announcement by potus of christopher wray comes via twitter without official press release or bile. >> aren't you glad he tweeted? we got a news. >> bill: breaking news from the white house, president trump named the man he will nominate to be the next director of the f.b.i. this as we kick off a critical 48 hours on capitol hill concluding with testimony from the fired f.b.i. director james comey. hang on, here we go. i'm bill hemmer. welcome to "america's newsroom." >> shannon: i'm shannon bream. happy wednesday. president trump intends to nominate christopher wray to be the next f.b.i. director. the announcement comes one day before former f.b.i. director james comey testifies before congress. we're awaiting the senate hearing today featuring the heads of four intelligence agencies. we expect plenty of questions

on russia, hacking and leaks. >> bill: team fox coverage for you today. catherine herridge inside the hearing room on the hill. christ stirewalt standing by and we begin with doug mcelway. what can we report about the president's new nominee? >> announcement came by twitter at 7:45 this morning saying i will be nominating christopher wray to be the new director of f.b.i., details to follow. he is a partner in the law firm of king and spalding where he specializes in white collar crime. he graduated from yale university in 1989 and yale law in 1992. 1997 joined the u.s. attorney's office in the northern district of georgia. in 2001 he was appointed by president george w. bush to associate attorney general under john ashcroft.

he spearheaded the prosecution of the first ceo to be tried under the oxley. >> they lied, they cooked the books and filed false financial statements with the sec. >> he has brought experience in private practice and department of justice but no experience in the f.b.i., which some might consider to be a liability. his law firm of king and spalding has law offices all over the world, including moscow, which will no doubt come up in the confirmation hearing yet to be set. >> bill: thank you, the ground work from the white house. thank you, doug. shannon. >> shannon: ahead of that hearing tomorrow with comey senate intelligence committee will hear other folks here today on the hill. set to begin in under an hour.

headlining today's testimony the heads of four intelligence agencies. catherine herridge is live inside the hearing room as the expectations build. what do we expect this morning? >> good morning. the expectation based on our reporting at fox news the witnesses will be pressed by the senators on their interactions with president trump and whether there was any effort to interfere or downplay the f.b.i.'s counter intelligence investigation into russia's election meddling last year. the director of national intelligence dan coates who overcease 17 intelligence agencies was there an effort by the president as reported by the "washington post" in march of this year to go to coates to try to enlist his help to get him to go to james comey to back off the ongoing investigation of former national security advise or

mike flynn. he have put out this quote. he has put out this quote. a key issue for republicans on the panel today will be the issue of unmasking of american citizens in coded intelligence reporting and whether it was inappropriately done in the case of the trump campaign team. house intelligence committee has already issued subpoenas for records that relate to the unmasking by the former national security director susan rice and john brennan and samantha power. was the unmasking done for political reasons. >> bill: here is chris stirewalt for analysis. the hearing is about the fisa

court. reverse surveillance that's a topic in washington now. democrats yesterday made it clear they'll ask about russia and comey. how or what should viewers listen to or what should they listen for today, chris? >> well, it all depends on which side of the program you are reading from. like you said, democrats are going to be popping popcorn when they think about what dan coates is going to say and dan coates, a former senator who was a late addition to trump world, a colleague, revered mentor for vice president pence comes onto this team. it is said he told people around him after a meeting with the president that the president urged him to get comey to back off the russia case. the statement he put out doesn't say that didn't happen.

the statement said he didn't feel pressure. that's basically what comey has said, or the reports on what comey has said reveal which is he asked me but i didn't feel pressured. it didn't change a thing. different between an inappropriate conversation and a conversation that is obstructive in nature. that is going to be the word games that are playing out here for the democrats. >> bill: now you want to call today the pre-game? we don't know. once these hearings get underway who knows which direction they go. when james comey appears tomorrow the president was asked about it yesterday. a comment from him yet. >> i wish him luck, thank you, everybody. >> bill: four words there, i wish him luck. is it possible the white house will be in immediate response mode to comey's testimony to realtime tomorrow? will that happen do you believe? >> do you remember when general

petraeus was going to testify on capitol hill and someone attacked him from the outside. last the last time i can remember a hearing, any testimony that got this much of the political space. the white house is going to be savagely attacking comey. outside group that supports the supper pac that supports the president will be savaging comey in ads. it's to destroy his character because they're afraid of what he might say so they want to just ruin him. they will probably try today in part somebody is going to try today in part to assassinate his character so when he gets there tomorrow we'll say we know all about you, buddy. >> bill: kellyanne conway was asked. there is a report in washington that jeff sessions offered his rest ignition, not formerly but verbally. this is how she addressed that

today. >> jeff sessions was an important part of the campaign and the transition to the president. he endorsed him early, he flew with him frequently. he gets things done and a close ally of the president. >> bill: no question about that and no question about this. the president thought his recusal on russia was a big fat mistake. last comment. >> the president wanted to embarrass attorney general sessions and make him feel and look bad he probably accomplished that. the reason there is a special counsel in this case is the president bragged about firing comey over russia and that's what did him in. >> bill: chris stirewalt in washington we expect the testimony and questions and oftentimes the most interesting aspect of these hearings are how the

questions are asked. we'll see both sides. >> shannon: don't think there hasn't been a lot of strategizing ahead of this. we have a playbook from the democrats and what they plan to ask about. senators are assigned parts of the questioning and i'm sure the gop is doing the exact same. >> bill: don't go anywhere, stand by. >> shannon: we have a fox news alert. isis claiming responsibility for a pair of terror attacks in tehran. they hit iran's parliament and the shrine. 12 people are dead. not sure if the attackers are included. parliament went on for hours before gunmen were killed. the attack marks the first time that isis has claimed responsibility for any attack within iran. we'll have more on that coming up in just minutes. >> bill: so rare. isis trying to tell the world they can hit anywhere at any time as we saw yesterday in

paris. london over the weekend. more coming up on that. also other big stories today. new details on the charged nsa leaker reality winner, that's her name. the trail of clues she left behind as her parents speak out on that. >> the democratic party is thinking. they don't have a message. they don't have a leadership so they obstruct. it is the worst of the worst. >> shannon: president's son eric saying they would rather see his father fail rather than the country succeed. our panel will debate fair anibal answered. >> bill: bombshell reports on the botched gun running operation linked to the murder of brian terry saying -- a live report what we're learning about that so many years later. >> there is something -- there is something they don't want us

to know and there is something to hide. >> i think they're hiding something. i think they're lying and hiding it. i said they're lying, oh yeah, big time. big time. passing the buck. let's take a look at some 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.

buttrust angie's list to help., [ barks ] visit angieslist.com today.

>> she emailed the news outlet from her personal email but used her work computer to do it. the printer also held other clues. microdots that contain the serial number and when the document was printed. her parents are speaking out saying she won't be treated fairly. >> if she did what she is being accused of, i know she is ready to pay the price. i know that she is going to do whatever she needs to do to pay that price. i'm terrified for her right now because of the news, the climate, the social media. i'm terrified that she is not going to be treated fairly. >> shannon: she could face up to 10 years if jail and charged with removing classified material from a secure facility and due in court tomorrow. >> i've never seen hatred like this.

to me they're not people. it's sad. morality is gone. you see the democratic party is imploding. they have no message. you see the head of the dnc, a total whack job. there is no leadership there. and so what do they do? they become obstructionists because they have no message of their own. >> bill: eric trump came out blazing last night. brad blakeman and richard fowler. brad, he was firing on all cylinders. does he have a point? some of the criticism, morality is gone. i've never seen hatred like this before. democrats are imploding. >> eric is right and it's so sad. democrats from the time donald trump was elected president embarked on a vicious campaign of personal destruction and legislative obstruction. the way we get back at them as republicans is we legislature and pass bills, honor promises.

if we do a good job we hit them again at the ballot box by being successful by winning elections and that's how we get back at democrats. we have power and we need to use it wisely and do what we said we were going to do. >> bill: richard, your reaction. >> history repeating itself. eight years ago almost to the day that mitch mcconnell said he has one goal to make sure president obama fails. the same thing eric is complaining about. no question wash -- washington is broken. it has nothing to do with democrats. the accessible healthcare act the house pass, can pass the senate today. they have 52 votes and the vice president. nothing to do with democrats. >> bill: they may get to that at some point. keep it on eric trump's comments for the moments. you look at the briefings every afternoon and i think we can all based on history agree that

it's really never been this tough or critical before. all three of us can say yes on that, correct? here is more of trump's point last night. listen here. >> you see how he is treated when he goes over to the middle east versus obama when he came off air force one. they wouldn't bring a set of stairs to the plane. that's how little respect they had for this nation and it scares the other side. it scares the other party. >> bill: he is saying there is a double standard with this president, his father. >> i don't see a double standard here at all. the reason why the press is covering trump the way they are. he won't stop tweeting. laura ingraham said the same thing. his tweeting doesn't help him. the media and the press corps ask questions about what the president has tweeted and the white house has no answers to it. not to mention that fact after we pulled out of the paris accord we saw europe give america a backhand. when angela merkel said we

can't depend on america. >> bill: that's not what she said. one more comment i'll get you to weigh in. >> we need to bring some manners and respect back. they would rather see him fail than have america succeed. i've said that a million times. that's the ugliness of washington, d.c. >> they would rather see america fail than donald trump succeed. brad? >> sad but true. democrats, everything is dead on arrival. we don't need them. we have a majority in the house and senate. if necessary we'll change the rules further in the senate to get bills through. now is a time for action. if democrats don't want to work with us, that's fine. let's get the business done for the people. >> bill: what about the respect and the manners that he commented on, richard?

>> two points here. donald trump while he was on the campaign trail was bully in chief and now commander-in-chief. brad is right in that republicans have huge majorities in the house and majority in the senate. they don't need democrats to get anything done. you can't blame us for the fact the president's agenda isn't getting done. you have to play the freedom caucus and paul ryan. you were right. you just said that you guys have the majority. >> bill: a little too early for all the volume. >> we aren't jamming things through. we're -- >> you can do that. president trump has no control of the house conference and no control of the senate. >> he won't jam bills through. >> bill: they would rather see him fail than america succeed. gentlemen, thank you. >> shannon: we are getting stunning new video of the

moment officers were attacked at notre dame cathedral in paris sending hundreds of people running for their lives. >> bill: u.s.-led forces move on raqqa, syria. we are talking about the strategy and why raqqa and the european attacks are all connected day after day. >> the forces are mostly kurds. they won't be able to hold that area. we need to come up with more arabs.

over hereno!ver here! (dog barking) whoever threw it has to go get it. not me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman stealth bombers give america an advantage in a turbulent world. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us.

the future isn't silver suits anit's right now.s, think about it. we can push buttons and make cars appear out of thin air. find love anywhere. he's cute. and buy things from, well, everywhere. how? because our phones have evolved. so isn't it time our networks did too? introducing america's largest, most reliable 4g lte combined with the most wifi hotspots. it's a new kind of network. xfinity mobile. >> bill: we now have video the moment officers if paris came under attack. it's rare to see and graphic. left of your screen a man with a hammer swinging and injuring

an officer before he was shot on-site. he was not on a watch list. he did survive. but after searching his home police found a pledge of allegiance to isis. hundreds fleeing the notre dame cathedral. it's a stunning sight to see in the church. everybody sit and stay where you are, hands in the air. we shouldn't be living this way. we saw it play out yesterday when we were on the air when news came in from notre dame. >> shannon: social media and be able to feed out those pictures in the video. a sense of what they're going through. that attack and police neutralizing him. you realize what they're trained for. it happened so quickly. >> bill: great point. >> shannon: isis claiming responsibility for two deadly bombings in tehran. 12 people killed, dozens injured marking the first attack claimed by isis in the islamic republic. in the middle of all these terror strikes around the world u.s.-led forces move to crush

isis in its stronghold. the attacks in raqqa. adam kinzinger, good to see you this morning. what do you make of these attacks in iran? because it really seems to highlight the sectarian divide and we believe it's a first. >> opening up a new front for isis. we like to think look, we're competitors and enemies with iran and enemies with isis. it's weird that isis would attack iran. the reality is iran is a shia population. isis is predominantly sunni. what you have now as isis is losing territory, keep in mind they can recruit people based on this idea of becoming prophesied next caliphate. as isis was growing it is easy to convince somebody that believes this that it is the caliphate, come join. now that isis is losing

territory it's hard to convince somebody you're the foretold caliphate. they're trying to recruit more people. lashing out and i think this is when the president and the united states of america and allies need to double down and realize it's in this moment that we redouble our efforts to destroy this organization. its a longer term fight than this immediate fight, too. >> shannon: the efforts are centered on raqqa. the defacto capital for isis. people have to be prepared for the fact this is going to be a difficult, very long-term battle. you talked about the fact you could try to annihilate one of these groups. but something else will pop up. as you've said it is more about the ideology. you can change the names of these groups but the underlying ideology. >> you have to defeat the ideology.

you won't defeat it with an m4 or bomb. you'll do it a, from within islam like in the cold war it took us 50 years for the next generations to come along and overthrow the iron curtain saying we want the freedom we had. you'll do it that way and you have to make sure that the 7 and 8-year-olds in refugee camps. the displaced kids, if they're denied the ability to learn to read and write or education, opportunity and hope they're fertile recruiting ground for the next generation of isis and al qaeda. as important as taking the fight to isis and liberating territory, we have to continue to do our best to invest in the next generation of kids in the middle east. if we don't do it with our allies, it won't happen and we'll fight these people in five or six years unfortunately. >> shannon: one of the toughest psychological impacts are the civilian casualties. we have reports out of raqqa that isis is threatening anybody who is trying to leave

because we're trying to warn civilians to get out. isis is holding public executions of families that try to leave. we have to remember what kind of people we're dealing with. >> you're dealing with very demonic people. i guarantee the devil and his demons are enjoying what's happening over there. this is tragic and why we have to redouble our efforts. i think the american people need to know in the coming fight in raqqa you'll hear about civilian casualties. not because we're being reckless, isis is threatening to kill anybody that leaves and wants to put them in houses near targets if they're struck they can say look at all the civilian casualties. this is an evil group that has to be crushed and thankfully the men and women of the united states military are well poised to do it and best trained in the history of the world. >> shannon: we thank you that you're one of them, congressman, good to see you. >> bill: president trump made

his choice for who he wants to lead the f.b.i. critical 48 hours unfolding on capitol hill concluding with testimony from the fired f.b.i. director james comey. mike huckabee has a lot of thoughts on all of this. we'll talk to him in a moment live here. >> shannon: a stunning new report on how the obama administration handled the fast and furious gun scandal will new claims that doj officials covered up key information connected to the scandal. could the family of brian terry finally get the answers they've been fighting for? >> holder knew about it and the president knew about it. i think anybody should be prosecuted for his death.

listen up, heart disease.) you too, unnecessary er visits. and hey, unmanaged depression, don't get too comfortable. we're talking to you, cost inefficiencies and data without insights. and fragmented care- stop getting in the way of patient recovery and pay attention. every single one of you is on our list. for those who won't rest until the world is healthier, neither will we. optum. how well gets done. >> shannon: president donald trump announcing he intends to nominate christopher wray to be the next director of the f.b.i. comes just a day before former f.b.i. director james comey

will testify publicly for the first time since his firing. we're also today awaiting the start of a major senate hearing. a group of top intel agencies leaders and deputy attorney general will testify on russia, leaks and former f.b.i. director comey. joining me now former arkansas governor mike huckabee. good to see you the morning, governor. as we're going to hear from the current director of national intelligence i want to play something we heard not long ago from the former dni and get your reaction. this is james clapper. >> i have to say, though, that i think you compare the two that watergate pales really in my view compared to what we're confronting now. >> shannon: talking there about russia and its interference in our election and the investigation. do you think watergate is a fair parallel comparison?

>> i wonder if clapper is sniffing glue. how could he say that? watergate involved the president of the united states, the top aides inside the white house, the chief of staff, policy director, a whole staff of people, and also the attorney general of the united states plus all the campaign people. it was a huge issue. it involved official government employees. what we're talking about here is allegations, unproven so far a lot of smoke, they say, but no smoking gun. no credible evidence at all that the campaign had not coordination but communication with an ambassador. this is absurd. i don't know where he would come up with this. i tell you where clapper will have some challenges as will comey. if you've seen the lawsuit filed this week reported in circa, there is now an

explosive allegation, dennis montgomery, a former u.s. intelligence contractor, stole over 600 million documents of intelligence from the c.i.a. and n.s.a. gave them back but it proved in the obama administration there was widespread surveillance and illegal spying on american citizens. that's a story that congress ought to be pursuing. >> shannon: there is a lot more we don't know about the story. it sounds like at least the first characterization i read of it that he tried to go to somebody with the documents and in a whistleblower capacity. today we'll hear from the four intel agency heads. tomorrow we hear from comey. do you think the dust settles, the smoke clears, do we get any solid answers on these accusations flying back and forth? >> i think the burden will be on the people testifying, comey, rosen stein and others. if anything was untowards they should have had some reporting of it earlier.

the fact they didn't, they didn't find anything that was a true obstruction of justice. this was nothing there. if the president casually said boy, i hope this thing with flynn goes away. he might have said that. that's not criminal nor obstruction of justice. it doesn't cross the line until he issues and order, an ultimatum, a this or that. not of that has been alleged at this point. if they make that allegation, which i don't think anybody suspects they will. early indications that they most certainly will not. this ought to be over. let's see if the democrats are able to pull the covers up on this one and put it to bed once and for all. my guess is they can't do it. >> shannon: governor, i want to ask you quickly about something that i -- to me has been flying under the radar. chuck grassley has initiated an investigation into whether former secretary of state hillary clinton tried to

influence or shut down a corruption investigation into a foreign donor to the clinton foundation. he sent a letter to the state department. i've heard nothing about this. >> no, you haven't. mainstream media isn't interested in alleged illegal activity. this would be serious if a person holding the office of secretary used her position to shake down foreign governments in order to get favors for a donor. this would be a pretty big story. this should have been splashed on the front page. if rex tillerson were engaged in something like this in the trump administration do you think it would be ignored by the media? doubtful. >> shannon: it's in the beginning stages. we'll see what facts come from the inquiry by senator grassley. good to see you. >> bill: 22 minutes from the hearing. meanwhile lawmakers are revisiting yet again the fast and furious gun running scandal after a new bombshell report claims the former a.g. eric

holder hid key information from investigators, the public and even the family of border patrol agent brian terry. terry was shot and killed by one of the guns used in the fast and furious operation. william, what did you find? >> you know, what was stunning, bill, is what agents with the atf and those attorneys with the doj in washington, what they knew and when they knew it and to what length the obama administration went to hide the facts from the public and the family. a 300-page report and the most illuminating. why? it is based on those thousands of documents that president obama claimed executive privilege. the public was never meant to see. some conclusions include from the report that atf and doj staff displayed incompetence and arrogance. lying from day one. circling the wagons.

stonewalling house investigations. lawyers and agents new at the beginning the guns found at the scene of brian's death belonged to them and they denied it for years including lying to the terry family at least four times to his mother's face about where those guns really came from and finally the atf and doj refused to tell the border patrol about this operation. if the border patrol knew the u.s. was arming the cartels -- an email exchange in october 2010 two months before brian was killed. it was from the chief deputy attorney general in washington saying it is a tricky case given the number of guns that have -- that were involved here and the reply is that hey, this is by another attorney in the

criminal division, i don't think anyone will be surprised about the number of guns being walked to mexico. bill. >> bill: more on this coming up certainly. interesting report. thanks there. all these years later still ongoing. >> shannon: the family deserves answers, his parents do. we're awaiting the senate intelligence committee meeting on tapp hill starting at the top of the hour. we'll take you there live when it >> bill: breaking news on fight to get a healthcare bill to congress. president trump heading to cincinnati, ohio and address the latest news on the efforts. will they get it done by the end of this summer? >> we're working hard on massive tax cuts and working very, very hard on the healthcare. and i think we'll have some very pleasant surprises for a lot of people. love

are teaming up in so many new ways. like new coastal lobster and shrimp, with a lobster tail with butter and herbs, sweet, smoky bbq red shrimp, and shrimp crusted with...get this...cape cod kettle chips. or try lobster and shrimp overboard. a dish this good... makes you this hungry. it's the highlight of the season, and can't last. so hurry in.

♪ the sun'll come out for people with heart failure, 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. >> shannon: the clock is ticking down toward the start

of a big hearing on capitol hill. the senate intelligence committee will hear from four top trump administration officials at the top of the hour. there will be plenty to watch for. clues about the russia investigation and fired f.b.i. director james comey and rod rosenstein's first hearing since appointing the special counsel. >> president trump: next year will only get worse, a lot worse. i don't know how it can get worse than 203%, i'm sure the democrats will find a way. >> bill: president trump yesterday will make that message clear yet again today in cincinnati a day after anthem insurance announced they'll pull out of obamacare in ohio. getting ready to leave cincinnati and the great state

of ohio to meet with obamacare victims and talk healthcare and infrastructure. jonah goldberg is here. good day to you. a lot to get to now. cover it all in four minutes. did the meeting at the white house move the meter on this topic? >> that remains to be seen. i think donald trump was exactly right there. donald trump hasn't gotten a lot of his agenda through but he at least has stuff he can point to. he has executive orders, repealed a lot of the unilateral stuff that obama did. what has congress done? congress has to run for reelection in 2018 on something. so they really need to double down and figure out a way to do something on healthcare and taxes or the republican majority will be in real trouble. >> bill: great point. let me come back to that. there was a piece in the "wall street journal" three weeks ago that's relevant on the point you just made.

this major insurer in ohio to pull out. that leaves 20 of 88 counties with no insurance to go to or turn to. mark meadows, freedom caucus said we believe we need to stay through august to get through tax reform and get our appropriations done. that would mean you blow off the august recess. do you see any congress taking that action? >> bill, you know you've been a reporter for a long time. washington, d.c. in august is about the seventh plain of hell and everyone wants to get out of here. that said, there is only 30 days left to the summer in terms of legislative days before the august recess. they want to do healthcare, tax reform, they have some debt limit stuff. a lot of big ticket items coming. once you get into 2018 there is not a lot of time or maneuverability because it's an election year. if they have to cancel an august recess they have no choice if that's the only way to get this stuff through. >> bill: for those who voted

for this republican majority and voted for trump they would like to see them get this matter done. if you do not move the meter to borrow another phrase for the second time through the month of june. you brought up a great point about the republican majority. three weeks ago "wall street journal" said this. no one knows how the various trump investigations will play out but republicans can adapt and criticize or defend as new facts arise. whatever happens, they will be in a stronger position if they continue squander their current majorities as democrats hope they will. jonah, there in lies the game in your town today. >> that's exactly right. republicans haven't been in power for a very long time and they haven't -- a lot of them have forgotten or never knew how to legislate. one of my hopes is whoever is president that the republicans would get back to the sort of

proper constitutional structure which says that the congress is the first branch of government. they should be churning out legislation regardless of what donald trump is tweeting, regardless of what donald trump is doing. instead because of about 60 years of inertia this city is designed to follow the president's lead. it is very difficult for these guys to figure out how to set out their own path. if they don't figure out how to get the agenda that got them elected by wider margins than donald trump got, they'll lose in a landslide like in 2006 and it will be the end of any hope of any serious conservative agenda getting accomplished. >> bill: seventh plain of hell? >> there are nine plains. >> bill: don't get burned there. jonah goldberg in washington >> shannon: can confirm august in washington president trump announcing his

intention to nominate chris wray as f.b.i. director. the president will be on the road in ohio today. a live report in minutes. >> bill: we're only moments away from the beginning of the senate hearing that will feature top intelligence officials as well as the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. the testimony and opening statements, you'll see them when they start 10 minutes from now.

>> shannon: we are awaiting the start of the senate intelligence committee hearing today. it's a big one. just ahead of the blockbuster tomorrow where they'll hear from former f.b.i. director james comey. before that committee now as a private citizen. today there are four top agency heads you'll hear from. one includes the deputy attorney general rod rosenstein.

his memo was front and center when it came to the firing of james comey. some back and forth about that. no doubt he will be asked about that. as you noted earlier this hearing is supposed to be a fisa court, is government surveilling and tracking what they do with information that's collected. it seems to be flying under the radar because of russia and comey. >> bill: my feeling is that republicans will go to that. the issue of the fisa court which needs to be renewed by the end of this year, december 31. a lot of speculation and some of the reporting we've been talking about the past couple of months is whether or not the previous administration abused the fisa court in the following way. to unmask or reveal names of americans, wife -- which you know was set up to spy on people in overseas the result of september 11th and we've gotten into all the discussions

with rand paul about civil liberties, on and on. is there evidence that shows that they unmasked, for political purposes, the names of americans, be it politicians, private citizens? that's what republicans will go for today. democrats have made it clear they want to talk about comey, the reasons for his termination, and they want to talk about russia and collusion and whether or not there is any evidence that shows there was collusion or not between the trump team during this past election. >> shannon: we know by documents that have been publicly released through the director of national intelligence office the fisa court was very upset with the previous administration for things that happened under their watch. and there was a chastisement from the court telling the obama administration that came to them and self-reported but after years of mishandling information they were chastised by the court.

as you said within that context there will be questions about that that come up today and the focus of the hearing. it won't stay focused there. >> bill: they've told our producers that democrats won't focus on the 702, the fisa court. what will they focus on? comey termination and russia and whether the president said to dan coates, what did the president tell you about the f.b.i. director? did he ask you -- how did he phrase it? what was the context of asking you to let this investigation go, which was the phrase we believe is contained in james comey's notes. now, he is there in 24 hours. so what will the questioning be lined up today in order to lead potential witnesses into an answer where they'll follow up tomorrow? we have 48 hours of this, shannon. and it will be intriguing from the first minute. we'll bring it to you. the room gets almost full. they're about to begin the hearings. we won't miss a moments.

we'll tell you what you need to know when our coverage continues here on "america's newsroom." remote moisture sensors use a reliable network to tell them when and where to water. so that farmers like ray can compete in big ways. china. oh ... he got there. that's the power of and.

>> shannon: we are about to get to the first of two very significant hearings over the next two days, both with the senate intelligence committee and there are hot topics waiting on the table as we see the senators arriving. i'm shannon bream. >> bill: i'm bill hemmer. good morning at home, work. here we go. richard burr is the republican head of this committee. mark warner is minority member. they'll make opening statements in addition to dan coates, the director of national intelligence. i think we saw joe manchin there also. that's how the table will be set, so to speak in a matter of moments. >> shannon: let's bring in marc thiessen, a columnist at the "washington post". marc, as we await this is supposed to be about 702.

the government's power to surveil but it will go a lot of other places today. your thoughts? >> sure. that's exactly right. there is what this hearing should be and what it is going to be. what it should be is about the fact that in the last few weeks we've had terrorist attacks in london, in manchester, in paris. this morning in tehran all driven by isis. we have now the people in front of the committee who are responsible for making sure that doesn't happen in the united states. the hearing should be about do you have the tools to prevent these attacks from happening in the united states. what do you need from us in order to make sure those attacks don't happen and all the rest of it. that's what the hearing is ostensibly about. but it will be about comey, russia, trying to get dan coates to describe his private discussions with the president, which i expect he will refuse to do. try to get andrew mccabe to walk back his statements earlier that there are no interference. it will be a political circus. hopefully it doesn't harm our

national security. they have -- their job is to reauthorize section 702, how we spy on isis. >> shannon: you mentioned dan coates, a former senator himself. these guys know each other but he will be pushed on those accusations that he was pressured by the president with regard to the russia investigation. we have an on the record statement coming to us saying director coates does not discuss his private conversations with the president but he has never felt pressured by the president or anyone else in the administration to influence any intelligence matters orion going investigation. we hear a lot of statements in washington that parse words carefully. you can see dianne feinstein arriving. that statement to me sounds pretty airtight. not a lot of nuance. >> comey also made clear, even after he had these

conversations with president trump, he testified that there was no interference in the investigation and no obstruction of justice. abc news is reporting he will say the same thing tomorrow. so there is -- is it inappropriate for the president of the united states to ask the f.b.i. director to go easy on flynn or to ask the dni to talk to the f.b.i. director about that? yeah it's inappropriate. is it illegal? no, it's not. as long as there is no evidence of obstruction of justice. former dni clapper comparing it to watergate. you had mike huckabee on in the last hour. it's absurd. in watergate there was a crime. there was a break-in of the watergate hotel and dnc headquarters. no evidence any crime took place. clapper and others have testified there is no evidence of any collusion that they have seen. there is no crime, and then second of all there is no

obstruction of justice. that's what brought down richard nixon. he was on tape offering to pay off the watergate conspirators with hush money. no evidence there was any obstruction of justice in this case. this is a political assault on the trump administration to try to delegitimize donald tr shoul in this hearing is focusing on our national security. >> bill: james comey will stop shy of saying there was obstruction of justice. that's what we've heard. what's important today and tomorrow is the context and tone how they deliver the recalling of the conversation. it's very important. i don't know after two days, marc, whether or not america or even washington i should say is satisfied because i believe whether you're republican and you support this administration, you'll find what you want to hear in these two hearings. and if you're a democrat and you're suspicious of collusion you'll pick and choose what you want to hear also.

>> i agree with you. i think look, there is evidence clearly that there were inappropriate conversations. there is evidence that russia tried to interfere with our election. there is an investigation going on by bob mueller, special counsel. one of the advantages of having a special counsel. trump didn't want one but one of the advantages of it is this is supposed to depoliticize the whole process. he is supposed to look at the evidence, talk to people and do this behind the scenes without leaking, without big public hearings and all the rest of it and do his job. that's what we should be doing. happening. this public spectacle doesn't help us at all. >> bill: there is news, too, christopher wray will be the one that president trump wants to lead the f.b.i. now you are 24 hours later after the story that broke in augusta, georgia, a 25-year-old woman who leaked a document

that suggests that russian intelligence was trying somehow to some degree or some level to obstruct with the election by hacking into a voting machine. how do you believe that is characterized today? does it play to one side or the other? >> i don't think it plays to one side or the other. here -- two different things. there is trying to prove that donald trump colluded or his top aides colluded with russia to steal the election from hillary clinton, which is a political witch hunt. trump is right when he says that. the second is the fact that russia tried to interfere with our election and that they -- that we should in a bipartisan way be investigating that and find out how they did it and in order to prevent it from happening again. republicans and democrats agrees we don't want russia interfering in our elections, period. there should be a nonpartisan approach to make sure we come together as a country to make

sure it didn't happen. what she has leaked indicates that. that's different than trying to delegitimize the trump presidency and compare it to watergate. there is no evidence that's even close so far. >> bill: the players are now in the room. director of national intelligence dan coates to make an opening states. admiral mike rogers, andrew mccabe and deputy attorney general rod rosenstein all set to testify in moments. >> shannon: dianne feinstein didn't say a lot when asked about the potential f.b.i. nominee the president has indicated will be chris wray. she said he may be fine but she didn't get a heads-up. she will have a lot of questions on all these things today. marc, quickly as they're taking pictures and shaking hands all doing the nice things about getting this started, how much do you think today. the same committee tomorrow, will be about laying the ground

work, the framework for comey questions tomorrow? >> very much so. this is the pre-game before the big show tomorrow. so i think they're going to try and get -- they're going to focus pretty hard on andrew mccabe to walk back when he said in the previous time he testified where he said there was no interference. they'll try to get some daylight there. they're going the try to set up a pattern, the democrats, a pattern of inappropriate and they allege unlawful behavior on the part of donald trump. which will set up questions for tomorrow, no question. >> bill: thank you, marc. this is senator richard burr from north carolina. chairman of the committee. >> dan coates, dan, welcome back to your family here in the united states senate. department of justice deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. director of national security

admiral mike rogers and acting director of the f.b.i. andrew mccabe. i welcome you that you came to discuss title 7 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act known as fisa is set to expire on december 31, 2017. title 7 includes several crucial foreign intelligence collection tools including one known primarily as section 702. section 702 provides the capability to target foreigners who are located outside the united states but whose foreign communications happen to be routed to and acquired inside the united states. section 702 collection is exceptionally critical to protecting americans both at home and abroad. it is integral to our foreign

intelligence reporting on terrorist threats, leadership plans, intentions, counter proliferation, counter intelligence, and many other issues that affect us. it is subject to multiple layers of oversight and from the judicial, legislative branches. the surveillance court must approve minimization procedures for each relevant i.c. agency before the agency can review collected information. at the end of the day, fisa collection provides our government with the foreign intelligence that our nation needs to protect americans at home and abroad and in many cases our allies. i understand there is an ongoing debate pitting privacy against national security and there are arguments within the debate that have merit. as we all too painfully know,

the intelligence community's valuable fisa collection was thrust into the spotlight because of edward snowden. as a result the united states and its committees oversaw fisa collection authorities which already were subject to historical robust oversight. but i also think it's fair to say that some entities overreacted following snowden's disclosures and now congress must justify what courts repeatedly have upheld as a constitutional and lawful authorities. i also think that it's fair to say that nothing regarding this lawful status has changed since director clapper and attorney general holder wrote to congress in february of 2012 to urge us to pass a straight reauthorization of fisa and since the obama administration

followed suit in september 2012. what has changed, however, is the intensity, scale and scope of the threats that face our nation. this is not the time to needlessly roll back and handicap our capabilities. i know a lot of people will use this hearing as an opportunity to talk about the committee's russian investigation. i would like to remind everyone that 702 is one of our most effective tools against terrorism and attorney intelligence targets. i hope my colleagues and those closely watching this hearing realize that at the end of the day our constitutional obligation is to keep america and our citizens safe. the intelligence community needs section 702 collection to successfully carry out its mission and it is this committee's obligation to ensure that the i.c. has the authorities and the tools it needs to keep us safe at home and abroad.

gentlemen, i look forward to your testimony and continued efforts to maintain the integrity of this vital collection tool and i now turn to the vice chairman for any comments he might have. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for hosting this hearing on the very important 702 program and ways we might ensure its effectiveness. i will get to that in a moment. however, given the panel of witnesses here and given the recent news about ongoing investigations into russian interference in our 2016 elections, i'm going to have to take part of my time to pose questions during my question time. each of you here today we all know have taken an oath to defend the constitution. as leaders of the intelligence community, you've also committed to act and provide advice and counsel in a way that is unbiased, impartial, and devoid of any political

considerations. this is the essence of what makes our intelligence community and all the men and women who work for you so impressive. you tell it straight no matter which political party is in charge. that's why it's so jarring to hear recent reports of white house officials, perhaps even the president himself, attempting to interfere and enlist our intelligence community leaders in any attempt to undermine the ongoing f.b.i. investigation. obviously tomorrow there is another big hearing. we'll be hearing from former f.b.i. director comey. i imagine he will have something to say about the circumstances surrounding his dismissal. we have now heard the president himself say that he was thinking about this russia investigation when he fired director comey. the very individual who was

overseeing that same investigation. today we'll have an opportunity to ask deputy attorney general rosenstein about his role in the comey firings as well. additionally, we've seen reports, some as recently as yesterday, that the president asked at least two of the leaders of our nation's intelligence agencies to publicly downplay the russia investigation. the president has alleged to have also personally asked director coates and c.i.a. director pompeo to intervene with then director comey to pull back on his investigation. i will be asking, as i've told them, director coates and nsa director admiral rogers about those reports today. because if any of this is true, it would be an appalling and improper use of our

intelligence professionals, an act, if true, that could erode the public's trust in our institutions. the i.c. as i've grown to know over the last 7 1/2 years i've been on this committee prides itself appropriately on its fierce independence. any attempt by the white house or even the president himself to exploit this community as a tool for political purposes is deeply, deeply troubling. i respect all of your service to the nation. i understand that answering some of the questions that the panel will pose today may be difficult or uncomfortable given your positions in the administration. but this issue is of such great importance, the stakes are so high, i hope you will also consider all of our obligation to the american people to make sure that they get the answers

they deserve with so many questions that are being asked. i'll return to the subject of our hearing. mr. chairman, i agree the reauthorization of section 702 is terribly important. as the attacks in london, paris, manchester, melbourne and the list goes on and on, all those attacks have demonstrated terrorists continue to plot attacks that target innocent civilians. section 702 under court order collects intelligence about these potential terrorist plots. it authorizes law enforcement and the intelligence community to collect intelligence on non-u.s. persons outside the united states. where there is reasonable suspicion that they seek to do us harm. i've been a supporter of reauthorizing section 702 to

protect americans from terrorist attacks and i'm eager to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make sure that we reauthorize it before the end of this year. a reauthorization of section 702 should ensure also there is robust oversight and restrictions to protect the privacy and civil liberties of americans. those protections remain in place. and if there are areas where those can be strengthened we need to look at those as well. i look forward to our hearing. >> thank you, vice chairman. let me say for all members, votes are no longer scheduled for 10:30. votes have been moved to 1:45. when this hearing adjourns we will reconvene at 2:00 p.m. for closed door session on section 702. i intend to start that hearing promptly at 2:00 today. members will be recognized by

seniority for questions up to five minutes. with that, gentlemen, thank you for being here today. director coates, you are recognized to give testimony on behalf of all four of you. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman, chairman burr, chairman warner, members of the committee. we're pleased to be here today to talk about the most important piece of legislation that affects the intelligence community. i'm here with my colleagues. i would like to take the opportunity to explain in some detail section 702 given this is a public hearing and hopefully the public will be watching our efforts to provide transparency in terms of how we protect the privacy and civil liberties of our american citizens needs to be explained. the program needs to be understood and so i appreciate

your patience as i talk through in my opening statement the value of 702 to our intelligence community into keeping americans safe. intelligence collection under section 702 of the fisa amendments has produced and continues to produce significant intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against international terrorism, against cyber threats, weapons proliferators and other threats. at the same time section 702 provides strong protections for the privacy and civil liberties of our citizens. today the horrific attacks that recently have occurred in europe are still at the top of my mind. i was just in europe days before the first attack in manchester, followed by other attacks that have subsequently taken place. i was in discussion with my

british colleagues through this as well as colleagues in other european nations and my sympathies go out to the victims and families of those that have received these heinous attacks and to the incredible resilience that these communities affected by this violence have shown. having just returned from europe less than three weeks ago i'm reminded of why section 702 is so important of not only protecting american lives but the lives of our friends and allies around the world. the successes are highly classified, the purpose of the authority is to give the united states intelligence community the upper hand in trying to avert these types of attacks before they transpire. which is why permanent reauthorization of the fisa

amendments act without further amendment is the intelligence community's top legislative priority. based on the long history of oversight and transparency of this authority, i would urge the congress to enact this legislation at the earliest possible date to give our intelligence professionals the consistency they need to maintain our capability. let me begin today by giving an example of the impact of section 702 of fisa. it's been cited before but i think it is worth mentioning again. an nsa fisa collection against an i-mail address used by an al qaeda cure orr in pakistan revealed communications with an unknown individual located within the united states. the u.s.-based person was urgently seeking advice on how to make explosives. nsa passed this information on to the f.b.i., which in turn

was able to quickly identify the individual as azi had imminent plans. after he and his co-conspirators were arrested the oversite board stated in its report, and i quote. without the initial tip-off about zazi and his plans which came about by monitoring an overseas foreigner under section 702, the subway bombing plot might have succeeded. this is just one example out of many of the impacts this authority has had on the i.c.'s ability to thwart plots against the united states citizens and our friends and allies overseas. since it was enacted nearly 10

years ago, fisa act has been subject to rigorous and constant oversight by all three branches of government. indeed, we regularly report to the intelligence and judiciary committees of both the house and senate how we've implemented the statute. the operational value it has afforded and the measures we take to assure the government's use of these authorities complies with the constitution and the laws of the united states. further, over the past few years we have engaged in an unprecedented amount of public transparency on the use of these authorities. in the interests of transparency and because this is a public hearing, allow me to provide an overview of the framework for section 702 and the reasons why the congress amended fisa in 2008 and why it

needs to be reauthorized and discuss oversight and compliance and continue to ensure the rights of u.s. citizens. rights that need to be protected. at the outset i want to stress three things as a back drop to everything else that my colleagues and i are presenting today. first, as i mentioned at the outset, collection under 702 has produced and continues to produce intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against international terrorism and other threats. secondly, there are important legal limitations found within section 702 of fisa and let me note four of these legal limitations. first, the authorities grant et under section 702 may only be used to target foreign persons located abroad for foreign intelligence purposes. secondly, they may not be used to target u.s. persons anywhere

in the world. third, they may not be used to target anyone located inside the united states regardless of their national. fourth, they may not be used to target a foreign person when the intent is to acquire the communications of a u.s. person with whom a foreign person is communicating. this is generally referred to as the prohibition against reverse targeting. the third item i would like to stress is we are committed to ensuring that the intelligence community's use of 702 is consistent with the law and the protection of the privacy and civil liberties of americans and to that end in the nearly 10 years since congress enacted the faa there have been no instances of intentional violations of section 702. i would like to repeat that. in the nearly 10 years since

congress enacted the amendments to the freedom act, the act that established the fisa, there have been no instances of intentional violations of section 702. with those points as a back drop, now let me turn to a discussion of why it became necessary for congress to enact section 702. i do this so that the american public can hopefully better understand the basis for this important law. the foreign intelligence and surveillance act was first passed in 1978 creating a way for the federal government to obtain court orders for electronic surveillance of suspected spies, terrorists and foreign diplomats located inside the united states. when originally enacting it congress decided collection against targets located abroad would generally be outside of their regime.

fisa's regime. that decision reflected the fact that people in the united states are protected by the fourth amendment while foreigners located abroad are not. congress accomplished this in large part by defining electronic surveillance based on the technology of the time. in the 1970s, overseas communication were predominantly carried by satellite. fisa has passed in 1978 did not require a court order for the collection of these overseas satellite communications. so, for example, if in 1980 nasa intercepted a satellite communication of a foreign terrorist abroad no court order was required. however, by 2008 technology had changed considerably. first u.s.-based email services were being used by people all over the world. second, the overseas communications that in 1978 were typically carried by

satellite, were now being carried by fiber-optic cables often running through the united states. so to continue the same example, if in 2008 a foreign terrorist was communicating by using a u.s.-based email service, a traditional fisa court order was required to compel a u.s.-based company to help with that collection. under traditional fisa, a court order can only be obtained on an individual basis by demonstrating to a federal judge there is probable cause to believe the target of the proposed surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. this had become an ever more difficult and extremely resource intensive process. therefore, due to these changes in technology, the same resource intensive legal process was being used to conduct surveillance on terrorists located abroad who were not protected by the fourth amendment as was being

used to conduct surveillance on u.s. persons inside the united states who are protected by the fourth amendment. by enacting 702 in 2008 and renewing it in 2012, both times with significant bipartisan support, congress corrected this anomaly, restoring the balance of protections established by the original fisa statute. although i won't go into great detail here regarding the legal framework for fisa section 702 i will simply note a few key items. first, the statute requires annual certifications by the attorney general and by the director of national intelligence regarding the categories of foreign intelligence that the intelligence will acquire under this authority. second, the statute requires targeting procedures that set forth the rules by which the intelligence community ensures

that only foreign persons abroad are targeted for collection. thirdly, the statute requires minimization procedures protecting u.s. persons' information that may be incidentally acquired while targeting foreign persons and finally, each year the fisa court reviews this entire package of material to make sure the government's program is consistent with both the statute and with the fourth amendment of the constitution. we have publicly released slightly redacted versions of all these documents including the most recent opinion to ensure the public has a good understanding of how we use this authority. the government section 702 program, as we have said, is subject to rigorous and frequent oversight by all three branches of government. the first line of oversight and compliance is within the

agencies themselves whose offices of general counsel, privacy and civil liberties offices and inspectors general all have a role in fisa 702 program oversight. the majority of the incidents of non-compliance reported to my office and to the department of justice are self-reported by the participating agencies. in addition, the office of the dni and department of justice conduct regular audits focusing on compliance with the targeting procedures as well as on querying of collected data and on dissemination of information under the minimization procedures. also, we have regular engagements with and extensive reporting to con congress about the fisa 702 program. for example, a judiciary and intelligence committees receive relevant orders of the fisa court and associated pleadings.

descriptions and analysis of every incident and statistical information such as the number of intelligence reports in which a known u.s. person was identified. finally, of course, the fisa court regularly checks our work both through the annual recertification process and through regular interactions on particular incidents of non-compliance. members of the fisa court who are all appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court represent the best of the best of our judicial community. they have vast judicial committed and the responsibilities of protecting the privacy of u.s. citizens. we're proud of our oversight and compliance track record. the audits of the program conducted by the odi and doj are unintended error rates are low and substantially less than

1%. further, and i want to emphasize this, we have never, not once, found an intentional violation of this program. there have been unintended mistakes but i would note that any system with zero compliance incidents is a broken compliance system because human beings make mistakes. the difference here is that these -- none of these mistakes has been intentional. when we do find unintentional errors and compliance incidents we insure they are reported and corrected. it's an extraordinary record of success for the men and women of the intelligence community committed to ensuring their neighbor's privacy is protected in the course of their national security work. with that i would like to turn to the most recent compliant incident which resulted in a significant change in how the

national security agency conducts a portion of its fisa 702 collection. a recent example of the oversight process at work as a recent example nasa identified a compliance incident involving queries of u.s. person identifiers into 702 acquired upstream data. that refers to when nasa receives communications directly from the internet with the assistance of companies that maintain these backbone networks. the fisa court was promptly notified and doj and odni worked with nsa to understand the scope and causes of the problem as well as to identify potential solutions to prevent the problem from reoccurring. the details of the incident are publicly available and admiral rogers can go into more detail into the question and answer

session if you'd like. allow me briefly to state what happened. nasa identified and researched a compliance issue. nasa -- nsa reported that issue to doj, odni and ultimately the fisa court. the court delayed its consideration of the 2016 certifications on that basis until the government was able to correct the issue. nsa determined that a possible solution to the compliance problem was to stop conducting one specific type of upstream collection. so ultimately we decided that the most effective way to address the court's concerns was to stop collecting on this basis that's called the abouts portion of upstream collection. by abouts collection i'm referring to nsa's ability to collect communications where the foreign intelligence target is neither the sender nor the

recipient of the communication that's made but is referenced within the communication itself. the fisa court agreed with our solution and approved the program as a whole on the basis of the nsa proposal. in short what i'm trying to say here is a compliance issue was identified and after a great deal of hard work, the department of justice and the intelligence community proposed to the fisa court an effective solution that took the relevant collection costs and compliance benefits into account and the court agreed with the proposed solution. that is how the process works. and it works well. before i conclude, i would like to speak briefly about an issue that has been the subject of much public discussion. there have been requests, numerous requests from both congress and the advocacy community for nsa to attempt to count the number of united states persons whose communications have been incidentally acquired in the

course of fisa 702 collection. during my confirmation hearing and in the subsequent hearing before this committee, i committed to sitting down with admiral rogers and the subject matter experts in the intelligence community to understand why this has been so difficult. within my first few weeks on the job, i visited nsa, discussed with admiral rogers and his technical people, and followed through on my commitment. what i learned was that the nsa has made extensive efforts. herlian. really tough efforts to device an counting strategy that would be accurate and respond to the question that was asked.

i also learned it remains infeasible to generate an accurate and responsive methodology that can count how often a u.s. person's communications might be incidentally collected under 702. i want to be clear here. to determine in communicants are u.s. persons nsa would be required to conduct significant additional research trying to determine whether individuals who may be of no foreign intelligence interest are u.s. persons. from my perspective as the director of national intelligence, this raises two significant concerns. first, i would be asking trained nsa analysts to conduct intense identity verification research on potential u.s. persons who are not targets of an investigation. from a privacy and civil

liberty per respectives i find it unpalatable. the scores of analysis that would have to be focused from counter terrorism and counter intelligence and counter proliferation, issues with nations in which such as north korea, we need -- iran, we need continuous and critical intelligence commissions. i can't justify such a diversion of critical resources and the mass of critical resources that we would need to try to attempt to reach this even without the ability to reach a definite number. i can't justify that at a time when we face such a diversity of serious threats. finally, even if we decided the privacy intrusions were justified and if i had unlimited staff to tackle this problem, we still do not believe it is possible to come up with an accurate, measurable result. i'm aware that the senate

intelligence committee staff will be meeting following this public hearing in a classified session and admiral rogers has instructed his experts to address this issue in greater detail. before i wrap up my remarks i want to provide one final example that i have for the purposes of today's hearing chosen to declassify using my authority as the director of national intelligence to further illustrate the value of section 702. before rising through the ranks to become at one point the second in command of the self-proclaimed islamic state of iraq, isis, iman was a high school teacher and imam. his transformation from citizen to terrorist caused the u.s. government to offer a $7 million reward for information leading to him.

it also made him a top focus of the nsa's counter terrorism efforts. nsa, along with its i.c. partners, spent over two years from 2014 to 2016 looking for him. this search was ultimately successful primarily because of fisa section 702. indeed, based almost exclusively on intelligence activities under section 702 nsa collected a significant body of foreign intelligence about the activities of he and his institutes beginning with non-section 702 collection nsa learned of an individual closely associated with him. they used the information to collect intelligence on the close associates of iman which

allowed nsa to gain a robust body of knowledge concerning the person network of he and his associates. over a two-year period using fisa section 702 collection and in close collaboration with our i.c. partners, nsa produced more intelligence on his institutes including their location. nsa and its tactical partners then combined this information, the section 702 collection which was continuing and other intelligence assets to identify him and track his movements. ultimately, this collaboration enabled u.s. forces to attempt an apprehension of him and two of his associates. on march 24th, 2016, during the attempted apprehension operation, shots were fired at the u.s. forces aircraft from

iman's location. u.s. forces returned fire, killing him and the other associates at that location. subsequent section 702 collection confirmed his death. as you can see from this sensitive example, section 702 is an extremely valuable intelligence collection tool and one that is subject to a rigorous, effective oversight program and therefore allow me to reiterate my call on behalf of the intelligence community without hesitation, my call for permanent reauthorization of the fisa amendments act without further amendment. mr. chairman, thank you for your patience. and we would be willing to be open to your questions. >> thank you, director coates. the chair would recognize himself for five minutes of questions. in 2012 i mentioned in our opening statement director of national intelligence jim

clapper and attorney general eric holder wrote a letter to the congressional leadership asking congress to pass a straight reauthorization of fisa in september 2012 statement of administration policy also urged the same. this would be to director coates and a.g. rosenstein. has the odni or department of justice position changed at all since the time of the february 2012 letter. >> no, we strongly support the 2012 letter and request. >> we agree 100%. >> this is to admiral rogers and to director mccabe. since congress last authorized this authority in 2012, again, have there been any instances involving a deliberate or intentional compliance violation? admiral rogers? >> not that i'm aware of. >> director mccabe. >> no, sir.

>> admiral rogers, this is to you. if 702 statutory authorities were to end or be dim -- diminished. what would be- >> i could not be able to recreate the insights on the russian efforts to influence the 2016 election cycle without 702 we could not have produced that level of insight. >> this is a jump ball. april 26, 2017, the court held that section 702 certifications including the targeting and minimization procedures are lawful both under fisa statute and the fourth amendment. as former director comey testified last month the only reason our laws cover the non-americans who aren't in our

country is because their communications u.s. based networks and systems yet others have suggested imposing a fourth amendment warrant requirement on foreigners located outside the united states. this is really nsa and justice. would imposing such a warrant requirement impact our national security tools to protect america? >> i'll be happy to take the ball. yes, it would, senator. what's important to recognize is that in the absence of section 702, the department of justice and intelligence community in every case which we wanted to obtain foreign intelligence information to collect against a particular target we would be required to obtain a court order, that would need to be supported by probable cause. the consequence is it would be very time consuming. these are very thorough investigations and we produce very lengthy documents. director mccabe and i spent a fair amount of our time every

morning reviewing a stack of documents with career agents and prosecutors in which they have determined it's appropriate to seek those orders. it would be time consuming and require a significant commitment of resources and a showing of probable cause. as you know, probable cause showing that is required under the constitution in circumstances in which privacy interests of americans are at stake and its required by the fourth amendment, that's a relatively higher threshold than we require for foreign intelligence information. we think it's important that we not apply that fourth amendment constitutional standard to foreigners who are not in the united states. >> thank you. admiral rogers, this is to you. there is a lot of news reporting, much of it inaccurate that characterizes 702 of a means of targeting u.s. persons. we know that targeting u.s. persons is prohibited. as it -- as is what is termed

reverse targeting. could you explain and clarify the reverse targeting prohibition and what does it prevent the i.c. from targeting and collecting? >> reverse targeting is designed to preclude our ability to by pass the law. the law is expressly designed to ensure that we are not using this legal framework as a capability to target u.s. persons. reverse targeting is the following scenario. say we're interested in generating insight on u.s. person a. we know that we can't get a fisa warrant. the idea of reverse targeting the theory would be well, why don't you target a foreign entity that that u.s. person talks to and you'll get all the insights you want on the u.s. person but you'll have by passed the court process and the entire legal structure.

702 reminds us that we can't bypass other laws or target u.s. persons. >> can you please clarify for members and the public what's meant by incidental collection? >> incidental collection in the statute itself, if you read the law. the statute acknowledges in the execution of this framework we will encounter u.s. persons. we call that incidental collection. it happens under two scenarios, number one, about 90% of the time. we are monitoring two foreign individuals. those foreign entities talk about or reference a u.s. person. the second scenario that we encounter where we call incidentsal collection is we're targeting a valid foreign individual and that valid foreign individual, a foreign intelligence target, ends up having a conversation with a u.s. person. that's not the target of our collection and not why we are

monitoring it in the first place. we're interested in that foreign target. that happens at the times we have incidental. that happens 10% of the time. >> and were that incidental collection to happen you have a procedure in place in both instances to minimize that -- >> we do. the law specifically gives us a set of processes that we have to follow. if we do encounter a u.s. person incidentally in the course of our collection, we ask ourselves several questions. number one, are we looking at potential criminal activity? if we do that we have a requirement to report or inform the department of justice and f.b.i. and they make the determination if it's illegal or not. we're an intelligent organization not a law enforcement organization. the second question we ask ourselves, is there anything in this conversation that would lead us to believe we're talking about harm to individuals? in that case we do report it. if we think there is harm to individuals or criminal we report it.

other than that, unless there is a valid intelligence purpose, depending on the authority in the case of 702 we specifically purge the data. we remove it. we don't put it into our holdings. if we don't assess there is intelligence value and it is a u.s. person we have to purge the data. >> as i indicated, i have some questions on another matter and director coates and admiral rogers will mostly be directed at you gentlemen. thank you for your testimony this morning. we all know now that in march then director comey testified about the existence of an ongoing f.b.i. investigation into links between the trump campaign and the russian government. there are reports out in the press that the president separately appealed to you, admiral rogers, and to you, director coates, to downplay the russian investigation. now we've got additional

reports -- we want to give you a chance to confirm or deny these -- that the president separately addressed you, director coates, and asked you to in effect intervene with director comey to downplay the f.b.i. investigation. admiral rogers, you draw the short straw and i'll start with you. before we get to the substance of whether this call or request was made, you've had a very distinguished career close to 40 years. in your experience, would it be in any way typical for a president to ask questions or bring up an ongoing f.b.i. investigation particularly if that investigation concerns associates and individuals that might be associated with the president's campaign or his activities? >> today i'm not going to talk about thaoer et calls or

discuss the specifics of interactions or conversations. if i could finish, please. that i may or may not have had with the president of the united states. i will make the following comment. in the three plus years that i have been the director of the national security agency to the best of my recollection i have never been directed to do anything i believe illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service i do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so. >> in your course prior to the incident that we'll discuss, was it in any regular course where a president would ask you to comment or intervene in any ongoing investigation. is there any prior experience? >> i won't talk about thaoer et calls today. >> did the president, reports that are out there, ask you in any way, shape or form to back off or downplay the russian

investigation >> i won't discuss the specifics of the president of the united states. i stand by the comment i just made to you. >> there was an ongoing f.b.i. investigation. >> yes, sir. >> i'm disappointed with your answer but i may indicate and i told you i was going to bring this up. there is -- we have facts that there were other individuals that were aware of the call that was made to you, aware of the substance of that call, and that there was a memo prepared because of concerns about that call. will you comment at all. >> i stand by the comments i made to you today, sir. >> you will not confirm or deny the existence of a memo. >> i stand by the comments i've made to you today, sir. >> i think it will be essential, mr. chairman, the other individual who served our country as well with great

distinction who is no longer a member of the administration has a chance to relay his version of those facts. again, i understand your position. i hope you will also understand the enormous need for the american public to know. you have to administration saying there is no there there. we have these reports, and yet we can't get confirmation. i want to go to you, director coates. when you appeared before, you said if called before an investigative committee i will provide them with what i know and what i don't know. i have great respect for you. you served on this committee. i remember as well when we confirmed you and i was proud to support your confirmation you said that you would cooperate with this committee in any aspects that we request of the russia investigation. we now have press reports, you can lay them to rest if they're not true, but we have press reports of not once, but twice that the president of the

united states asked you to either downplay the russia investigation or to directly intervene with director comey. can you set the record straight about what happened or what didn't happen? >> as i responded to a similar question during my confirmation in the second hearing before the committee, i do not feel it's appropriate for me to in a public session in which confidential conversations between the president and myself, i don't believe it's appropriate for me to address that in a public session. >> i understand. >> i stated that before. >> you also said if brought before the investigative committee you would certainly provide them with what i know and what i don't know. we're before that investigative committee. >> i stand by my previous statement that we're in a public session here and i do not feel that it is appropriate

for me to address confidential information. most of the information i've shared with the president obviously is directed toward intelligence matters during our oval briefings every morning at the white house or most mornings where the president and i am in town. but for intelligence-related matters or any other matters that have been discussed, it is my belief that it's inappropriate for me to share that with the public. >> i respect all of your service and i understand and respect your commitment to the administration you're serving. we will have to bring forward that other individual about whether the existence of the memo that may document some of the facts that took place in the conversation between the president and admiral rogers but i would only ask as we go forward -- my final comment mr. chairman, that we also have to

weigh in here the public's absolute need to know. they are wondering what's going on. they're wondering what type of activities. we see this pattern that without confirmation or denial appears that the president not once, not twice, but we will hear from director comey tomorrow, this pattern where the president seems to want to interfere or downplay or halt the ongoing investigation not only of the justice department but this committee is taking on. i hope as we move forward on this you'll realize the importance that the american public deserves to get the answers to these questions. >> i would like to respond to that if i could. first of all, i'm always -- i told you and i committed to the committee that i would be available to testify before the committee. i don't think this is the appropriate venue to do this in given that this is an open hearing and a lot of

confidential information relative to intelligence or other matters. i just don't feel it's appropriate for me to do that in this situation and secondly, when i was asked yesterday to respond to a piece that i was told was going to be written and printed in the "washington post" this morning, my response to that was in my time of service, which is interacting with the president of the united states or anybody in his administration i have never been pressured. i have never felt pressure to intervene or interfere in any way with shaping intelligence in a political way or in relationship to an ongoing investigation. >> all i would say, director coates, is there is a chance here to lay to rest some of these pressure points. if the president is asking you to intervene or downplay. you may not have felt pressured but if he is even asking,