>> russia takes center stage in washington on the eve of inauguration day. and the f.b.i. goes under the microscope for its preelection probe of hillary clinton's e-mails. i'm amy walter. we tackle it all tonight, on "washington week." >> i think it was disgraceful, disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out. >> the president-elect concedes russia was behind election hacking but then accuses intelligence agencies of leaking an unverified dossier. >> that's something that nazi germany would have done and did do. >> meanwhile, trump's top cabinet picks are at odds with their future boss, expressing support for the u.s. intelligence committee and united in their belief that russia does pose a danger.

>> it's pretty clear about russian efforts to hack and have an impact on american diplomacy. >> plus, why experts are skeptical of the incoming president's plan to separate himself from his international business empire. and did the justice department and f.b.i. mishandle the investigation of hillary clinton's e-mail server? we'll get answers and analysis from julie davis, michael crawley, karen tumulte of the washington post and manu raju of cnn. >> this is "washington week." funding is provided by... >> xq institute. ♪[music]

>> additional funding is provided by boeing. newman's own foundation. donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ford foundation. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. through the yuen foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you! >> once again, from washington, amy walter. >> good evening. president-elect trump launched another tweet storm today, taking aim at the intelligence committee, the media and political opponents from both parties. it was all about an unverified dossier that suggests russian intelligence has compromising

information on him. this is what trump tweeted. totally made up facts by sleezebag political operatives, both democrats and republicans. fake news. russia says nothing exists. probably released by intelligence, eve even knowing e is no proof and never will be. my people will have a full report on hacking within 90 days. the 35-page document was not prepared by u.s. intelligence but the contents were summarized and presented to mr. trump and president barack obama during a briefing last week. michael, can you help us unpack all of this? what was this dossier? where did it come from, and why did it make donald trump so angry? >> well, it's a lot to unpack. the dossier was the work of a former british intelligence agent whom u.s. intelligence officials, we now know his name -- they say he was a credible guy, had real contacts in moscow, doing private work

for hire, no longer in the british government. originally hired by a republican whose identity we don't know. then later, after trump won the primaries and we moved on to the general election, he was doing work for democrats. and he, work his old sources in moscow, compiled a 35-page report about donald trump, which are quite scandalous. and, you know, run the gamut from charges that track with things that the intelligence community says are true, which is that the kremlin, directed by vladimir putin, had an organized plan to interfere in the u.s. presidential campaign, to harm hillary clinton and help donald trump, running the spectrum to pretty wild and sensational and quite salacious charges that would involve donald trump being compromised possibly on videotape. i won't get into the details but they are now publicly available for the world to see. the u.s. intelligence community

summarized, as you said, those charges into an appendix of a document that trump was briefed on, essentially to say, as we are told, you should just know that this is out there. it may come out. it's kind of a heads-up for you. after cnn reported on the existence of that appendix, the website buzz feed, which likes to cause trouble, published the original document in its full candid glory for the world to see. trump was very upset by that and thought the intelligence community was essentially out to get him. >> that's the question, because the intelligence community has not verified any of this. right? we don't know if this is true. yet they included it in the briefing. why include something that you don't know if it's true or not? >> so i think there are different interpretations. there's one school of thought, some of the reporting suggests that intelligence officials consider this former british agent to be a credible guy with good sources. and, you know, i've spoken to people who say they've read documents like this. and this looked like a professional document, not done by a crank or a screw ball.

and so -- and you wouldn't tell a president about something that you thought didn't even pass the laugh test. but the other theory is simply to say it's out there. it's probably coming out. we're kind of doing you a favor here. it's a little bit of a national security matter, because this could be disinformation. this could be a smear. and you need to know about it. we feel like it's our responsibility, however embarrassing it is, to tell you about it. >> and that's because intelligence agencies knew these documents had been in the hands of most major news organizations in washington for months. now, news organizations have not run with them, because they have been thus far unverified. >> not verified, right. >> so when donald trump, president-elect trump, is accusing the intelligence agencies of leaking it, he's really escalating his conflict with his -- in what, in a week, is going to be his own intelligence community. again, it's over something that actually news organizations seem

to have gotten outside. >> how is he going to work with these intelligence agencies as president, when he's still tweeting, saying that they're intelligence? >> that is a very big question. this is -- a lot of presidents have had somewhat as ver sailor relationship -- adversarial relationships with the intelligence community, going back as far as dwight eisenhower, but the level of open hostility that donald trump has displayed, even before his inauguration, i think is something that, you know, there's nothing even close to a precedent for something like this. >> and julie, you were there at the press conference when trump lashed out at the media. he lashed out at the intelligence community. he didn't say much about russia. he didn't lash out at them. >> that was what was so striking. we had heard for weeks, all of these suspicions he had about the intelligence community, that they were somehow skewing what they learned, they weren't telling him or his aids what they knew, when finally he got

the briefing, he put out a somewhat supportive statement and said, you know, i respect the intelligence community. i'm going to do my own probe about hacking. what was so striking at this news conference, to hear him lash out ot the press -- at the press, that it's a disgrace. when it came to vladimir putin, he did say, yeah, russia hacked. then a few minutes later, he said, well, it could have been someone else also. but when he was asked how he felt about that and what he would say to putin, it was, they shouldn't have done it, shouldn't have done it, and when i'm president, he won't do it. but there was no level of outrage, no level of indignation that a foreign leader of a country that is not a friend of the united states had undertaken to meddle in an election, and that was a striking distinction, given how tough he has been on what will be his own intelligence. >> on the hill, members have been briefed. what are they going to do about this? >> well, we know they're going to have investigations.

there's already several that are happening in the senate armed services committee, senate foreign relations committee, also on the house intelligence committee. now, tonight there was a key development in the senate intelligence committee, who was already planning to look into the russia hack and broader cyber security issues. but in a statement released tonight by both the republican and democratic heads of that committee, they say that they were going to look into a variety of things, broadening the scope of the investigation, including potential contacts between the trump campaign, or they say political campaigns -- you can assume it's probably the trump campaign -- and russia. as we know, in that 35-page dossier, one of the things they talk about is alleged activity between -- contacts between trump and russia. now, those are unsubstantiated allegations. but it's something that the committees will look into now that this is out there. >> and was this a reversal? because earlier, there was talk

from -- that one of the chairman of these committees, republic chairman, that -- republican chairman, that he wasn't going to do an investigation. now today, saying he is. >> richard burr, the north carolina republican, who does chair that committee, came out of the closed briefing with the hearing with the potential next c.i.a. director, mike pompeo, after they -- assuming he's confirmed by the senate. after that, burr talked to reporters, said it's not really something he wants to look into, because it's a political issue. he may have misspoken. i tend to think that he may have. so i'm not sure if it was a complete reversal. but the thing that is different than what a lot of democrats and some republicans want is a special select committee to look into this. and that's very significant, if they were to establish one, because it would raise the prominence of the issue. they would have open hearings, presumably. and by having this intelligence committee, a lot of that is going to be in classified

settings. the public may not see that. >> this pot is boiling over. it is not cooling down. i think trump was hoping we would get past it, move on to other things. and it's boiling away. >> well, in a -- a little bit more boiling happened today when, today in the washington post, it was reported that michael flynn, who is going to be the incoming national security advisor, had conversations with the russian ambassador on the same day that the president -- that president obama put the sanctions down. >> yeah. when it rains, it pours. it keeps coming. oit's a deluge now. it's not clear -- at first blush, the fact that this trump advisor is talking to the russian embassy in the middle of everything, i think, struck people as spooky and weird. it's not necessarily scandalous or improper. it's typical for an incoming administration to have contact with foreign governments. the question is whether flynn might have been in any way

trying to subvert or undermine president obama's, you know, sort of dwindling policy actions towards russia, including the imimpoaimp sition of sanctions d christmas time. the trump campus saying that the conversations did not involve sanctions, were fairly innocuous, included, for instance, an invitation for a trump representative to join a peace conference that the russians would be part of. the interesting thing here is the fact that we learned about this conversation, that the intelligence community clearly -- i mean, i don't know exactly who david's source was -- the intelligence community seems to have said, david, , you might be interested in the fact that michael flynn is talking to the russian embassy. that's obviously coming from a wiretap. clearly someone in the ic is giving the trump camp a headache that may not lead anywhere, may not be a scandal, but i think

it's part and parcel of this ongoing war between trump and the intelligence community and a reminder of why it's dangerous to pick a fight with the intelligence community which probably knows more than you do. >> well, and it's interesting too, because some of the speculation around why that two-page appendix might have have been in the report is just that, to let him know that they have access, just as other news organizations do and other intelligence officials throughout the world to some of this information. and it could be compromising to donald trump, and to sort of tip him off that this is the way this works, so you might want to be careful. there was also another story that came out of israel about u.s. intelligence officials reportedly having told israeli intelligence, be careful with your secrets when talking to the trump people, because he is close to the russians and it might get to russia and in turn to iran. >> on his twitter account.

>> subplot, senator john mccain is part of this too. he met privately with james comey in december to discuss these same allegations that he heard about from a separate source. so a lot of unusual developments here. but also, a sign of the challenges ahead, because a lot of people on the hill and in the intelligence community are just unsettled by his praise and his potential and his fondness of vladimir putin. >> well -- >> again, he asserted this week that a warmer relationship with vladimir putin would be an asset, not a liability to this country. >> well, and karen, that's what i wanted to get to, was he was saying that. but there are a lot of folks on the hill who are his appointees to serve in the cabinet who aren't thinking so fondly about russia. talk to us about what we learn from these hearings and the sort of disconnect between what we hear from donald trump and what we're hearing from the people who will be in charge of the state department and c.i.a. and homeland security.

>> well, yes. in the same week where he was talking about, again, the benefits of a warmer relationship, his nominee for defense secretary, general mattis, was testifying that any read of history would tell you it would be naive to think that there is some benefit, that in fact vladimir putin is out to essentially destroy the western alliance. but that was not even the beginning of how many of donald trump's cabinet level nominees were up on capitol hill in their confirmation hearings, airing their differences with the president, to whom they will be -- for whom they will be working. rex tillerson, the nominee for secretary of state, said that, you know, he sounded a totally different note on climate change. said that the united states needs to be part of an international effort to combat it. donald trump has expressed

skepticism. >> called it a chinese hoax. >> a chinese hoax, exactly. and he also said, you know, that, and also we need to be at the table, things like the paris accords that donald trump said he will get us out of. you have several of his nominees expressing an absolute commitment not to engage in tactics like water boarding, interrogating terrorism suspects. it was just sort of one after another. >> is that -- we've heard for a while now about a team of rivals, you want people around you that have different opinions and it's a good idea to have people challenging you? >> this is different, because this is challenging -- it's one thing to have your advisors debating among themselves. debating what a policy should be. to have cabinet-level officials, in their confirmation hearings, declaring that they are not on the same page, they are on the opposite side of the president-elect, on issues that are the issues on which he

campaigned, is extraordinary. his department of homeland security head said that building a wall on the border is not the beall, end all of security. several of them -- again, the dhs nominee said he's never so much been part of the immigration discussions with the president for whom he is going to serve. rex tillerson said he has not discussed russia with the president. >> just quickly, the rex tillerson was the most probably contentious of the hearings, specifically from one of the republicans questioning him, marco rubio. is there any question about whether he'll get confirmed? is there a possibility that he doesn't make it? >> there is a possibility he doesn't make it, because we don't know what marco rubio is going to do. and we don't know what the democrats are going to do yet. right now, that senate foreign relations committee is split. there's a one-seat advantage for republicans. so marco rubio votes know,

democrats vote no, then there's a problem. there are procedures they can use to advance that nomination to the floor that's rarely done and would create an uproar, and it could be problematic on the floor, because there are 52 republican senators. if the democrats vote no, then you lose john mccain and lindsay graham and marco rubio. he doesn't get confirmed. he may have to rely on democratic support. >> it's so odd that trump sticks to his guns on russia. if he would just give some ground, he would pop this blister. but he's still embracing vladimir putin in a way that i think is going to cause big fights in the congress that he doesn't need. >> we're gonna change gears for one minute, because we have to talk about donald trump, the billionaire businessman, who announced this week he'd hand over control of his empire to his two eldest sons. but the director of the office of government ethics blasted the president-elect, calling the plan to avoid conflicts of interest wholly inadequate. you were there. he had the piles of papers.

his attorney, though, came out and said there are no problems. she walked through all of the reasons why there were not conflicts of interest. why is there still a problem that many government watch dogs have with this? >> because what donald trump has refused to do is, a, to divest from his business, to sell the assets. and b, to put them into a blind trust, that is to say a trust that he doesn't control, nor does he have any insight into what's going on with any of the assets inside of it. so what he has done is created a trust that will be controlled by his two eldest sons. but we do not know the size of that trust. he's supposed to be worth $1.5 billion or more, according to some government disclosures he made. but nobody knows how much is in that trust. nobody knows who the beneficiaries of that trust are. nobody knows who the ethics advisor who donald trump is going to be able to hire himself -- what standards that

person will use to decide whether deals can go through or not, whether there's a conflict of interest or not. and there's no prohibition against any federal government employee talking to an employee of the trump organization. so he is stepping away. but he isn't doing any of the things you would need to do if you wanted to eliminate both the potential or even the appearance forconflicts of -- for conflicts of interest here. what he says is that just by virtue of being president, i can't have a conflict of interest. so that's the end of the story. this is all voluntary, out of the goodness of my heart, and to show everyone that i'm really serious about, you know, making decisions in the interest of the country rather than in the interest of his business. and that may be true. but the arrangement itself doesn't tell you that. and there are going to be questions that will continue. there could be legal challenges. his attorneys seem to think that the clause of the constitution which none of us had ever heard of -- or i'll speak for myself, i had never heard of -- before

he won the election in november doesn't apply here, because the idea is that if a foreign government stays in a trump hotel, and the trump organization profits from that, that that's a fair market value transaction. >> even tb they donate it to charity? >> they said that the profits they make off of foreign governments staying in trump hotels, they will donate to the united states treasury. but that may not solve the problem, because it is profit that his company is making off of a foreign government. so we'll just have to see what kinds of legal challenges arise. i don't think it's going to go away. >> that's a question about, what role do you think congress plays overseeing this? already we've seen a fight break out between the office of government -- and the head of the oversight committee, about what role that an independent oversight could have on trump. >> yeah. jason is not talking about who is going after the ethics

agreement, arrangement that donald trump announced this week. he's talking about going after the office of government ethics head, walter shaw, for his very critical comments of donald trump, saying he should completely divest himself to avoid conflicts of interest. he wants to have some sort of private interview, to discuss exactly why he's making these comments. he believes he's not acting in a non-partisan manner. >> so all of this is going to continue, even on capitol hill? >> absolutely. >> okay. we have to get to one last thing. we could spend -- this is a bunch of news today. the issue of hillary clinton's e-mail server got a reboot on thursday when a u.s. government watch dog announced it was launching an investigation in how the f.b.i. and justice department handled the probe before election day. what is this going to look like? we have five days before the new president is sworn in. what is this going to mean for the new president?

>> one thing they are not going to investigate is the actually, basic decision that james comey made, the f.b.i. director, whether to prosecute or not, but they are going to look into whether he acted properly in the types of disclosures he made. i'm assuming especially the ones on the eve of the election, first of when he opened the investigation and then he said never mind, all of which was within five days of the election. a lot of the hillary clinton campaign aides and her allies were thrilled to see this happen. but i think it's gonna be sort of a passing satisfaction. but the fact is, a week from today, donald trump will be inaugurated. and both sides here are going to continue to have their resentments. and, you know, just today, we had john lewis, congressman from georgia, whose name is practically attached to the phrase civil rights icon, who said he's not going to the

inauguration. his first ever, since he's been in congress, and that he does not consider donald trump a legitimate president. this is the environment that we now have in washington. >> and comey himself was on capitol hill today and got an earful from house democrats, pushing him on this investigation, why he decided to do what he did. debbie schultz, the former dnc, had really lit into him there. so the tension is just -- >> it's just significant. >> significant. exactly. >> it will be around for a long time. well, thank you, everybody. thanks, everyone, for watching! our conversation continues online on the "washington week" webcast extra where we'll talk about president obama's farewell address, the surprise he delivered to joe biden that made the vice president cry, and what republicans are doing behind the scenes to repeal and replace obamacare. you can find that later tonight at pbs.org/washington week. i'm amy walter. have a great weekend! we'll see you next time!

>> funding for "washington week" is provided by... ♪[music]

>> additional funding is provided by the xq institute. newman's own foundation. donating all profits from newman's own food products to charity and nourishing the common good. the ethics and excellence in journalism foundation. the ford foundation. the yuen foundation. committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. the corporation for public broadcasting and by contributions to your pbs stations from viewers like you. thank you!

hello and welcome to show show. i'm thuy vu. coming up on our program, we talk with controversial rabbi marvin higher as he prepared to participate in president-elect donald trump's inauguration. and a conversation with big wave surfer bianca valenti about women competing for the first time this year in the coveted maverick surfing contest. but first the new year is off to a busy start in sacramento where governor jerry brown unveil the his budget proposal this week. he warns that state revenues are shrinking and california faces uncertainty as donald trump assumes the presidency. >> that's why we're going to have to hold on here. this is going to be a rough ride. we cannot tell where we're going