, legal or not legal. >> exactly. it also takes me back to president obama when he commented in interviews on the irs investigation and said basically there's nothing there. and on the hillary clinton investigation. said she didn't do anything wrong. so, there was a president jumping into two on going investigations, commenting on whether or not he believed there was anything substantive there. not the first time we've heard a president weigh in but there will be more to come. >> maria: i think andrew mccabe said it well. nothing is going to stop the fbi from following what we're doing. that is doing the right thing. in terms of this upset over the russia investigation, it's on going. >> it is absolutely on going. pete hoke stra summarized it. the president has the right to

fire the fbi director. he serves at will to the president. as jim comey, in his own letter said, i believe that a president can fire an fbi director and he doesn't really even need to have a reason. he made up his mind. he did what he did. the investigation, if nothing else, it goes on. in some ways it may heat up. all of these people are gonna bend over backwards to make it very clear that none of this has impacted their job. >> maria: yet it's frustrating to constantly hear no evidence of collusion. it's almost like is this a waste and distraction? what do you think in terms of this situation distracting congress as well as the president from the agenda? we know the people want healthcare repealed and replaced. we know tax form is necessary. >> they need to just keep this going on its own track. the only names that have ever been discussed are michael flynn, who's been subpoenaed. we'll see what happens with that. carter page said they are happy

to discuss this and happy to get their testimony. let that track be what it is. let it continue. there is so much business that has to be done. of course, so much that has been supported in the economy from this administration. it's going to be tough. it will be a major communications challenge for them to try to take this tphaeur tpheufrb that direction. we'll see how they do it >> maria: that was probably one of the strategies of the left. if he did not fire jim comey on day one -- >> he probably wishes he did. >> maria: any day would have been not a good day because the russia investigation started last july at the democratic national convention. >> yeah. when you look back, they make these watergate comparisons. you look back at the history of watergate. it was a completely different environment. richard nixon was completely isolated. there was a democratic majority in congress. he was under investigation for very sophisticated things. this is a very different thing.

at this point there isn't something there. we have to work on that assumption, move forward. see what happens from there. >> maria: so what does senator rand paul think about all this? he has been on twitter about it. we're gonna ask him next. stay with us. ♪ you know how painful heartburn can be. for fast-acting, long-lasting relief, try doctor recommended gaviscon. it quickly neutralizes stomach acid and helps keep acid down for hours. relieve heartburn with fast- acting, long-lasting gaviscon. and helps keep acid down for hours. i love how usaa gives me the and the security just like the marines did. at one point, i did change to a different company with car insurance, and i was not happy with the customer service. we have switched back over and we feel like we're back home now. the process through usaa is so effortless, that you feel like you're a part of the family. i love that i can pass the membership to my children, and that they can be protected. we're the williams family,

and we're usaa members for life. call usaa today to talk about your insurance needs. ykeep you sidelined.ng that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.

>> maria: questions continuing to swirl around president trump's firing of director james comey particularly the timing of it. earlier today act fbi director andrew mccabe refusing to confirm president trump's claim that comby told him that he was not under investigation. >> director mccabe, did you ever hear director comey tell the

president that he was not the subject of an investigation? >> i can't comment on any conversations the director may have had with the president. >> maria: i'm joined by senator rand paul from kentucky. good to see you, senator. what do you make of that? he would not commit. we know what the president wrote to the letter to jim comey saying, despite you telling me on three separate occasions andrew mccabe would not agree to it. >> i think we put our intelligence people, fbi, all these people in impossible situations. we try to ask them to talk about things they shouldn't be talking about. some ways that's what got comey on the bad list of democrats and republicans. we trot him out at press conferences probably from his own sra hreugs. we put him out there and ask him all these questions about investigations. really what you want from an fbi

director is one who really doesn't comment or puts out a sentence, a written sentence and doesn't do press conferences because we trap these people into talking about things they just aren't comfortable talking about and gets them drawn into politics. >> maria: there was a lot of inconsistency around jim comey. i would say the relationship between the intelligence community and the president started off pretty rocky. i recognize there are agencies and this is a really big community so maybe it's a generalization. but the leaks and the commentary from former head, like the head of the cia who was sort of very adamant against donald trump. was that part of it? that there was a group of people that were against him? >> this still worries me. one of the most alarming things that i have heard in the last couple weeks was chuck shumer's comment when he said trump should watch it because if you mess with the cia, they can get

you six ways to sunday. i'm not sure exactly what that means, but it doesn't sound good. it worries me that one of the top eight officials, chuck shumer is witness and he knows what the intelligence agency can do. most of what they do is secret even from the rest of the members of congress. but schumer's one of the eight that knows what they can do to an individual. when he says the cia will get you if you cross them, that worries me that there's not enough oversight of our intel community. then when we find out that the conversation where they listen to flynn's conversation which i think should be illegal if it wasn't, it's absolutely illegal to leak that. someone in the intelligence community did that because they didn't like the president. we've got to do more oversight. that's why i'm proposing more restraint and more rules on what we do with the data that's collected through this foreign intelligence court. i don't think you should be able to search that data bank for an american without asking a judge through a normal court for a

warrant. >> maria: of course, we know at the time final weeks of president obama's term, he changed all the rules and allowed the agencies to share raw data, which was not the case for the eight years that he was in place and even before that, prompting so many people to question. the main stream media made fun of the president when he said he was surveiled which he was. you've been talking about it. you're wondering if you were surveiled. >> without question general flynn was. people call it incidental to try to say it wasn't a big deal. it wasn't incidental to general flynn an his career that they listened to a private conversation. i'm concerned for americans in general. but i have gotten two reporters that came up who said they have multiple sources, some of this has been published already, saying that the obama administration was looking at my private information. there are rumors of other people who ran for president. i'm trying to get to the bottom of this.

i have asked the white house to look at the logs of all the previous obama administration official to see if they were searching my name or unmasking me in any way. i know one other senator who confided to me that he was srfd by the obama administration including his phone calls. when this comes out, if there are political figures from the opposition party, it's a story bigger than any of the allegations of russian collusion. it's about your own government spying on the opposition party. that would be enormous. >> maria: you were running for president. do you think the obama administration was surveiling anyone who was running for president because they wanted hillary clinton to win? >> i don't know if that's true. skeufed the senate committees and i have asked the white house. there's this whole discussion of susan rice unmasking people. there's no reason for her to unmask people. hers is not a position of investigation. hers is a political position. for her to get involved with

unmasking trump officials is alarming. if it happened to other people, it is even more alarming. but we're gonna try to get to the bottom of this. it's a very secret world. it's a world so secret that most members of congress are never allowed. >> maria: right. sure. senator, i think you hit on something big. tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices for deep penetrating relief at the source. aleve direct therapy.

my belly pain i could build a small city

with all the over-the-counter products i've used. enough! i've tried enough laxatives to cover the eastern seaboard. i've climbed a mount everest of fiber. probiotics? enough! (avo) if you've had enough, tell your doctor what you've tried and how long you've been at it. linzess works differently from laxatives. linzess treats adults with ibs with constipation or chronic constipation. it can help relieve your belly pain, and lets you have more frequent and complete bowel movements that are easier to pass. do not give linzess to children less than six, and it should not be given to children six to less than eighteen. it may harm them. don't take linzess if you have a bowel blockage. get immediate help if you develop unusual or severe stomach pain, especially with bloody or black stools. the most common side effect is diarrhea, sometimes severe. if it's severe stop taking linzess and call your doctor right away. other side effects include gas, stomach-area pain and swelling. talk to your doctor about managing your symptoms proactively with linzess.

>> shepard: it's noon on the west coast. 3:00 in washington. today we saw a remarkable interview with the president of the united states. one in which he said he planned to fire the fbi director james comey regardless of recommendations by officials. he talked about what happened when he asked comey if he, the president, was under investigation. plus, in washington, lawmakers have been firing questions at the man that took over running the fbi after the president fired comey. >> did you ever hear director comey tell the president that he was not the subject of an investigation? >> did you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the