covfefe. have a great afternoon. all right. we are following as katy said a very busy afternoon. a source close to me says the former fbi director is expected to testify next week after being, quote, cleared for takeoff by special counsel robert mueller. we'll bring you all the details. a lot of details. and at any moment, president trump will meet with the vietnamese he president. and we're waiting for hillary clinton to speak momentarily at a tech conference in california. we will air her speech live. she is expected to talk about russia's interference in the 2016 election. also today, new reporting that president trump is leaning toward backing out of the paris climate agreement. something that president trump wouldn't speak about. we don't know if a final decision has been made.

this is hugely important. the president will make an impact will have an impact on everything from the economy to the environment. we'll break that down for you. >> ken, this is news of james comey's testimony. i've got that tweet word stuck in my head. we knew he would testify after memorial day. what does this mean, that he's been cleared for takeoff, that donald trump did and him to back off the investigation? >> my source isn't going that far. but i did speak to a course that said he said whether it was okay for james comey to testify. there was some speculation that mueller wouldn't want him to testify at all to the extent that he's had this conversation

with donald trump and trump has asked him to drop the investigation into michael flynn. there is some speculation who believe that could be obstruction of justice if mueller was investigating that, he may not have wanted comey to talk about that. now we are made to believe he has cleared comey to talk. we don't know what he cleared him to say or not to say. he's been eager to tell his side of the story. since the issue with mike flynn has already been in public, and since the fact comey wrote memos about every interaction, we can expect some discussion. >> you're the intelligence guy. do you know anything about what this tweet meant? planned parenthood it means something. >> you're smart. a long life in this business.

we've got pete williams and kelly o'donnell. i don't know what you call it. a gaggle with audio. >> it was abruptly ending and that's because the vietnamese prime minister pulled into the driveway. the president could come out and greet, as we've seen president trump do a number of times when he has a dignitary arrive. so sean spicer could use that to say he needed to be present for this next meeting and cut off the briefing abruptly. of course, they could schedule it in such a way that they could give it more time but they opted not to do that. and they're trying to reduce the access in terms of a visual image. they are making this on the

record and the audio was not available. that's trying to deemphasize the briefing and its brevity is a way to deemphasize the briefing. there were questions and answers on a number of the topics of the day from the paris accord to the president's plans on whether or not he will seek to move the u.s. embassy in israel from tel aviv to jerusalem. there's a deadline for that. and of course, the confusing tweet with sean spicer said the president and a small group of people said what he meant. without any further explanation. so was it accidental or intentional? was there a code in that? was it a draft that got put on to the live twitter feed? we don't know. and there was a very brief answer given to that. and what was notable in the briefing is that questions relating to the russia investigation are now being referred to the president's outside counsel. and that's perhaps the biggest

reason to hire an outside lawyer. to try to take the white house's day to day activities and focus on the president's agenda, and decision making and things related to the office, and try to push any of the investigative questions to his outside counsel to tate outside the white house. strategically it is helpful to the white house and expect them to say it again and again. what we don't know is will the president's personal counsel provide any information when those questions are put to him. >> let me bring pete into this conversation othe issue that you were just talking about. when asked again about, he was asked very directly by, sean spicer was asked directly. did the president engage in obstruction of justice. it was relate to james comey's question. and the rumors that he was asked by the president to back off on

the russia investigation. sean spicer's comment, which i had not heard before today. he said in the future, all of these questions will be referred to outside counsel. what do you make of that? >> we've certainly seen presidents do that before. that's basically where the clinton administration was as the whole white water lewinsky matter run by ken starr, so there's some precedent for it. in terms of mr. comey's testimony, my understanding is they hadn't completely nailed down the day. it was still subject to discussion. but they wanted to be in open session. they want him to testify publicly. he, we're told, wants to testify publicly. and as you discussed with ken a moment ago, he's had he a conversation with fbi director mueller, the special counsel. and they've agreed this can be done. it would have been shocking if

bob mueller said you can't testify publicly. they know each other. >> let me ask you, the reason, if anyone thought bob mueller would have said no, you can't testify publicly, it would have had to do with not compromising the special counsel's investigation. >> a lot of this has come out publicly. it has been all talked around. i don't think there's any question that -- let's face it. the discussion they would want to have is what happened between james comey and donald trump. so james comey talking about it isn't going to change his own recollection. that's why investigators don't want people saying things out in public. they don't want to tanlt what is in the public mind about this and change people's memories. there is no chance that will happen with mr. comey. and given that there are only two people in the room, that

would have happened. >> that's a good thing about talking about w the president. it usually stands out in the conversations we all have with other people. thank you very much. let's have a live look right now at the stage, at the c conferen where some of the biggest name in tech and media are this week. this is in california. hillary clinton is due on the stage any minute. we'll bring her remarks to you live. for millions of people who suffer from lower back pain finding relief can seem almost as painful. finally the search is over. drug-free aleve direct therapy®. a tens device with high intensity power that uses technology once only available in doctors' offices. its smart wireless design lets you control its intensity for deep penetrating relief at the source. the power of relief is in your hands. aleve direct therapy. find yours in the pain relief aisle.

you totanobody's hurt, new car.

but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it. what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. you'd get yosmart.le car back. with liberty mutl new car replacement™, we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

happening right now, hillary clinton isetting ready to take the stage at the code conference outside l.a. she'll be interviewed by the co-founders. friday she gave a speech at her alma mater wellsley where she took plenty of shots at the president. i want to bring in hugh hewitt, columnist at roll call, both are co-authors of shattered. and last but not least, the managing editor at news one now. thank you all for being with us. let me start with you. there's clearly always energy around listening to hillary clinton speak. what is hillary clinton's role right now? >> i think elder statesman of a party desperately in need of direction. i think everyone is looking to

2020. we'll look for her very closely. home for her favored glances. she is in california today. i wouldn't be surprised if senator harris is out there with her. she is one of the front-runners for 2020. i think senior statesmen in a democratic party that needs senior statesmen. >> look, she is someone who lost. think about it. we now live stream things. if this was jimmy carter in 1980, if this was michael dukakis in this period, we would be covering it that way. so wrever she goes, we're still going to cover it. >> like a media flaw? >> no, she speaks, we have access to it and we cover it. but here's the piece. the democrats right now are not in need of some kind of statesman. you allow leadership to organically rise. that's the problem. when they say, democrats need somebody right now. you allow the energy to build. leadership rises to the top. don't manufacture it.

that's the problem most people have in d.c., allow to happen and it is happening. >> did you imply as some people have. we're looking to 2020. given everything you've studied about this election and wrote about, is there a role for a hillary clinton in 2020 as a candidate? >> there is a role for her on the side lines. i don't know if there's a role for her as a candidate. a lot of people have clint fatigue. they're looking for someone to kind of bubble up some fresh blood. but i think there's a role on the side lines. she's set up a path. she wants to do this together. she wants to be a part of resistance. a lot of people are longing and craving for her to be a presence in the democratic party. >> he lost 2020 because he wants to skip 2018th. you cannot skip 2018. that's where your bench comes from. don't just focus 2020. >> here's the question though.

2018, not a presidential election, requires some leadership. and if we're waiting around for this leadership to bubble up in the democratic party corks 2018 come around with a result that democrats are not interested in? that the republicans don't do as badly as some people think they might? >> i'm not sure they need a clear leader of the party heading into the 2018 mid terms. you can often run pretty much just against the incumbency. we saw that in 2010 with democrats running, and democrats running against george w. bush at the time. i think there's time for democrats to figure out who their next leader is. i think it will bubble up from the bottom, more than come from the top. especially in there's any lesson learned, i think there's a lot of energy at the grassroots level and some frustration being dictated to. >> if you were to be giving

hillary clinton advice at this point on her commentary, what is the best thing to do some when she complains about the election, people say she's whining about the election. a couple people have written a book about how they didn't run the election. what should she be saying? people are looking to hear something from her. >> i think she ought to ignore pundits like that he giving her advice on how she gets the most joy out of life. however, there are 25 endangered democrats running. i would accept invitations to raise money and be with them. then when there's a focus told issue like the president trump imminent decision withdrawing from the paris accord, democrats need someone like president clinton, vice presidt gore, these apoplectic comments, to persuade people like someone

like secretary clinton can talk about staying in it. >> did you miss the big march they had over the issue of climate and the environment? i don't think they needed hillary clinton or anyone else telling them to march. this is what grassroots organizing is. a party is rebuilt from the grassroots movements. democrats, you have tom perez as the dnc chair. and he needs to rebuild the party, a la howard dean. so they don't need that. let hillary clinton do what she does. she can write, do those things. but she has inspired thousands of women. you look at the number of we will coming out of women's march now running for office. you will see a flood of we will on the state level, the national level. they're going to need money and resources and mailing lists. that's what she can do. let her do her.

stop saying you focus 2020. >> and people like her when she is on the side lines and not the candidate. they like her in the political atmosphere. they want to hear from her. so to roland will's point, let her be her. >> she can't do anything without he shall on all sides commenting on how she should do it. what is the right her to be? is the frustration with the election now something of the past? as hugh suggests, criticism with how we tweel the paris accord or the russia investigation. is that the current discussi to have? >> i think you're walking me through a minefield to say what secretary clinton ought to do. there are a lot of people interested in what she has to say and she will take fire. one of the things her supporters like best about her, she will come back from that fire. she will bounce back when she is attacked.

i don't think that will dissuade her from weighing in on issues, from raising money for candidates. and i think she will be part of the political and policy discussion in this country. as long as she wants to. >> let me ask you. what role does she play when it comes to donald trump? to donald trump, is hillary clinton irrelevant? is she a thorn in his side? or is she somebody he has to pay attention to in. >> i think president trump is well advised to take note, to respond in a measured fashion, something we're not used to and i wish we could get used to. roland wants a fight. people have to give her her due and listen to her when she speaks. >> this is president trump meeting with the vietnamese prime minister.

>> it an honor to have the prime minister of vietnam in the white house. prime minister phuc has done a spectacular job in vietnam. led so many different categories in trade and other things. we'll be discussing trade. we'll be discussing north korea. and we have many things to talk about and we look forward to being together. very much so. [ speaking in foreign language ] >> translator: begin by thanking you, mr. president, to pay this

official visit to the united states. i bring with me the warmest greetings from the vietnamese people. the relationship between vietnam and the united states have undergone significant upillegals in history. but today we have been able to become come pre hencive partners. [ speaking in foreign language ]

>> translator: i have had a great pleasure of meeting with the president last summer and the exchange of letters. i was very impressed with the friendliness of the president and i'm confident our meeting today will be equally open and will be fruitful to set out major directions for our enhanksed vietnam/u.s. cooperation on the basis of mutual respect and equality on the interests of peace and development in asean, in the asia pacific. we very much look forward to you, mr. president, to vietnam, to attend the economic leaders meeting as well as pay an

official visit to vietnam in november this year. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you, everybody. thank you. >> president donald trump and president phuk. we are now going to california, hillary clinton being interviewed. let's listen in. >> thank you. >> i think they voted for you, a lot of these people. before we start, there is a distillery in washington, d.c., and i've heard you like -- >> there is? >> yes. a new distillery. >> i've been known to, right. >> so we brought you rodham rye, you can see it. it is a hillary clinton rye.

>> yes. that's what they told me. >> if would you like a drink at any time during this -- >> well, let's just get al tmpbl right to say hillary clinton has a drinking problem. >> it may depend on how the interview goes. >> so just give me a shot. >> i was thrilled. not in the white house but rodham rye is on the shelves. >> it seems like a fair tradeoff. >> you have to take what you can get. >> so we're going to talk a lot about tech and politics, tech in our country, your views on it. i think we were talking backstage and i think this was the first election where tech got weaponized in a way that directly affected outcome of the election. i have to ask you first.

discounting all the outside forces, which were obviously very important. what misjudgment did you make, and your staff that, thinking about it, was something serious and that you wish you had done the opposite? >> well, i'm writing a whole book, walt? i don't want to wait for the book. >> we don't probably have enough time for everything. but look. the overriding issue that affected the election that i had any control over, because i had no control over the russians. too bad about that. but we'll talk about it, i hope. was the way that the use of my e-mail account was turned into the biggest scandal since lord knows when. and in the book, i'm just using every, everything that anybody

said about it besides me to say this was biggest nothing burger ever. it was a mistake. i've said it was a mistake. if i could turn the clock back, i wouldn't have done it in the first place. the way it was used was very damaging. >> and you didn't handle it? that's a mistake on your part? we're trying to get at what you think you misjudged. >> well, if you went all the way back, doing something that others had done before was no longer acceptable in the new environment in which we found ourselves. and there was no law against it, there was no rule, nothing of that sort. so i didn't break any rule. nobody said don't do this and i was very responsible and not at all careless. so you end up with a situation that is then exploited and very effectively for adverse political reasons. and it was maddening. because in the middle of a hard fought campaign, it is hard to

stop and say, what you think you know about this is not accurate. you can still judge me and hold me accountable. that was fair game. but there was so much else going on at that time. the investigation that they conducted ended in july. it was over. and i have my complaints about the former director comey but it was done. and then it was reignited and it became the major reason for the end based on the best analysis that i could find, that i lost ground and ended up losing. so turn the clock back. what was done, and i think it was interesting. i know you had dean from "the new york times" stery. and they covered it like it was pearl harbor. and then in their endorsement of me, this e-mail thing, it is like a help desk issue.

it was always a hard issue to put to bed but we put it to bed in july and then it rose up again. >> i want to do one more of these misjudgment things and then we'll go on. goldman sachs. you knew you were going on run for president or you thought might, probably, you had to be thinking about it as a possibility. why did you do those? >> why do you have goldman sachs here? because they pay us. they paid me. look, again -- >> i know they paid you and they paid you a lot. >> yes, yes. yes. >> you're not somebody who need that had money for the next week's shopping and you knew you might have run. so why do it? >> well, i gave speeches to many, many groups. .to camp counsellors, to health

care executives, .to just a wide range of groups. not just the united states. knew what they did for the economy and to the economy. and i think that speaking to them, raising questions, which i did in 2008 and 2009, people have no reason to know this but in the 2008 campaign before the iowa caucus, i actually randal an ad about the looming mortgage crisis. i never thought that anybody would throw out my entire career of standing up and speaking out and voting against and voting in fare of what i thought are good policies because i made a couple of speeches. so when you're the secretary of state, people want to hear what you talk about. the most common thing i talked about in all those speeches was

the hunt for bin laden. that was one of the central missions that i spoke on from the title the towers fell on 9/11, as a senator from new york, and to be part of that, to be one the of very few people advising the president on that. that was a fascinating issue. and i thought i could tell that to a lot of different people. and you know, men got paid for the speeches they made. i got paid for the speeches i made. it was used and i thought it was unfairly used. but it was part of back ground music. >> but it was used. you and i have discussed this, the idea of how many years ago did you talk about the vast right wing conspiracy? >> let's see. it was probably '98. >> at the time people thought you were a little crazy. >> yeah. >> what is it like now? how do you look at i now? you're someone that has fong a

target is on your back almost every, right now, every bot in russia is with the last 20 seconds of things you told. >> i hope we get into this. look. i take responsibility for every decision i made. but that's not why i lost. so i think it is important that we learn the real lessons from this last campaign. because the forces that we are up against are not just interested in influencing our elections. they're going after our economy and they're going after our unity as a nation. so yes, back in '98, i have been watching this and been obviously the target for a number of years. and what is hard for people to really accept, although now after the election, there's greater understanding, is that there are forces in our country,

put the russians to one side, who have been fighting rear guard actions for as long as i've been alive myself life coincided with the civil rights movement, with the women's rights movement, with anti-war protesting, with the impeachment. the driving out of office because he was about to be impeached president. >> let's be specific. as if people didn't understand what i'm saying. and let's talk about wargate and all the stuff that we lived through. and we were on a real roll as a country despite assassinations, despite setbacks, opening the doors of opportunity, expanding rights to people who never have them in any country. it was frankly thrilling. and i believed then and i believe now, that we're never done with this work. and so part of the challenge is to maintain the energy and the

focus to keep going forward. but you have to recognize the other side is never, never tired either. they're always looking to push back. and what we saw was in this election, particularly, and i appreciate what walt said. the first time you had the tech revolution really weaponized, before that it was a way to reach voters, collect fundraising, do things that would help the candidate that was behind the messaging. that changed this time and it changed for a number of reasons we should talk about. you had citizens united come to its full fruition. so unaccountable money flowing in against me, against other democrats in a way that we hadn't seen. and then taxed to this weaponized information war. you had effective suppression of

votes. those of us who can remember the vote go rights act, the expansion of the franchise, i was in the senate when we voted 98-0 under a republin president, george w. bush, to extend the voting rights act and the supreme court said, we don't need it anymore. throws it out. and republican governors and legislatures began doing everything they could to suppress the vote. that's before the russians or anything on the outside. and there were lots of factors at work. yeah, it was aimed at me. but it is a much deeper, more persist tent effort to turn the clock back on so much of what we have achieved as a country. >> you've recently, and we talked about the uses of facebook, the uses of, we can get into donald trump's twitter thing in a second. that could be a whole

conference, essentially. but how do you look, how do you see how it was weaponized. that begs the question, why weren't you weaponizing it. not just you but the democrats. >> here's how i see it. and i home others will jump into this debate in the months ahead. there's a lot that we have to understand if we're going to avoid this continuing assault on our sources of information. here's how i think about it. i was very proud of my data and analytics team. they were largely veterans of the obama campaigns, '08, '12, and then we brought in a lot of new people, new expertise to build the sort of next generation. and we allowed help from some people in silicon valley as

well. what we thought we were doing, here's the arena we were playing in. was going to obama 3.0. better targeting, better messaging. and the ability to both turn out our voters as we identify them, and to communicate with voters. here's what the other side was doing and they were in a different arena. through content farms, through an enormous investment in falsehoods, fake news, call it what you will. >> how about lies? >> that's a good word, too. the other side was using content that was just flat out false. and delivering it in a very personalized way. both sort of above the radar screen and below.

and you know, i'm not a tech expert by any stretch of the imagination. that really influenced the information that people were relying on. and there have been some studies done since the election, that if you look, let's pick facebook. if you look at facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. they were connected to as we now know, the 1,0 russian agents who werenvolved in delivering those messages. they were connected to the bots that are just out of control. we see now this new information about trump's twitter account being bomb-related by millions of bots, and it was such a new experience. i understand why people on their facebook pages would think, oh, hillary clinton did that. i did not know that. well, that will affect my opinion about her.

and we were, we did not engage in false content. we may have tried to put every piece of information in the best possible light and explanations, but we weren't in the same category as the other side. >> so you weren't going to lie. good for you. >> well -- >> i see you're rethinking that. >> i'm not rethinking it. but everybody else better rethink it. we have to figure out how to combat it. >> my impression is that the left, the democrats, the liberals, whatever you want to call it, including bernie sanders folks and everybody, on the democratic side, which at one time, like 12, 15 years ago, was ahead of the republicans on tech as it existed then. is way behind now. and it is not just, there's a way to weaponize tech that doesn't involve lying or having russians help you.

but just, it is a political weapon. a fact of life. so how do you do it? >> let me just do a comparison for you. i set up my campaign and we have our own data operation. i get the nomination. so i'm now the nominee of the democratic party. i inherit nothing from the democratic party. >> what do you mean nothing? >> i mean it was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, it'sata was need yoker to poor, nonexistent, wrong. i had to inject money into it. >> the dnc. >> the dnc to keep it going. donald trump who did nothing about setting up any kind of data operation, inherits an rnc data foundation that after the republicans lost in 2012, and

they thought they had a very good operation with the set-up that romney did, called orca. they thought that was state-of-the-art. they lose. so they raised best estimates are close to $100 million. they brought in their major vendors. they basically said, we will never be behind the democrats again. and they invested between 2012 and 2016, this $100 million to build this data foundation. they beta tested it. they ran it, somebody was able to determine about 227,000 surveys to double-check, triple check, quadruple check the information. so trump becomes the nominee and he is basically handed this tried and true effective foundation. then you've got cambridge analytica, and you can believe the hype on how great they were or how they weren't, but they added something.

and again we'd better understand that. the mercers did not invest all that money just for their own amusement. we know they played in brexit. and we know they came to jared kushner and basically said, we will marry our operation which was more as it has been described, psycho graphic sentiment, a lot of hvesting of facebook information. we will marry that with the rnc. on two conditions, you pick steve bannon and you pick kellyanne conway and then we're in. trump says, fine, who cares? right? bannon who had been running the breitbart operation, supplying a lot of untrue, false stories -- >> let's just say lies. >> we know. so they married content with delivery and data. and it was a potent combination.

the question is where and how did the russians get into this? i think it is a very important question. so i assume a lot of the people here may have, if you haven't, i hope you will, read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early january. >> this is 17 agencies. >> 17 agencies all in agreement which frig my experience as senator and secretary of state is hard to get. they concluded with high confidence that the russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign to influence voters in the election. they did it through paid advertising, we think, they did it through false news sites, through these thousand agents, through machine learning which kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. the algorithms.

so that was the conclusion. and i think it is fair to ask how did that actually influence the campaign and how did they know what messages to deliver? who told them? who told them? who were they coordinating with or cluolluding with? because the russians historically in the last couple decades, and then increasingly, are launching cyber attacks, and they are stealing vast amounts of information. a lot of the information they've stolen, they've used for internal purposes to affect markets, to affect the intelligence services, et cetera. so this was different. they went public. and they were conveying this weaponized information, and the content of it. and they were running, there's all these stories about guys over in macedonia who are running these fake news sites. and i've seen them now.

you sit there and it looks like a low level cnn operation. >> or a fake newspaper. >> like the denver guardian. >> so the russians, in my opinion, and based on the intel and counter intel, people i've talked to, could not have known how best to weaponize that information unless they had been guided. >> by americans. >> guided by americans and people who had polling and data. >> who is that? >> let me just finish because this is the second and third step. so we know that they did that. we understand it. best example, so within one hour, one hour of the "access hollood" tapes being leaked, withinne hour, the russians, let's say wikileaks, same thing, dumped the jon podesta e-mails. now, if you've ever read the jon

podesta e-mails, they are boredom. >> we had him here once. [ laughter ] >> forgive him for what he said about you. but they were run-of-the-mill e-mails. especially run-of-the-mill campaigns. what did she today? the stuff that's so common, basic. within one hour they dumped them and then they began to weaponize them. and they began to have some of their allies within the internet world, like info wars, take out pieces and begin to say the most outrageous, outlandish, absurd lies you can imagine. so they had to be ready for that and they had to have a plan for that and they had to be given the go-ahead. okay, this could be the end of the trump campaign.

dump it now. and then let's do everything we can to weaponize it. and we know it hurt us. as i explain in my book, you know, the comey letter which was, now we know, partly based on a false memo from the russians, it was a classic piece of russian disinformation, compromat, they call it. for whatever reason but i speculate, i can't look inside the guy's mind. he dumps that on me on october 28. and i immediately start falling. but what was really interesting, since the main stream media covered that, like i say, pearl harbor, front pages everywhere, huge type, et cetera. all the trump people go around screaming lock her up, lock her up. at the same time the biggest google searches were not for

comey. that information was lying out there. it was for wikileaks. so voters who are being targeted with all this false information are genuinely trying to make up their minds. what does it mean? we know that the google searches for this stuff were particularly high in places in wisconsin and pennsylvania. >> so a couple questions. that was fascinating, riveting. who was directing they will from your perspective, and do you blame, i'm going to use facebook because that's where a lot of this was done, especially around the fake news. the pope was voting for trump. there was one particular one i got in trouble with facebook, you being a lizard. they kept arguing about the gray area, and i remember saying, she's not a lizard. >> thank you, thank you. >> that's actually a kind thing from her. >> i'm very touched.

>> do you blame -- i don't know if you're a lizard or not. but the fact is i'm guessing you're not a lizard. who do you think directed it? and do you blame facebook or any of these platforms for doing nothing? what should they have done? >> let me separate out the questions. first, we're getting more information about all of the contacts between trump campaign officials and trump associates with russians before, during and after the election. so i hope that we'll get enough information to be able to answer that question. >> but you're leaning trump. >> yes. the domestic rnc republican allied data, combined with the

very effective capabilities that the russians brought, basically, the group running there was the gru, the military intelligence arm of the russian military, and they have a very sophisticated cyber operation, in bed with wikileaks nrgs bed with d.c. leaks. and d.c. leaks and gooseir which were dropping this stuff on me, they haven't done anything since early january. their job was done. they got their job done. so we're going to connect up a lot of the dots. it is really important. when comey did testify before being fired, this last couple of weeks, he was asked, are the russians still involved? and he goes, yes, they are. why wouldn't they be? it worked for them. and it is important that americans, and particularly people in tech and business

understand, putin wants to bring us down. and he is an old kgb agent. i had obviously run-ins with him. in large measure that prompted but it is deeper than that. it's way beyond me. so, with respect to the platforms, you know, i -- i am, again, not exactly sure what conclusions we should draw, but here's what i believe. i believe that what was happening to me was unprecedented and we were scrambling. we went and told everybody we could find in the middle of the summer the russians were messing with the election and we were basically shoed away, there she goes, vast right-wing spears. now it's a vast russian conspiracy. we saw evidence of it. we could track it and we could not get the press to follow it and we never got confirmation.

remember, comey was more than happy to talk about my e-mails but he wouldn't talk about investigation of the russian so people wto vote onovember 8th having no idea that there was an active counterintelligence investigation going on of the trump campaign. so, if i put myself in the position of running a platform, like facebook, first of all, they've got to get back to trying to cure rait it more effectively, put me out of the equati equation. they've got to help prevent fake news from creating a new reality that does influence how people, you know, think of themselves, see the world, the decisions that they make. i don't know enough about what they could have done in realtime. it wasn't like we were not having conversations with them, because a lot of the people on my team were. i also think i was the victim of a very broad assumption i was going to win. it doesn't matter what you do -- >> a victim that you were going to win. >> nate silver and the "times,"

88%, no, 89% chance. >> i never believed that. i always thought it was going to be a close election. our elections are always close. if you have an "r" next to your name or "d" next to your name, you end up falling in line to vote for your candidate. we'll get to that after the election, we're not going to worry about it right now and that turned out to be a terrible mistake. >> so a victim they thought you were going to win, so what's the difference? >> that's part of it. >> what about the financial element, they made money from this? >> look, the networks made more money than they've made in years and we got lots of network executives saying things like, you know, he may not be good for the country, but he's good for business. and there was that and putting him on all the time, calling in, you know, wherever he was from, and here's a really telling statistic that has been validated. so, i had this old-fashioned idea that it really mattered what i would do as president, and so i laid out very specific

plans and i costed them out because i also think it's important to be fiscally responsible. number of people in this audience were helpful to me and i thank you and we had really good -- we had a great tech program. we had a really good set of policies. okay. in 2008, which was the last time you had a contested election, not somebody already in the white house, the policies put forth by president obama, senator mccain, got 222 minutes of airtime. okay? in 2016, despite my best efforts and giving endless speeches and putting out all kinds of stuff, we got 32 minutes. that's all. >> total? >> total. in all of -- >> over, like, two years? >> well, over, what, 18 months. that was it. total. >> does that signify that you need to think about campaign -- not you in particular.

are you running again, by the way? >> no. >> okay. but, you need to campaign differently because, you know, you were saying policy doesn't matter, politics did. and donald trump -- look, a lot of people say you're a great -- he was a great campaigner, a bad president. you were a terrible campaigner, you would have been a great president kind of thing. >> yeah. >> but you have to be -- you have to win and not -- >> look, let's put the campaigning stuff on the -- >> don't you have to change? >> i won 3 mon mor votes than the other guy. >> right. >> and i -- [ applause ] i had a very, very close contest with president obama. basical basically, out votes were neck and neck. he ended up with more delegates and, you know, depending upon how you count it, i was slightly ahead, slightly behind, so we were absolutely on par when it came to actually getting votes. i won two senate races in new york. so, i never said i was a perfect candidate, and i certainly have never said i ran perfect campaigns, but i don't know who

is or did. and at some point, it sort of bleeds over into misogyny and let's just be honest, you know, people who have a set of expectations about who should be president, who a president looks like, you know, they're going to be much more skeptical and critical of somebody who doesn't look like and talk like and sound like everybody else who's been president. and, you know, president obama broke that, you know, that racial barrier, but, you know, he's a very attractive good looking man with lots of -- >> well, he's likable enough. >> he's likable enough. absolutely. more than. more than. so, the campaign, look, were there things we could have done differently? yocould say that aboutny campaign. >> is campaigning gog to change in the future? >> i want to -- >> yeah. >> want to follow up on something when we're on this bleeding over into misogyny thing. and it comes from the recent

"new yorker" profile -- "new york" magazine profile of you which i thought was fascinating and interesting but the part of it that just leapt off the page for me as a reader was, were you and some of your staff folks were quoted in there as saying bernie sanders could get an ary angry on the -- at the voting. >> right. >> about the fate of the people who are trapped in this globalization automation thing. turn certainly did that. oversimplifying, getting angry. you couldn't go that because you're a woman. if a woman does that, it backfires on her. are we never going to have a woman in lipolitics who can use that technique, effective technique, that shows i'm emotionally kind of with you just be oversimplifying and getting angry? is that true? do you really feel you couldn't do that? >> well, let me say this. you know, i have been on many

speaking platforms with many men who are in office or running for office. >> right. >> and the crowd gets you going and you get up there and i watch my male counterparts and they beat the podium and they yell and the crowd loves it. and a few times i've tried that and it's been less than successful. let me just say that. and it's a little maddening because i'm as angry about what's going on, you know, as anybody, because i've seen us go backwards. as i said in the very beginning, about so many things, economic opportunity, advancemes in human rights, civil rights a the rest. >> health care. health care. >> health care. so, i care deeply about this, and i remember when i was doing health care back in the day, '93, '94, and we were trying to move in an agenda forward and i went to the american academy of pediatrics and i've always been

particularly concerned about what happens to kids who don't get the health care they need. >> right. >> and i gave a really hot speech and i got hammered for it repeatedly because i don't know what the way forward will be for others, walt, but for me, trying to convey my commitment, my lifelong commitment, and not only that, what i've done and, you know, i've put up against anybody who ran or thought of running what i've already accomplished compared to what they have on behalf of people, it just is very difficult to go from intensity, passion, emotion, to anger. so, yeah. try to stay on the other side of that line. >> so, spinning it forward, what do you think a democrat -- how do you assess the current democratic scene in terms of -- and also what will happen with this russia investigation? >> well, i'm not going to

speculate on who might end up running. we have to first win elections in new jersey and virginia in 2017. we've got to take the house back and keep our incumbents and maybe make progress in the senate. everything will change if we win in 2018. >> do you really believe we can -- >> yes, i do. >> i say "we." >> yeah, we. >> i'm retiring soon. we. >> yes. >> take the house back? >> yes. >> we can -- >> yes. >> 20-something senate seats re - we have to defend. >> well let's lk at -- >> seriously. come on. you're really smart about this. >> let's look at the house. >> be honest. >> let's look at the house. we have to flip 24 seats. >> yeah. >> okay? i won 23 districts that have a republican congress member. seven of them are in california. darrell issa being one. if we can flip those, if we can then go deeper into where i did well, where we can get good

candidates, i think flipping the house is certainly realistic. it's a goal that we can set for ourselves. >> is the party organized to do that? >> well, we're working on it. i'm working on it. >> we don't have a lot of time here. >> yeah, well, you know, you got two very good political strategists running the senate and the house for democrats. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. they know how to win elections. they're incredibly focused, tireless and effective. so, honestly, i am -- i'm hopeful about the house and i'm working on it. i have a new organization called onward together, and i'm helping some of these new groups that have sprouted up online to recruit candidates, run candidates, help candidates go to town halls, expose -- >> hi, everyone. i'm nicolle wallace. this is "deadline white house." we've been listening together to the woman who didn't quite make it to the white house, very candid hillary clinton offering political advice to her own