could, would you all make yourself available so it doesn't linger on? there is a lot of questions and anticipation, build up, anxiety, if you will, i think you would help a lot of us clear the day up if you will. >> if i can address the senate's question, this afternoon is set with technical people to walk us through 702. rest assured we will take the first available opportunity to have people in closed session to address the things they can address. and we will meet to determine if it fits in the scope of his current investigation and we will do that. >> i know, you can tell by the entensity of the questions here, there are a lot of concerns and they're willing to say in a classified hearing they will answer differently.

i hope that would be maybe be considered. let me ask does the president support section 702 expansion. >> absolutely, full support. >> did the president ask or was he given any information for the active measures, was he briefed on that? is it an automatic briefing you get? >> all of that took place before i was -- >> i will say yes, he was briefed on the results of the intelligence community assessment. i was there prior to that. he and i have discussed as well, the specifics of that assessment subsequent to him becoming the president. >> let me just say in finishing up, i hope that you all, with

your expertise, put closure to this sooner or later. i think you will take the facts, and give them to us, and come up with some appropriate action and a final report, which is i think is what the public is looking for. >>. >> and senator, i fully understand that statement, and as the chairman mentioned, the procedures that he will put in place, relative to when we hold that meeting, and the official information that is going on, it will dictate when and how duo that. >> i think we need it sooner than later, thank you. >> senator cannoten. >> thank you, i want to talk about the import of section two. the expert of the manner of the

signals, does section 702 allow you to connect information on u.s. citizens? >> as intentionally targeted individuals? >> no. >> does it allow you to target for reverse targeting of u.s. citizens knowing their in communications. >> no. >> does it allow youo collect information on foreigners here on u.s. soil. >> no. >> so you can select information on an isis terrorist in syria, if he comes to the united states we cannot no longer correct information. >> we coordinate with the fbi, but we don't do internal domestic collection. >> foreigners have constitutional rights? >> when they're in the united states different rules apply and that is why i think it is

fortunate for people to understand that it applies in only some circumstances. if they're inside the united states we have to rely on other provisions of fisa. so we can do it, but we have to use different rules. >> what happens when an isis terrorist comes to the united states, and they can no longer monitor his electronic communications? >> his folks notify mine and we work together to pursue coverage under different elements of the fisa statute. >> i'm sure you work as hard as you can to make sure it is seem le -- seamless, but i think it should apply to targeted persons on u.s. soil, going the extra mile, and the rights of foreigners on u.s. soil. that is why i support the term

ince -- permanent, tom bossart right in today's "new york times" about our administration, they support the bill without condition, is that your position. >> can you refeat? >> the trump administration supports this without condition. >> on a scale from one to ten, how happy would you be for it to pass? >> i would be exstatic. >> so you go straight up to 11? >> yes, sir. >> director coates? >> 100. >> i'm not familiar with the rating system. i think it is very important. >> director mccabe. >> 11. >> director, you were in an

exchange earlier about declassifying the persons that could be under incidental collection. it is my understanding it would be virtually impossible to do so in a way that does not further inspring on the rights of person citizens, is that right? >>. >> yes, but it is just not conceivably possible. we could go through the procedures, and have them breach the rights of hundreds and shows of american citizens to determine whether or not they are american citizens or not, but we still having done that, could not get to an accurate

number that senator widen was trying to get us to. my pledge was that i would go out there and try to understand why we could not get that. there will be detailed discussions. relative to just trying to answer the question, and as i said in my statement, even if we were to take people off of their regular jobs, we still would not be able to come up and it is hard to explain how difficult this is or why this is the case. but that is what will be discussed in the closed session because all of this is classified information.

this information. all of the members here will be there. i will do the best i could to try to get to some answer. the result was that we could not get to an answer, number one, and number two, trying to get to an answer would totally disrupt the efforts of the agency. you might be able to make the case let's hire 1,000 more people and get to the answer if you knew you would get to the answer. i have been told, and i hope he doesn't mind me saying this, if someone out there knows how to get to it, come out and tell nsa howo do it. but everybody says you can get to the number, it's easy, there's all kinds of agencies that can do it, i think you might welcome the advice if they wanted to do that. it really raises a question of why there has to be an exact number. >> if we're going to hire 1,000 more people, i would focus on

terrorists an violating the privacy of americans. >> admiral rodgers, you apparently felt free to discussion the conversations you had with the president in january about russian active measures. can you share with this committee how you're determining what conversations you can share and which you don't feel free to share. >> the fact that we briefed the president previously, in new york and it is a matter of public record. >> so you feel free to discuss the conversations. >> can i get to respond? >> no, sir, no. are you saying if it is classified you will not discuss it and my follow up question would be is do you believe the discussion of russian active measures is not the subject of

classified information. when you appointed a special council on may 17th, you stated that based on the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this under the investigation of a person who exercises a degree of independence from a normal chain of command. issued with that statement it provides that 28 cfr were applicable, known as the special council regulations, is that correct? >> yes, senator. it states that the special council shall not be subject to the day today supervision of anyone in the department, but it permits you to override director mueller's decisions under specified circumstances, is that correct? >> yes, senator. >> and also provides that you may fire or remove director mueller under specified circumstances, is that correct? >> yes.

>> and you indicated in your statement that you chose a person that exercises a degree of independence, not full independence from the normal chain of command. so my question is this. in december of 2003, john ashcroft rescuesed -- recused himself. the acting attorney general at the time was jim comey. he appointed a special council to take over the matter. in a letter dated december 30th of 2003, mr. comey wrote the following to mr. fitzgerald. i direct you to authorize the authority. mr. comey wrote, to clarify the earlier letter, stating that his delegation of authority to mr. fitzgerald was planary.

and he conferred on you the title of special council should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position or authorities are defined or limited. those are the special council regulations that we discussed. would you agree, to provide a let tore director mueller similarly providing that director mueller has the special council both independent of the supervision or control of any officer and ensure that director mueller has the authority that is not "defined or limited" by the special council regulations. >> senator, i'm very sensitive about time and i like to have a lengthy conversation to explain it to you. >> can you give me a yes or no answer. >> it's not a short answer. >> you are willing to do that or not, as we have precedent in that regard. >> chairman, they should be

allowed to answer the question. >> it is a long question you posed, senator, and i appreciate the import of your question and i'll get to the answer. my quibble with you is that pat fitzgerald is a very principaled and individual person. he could have been fired by the president because he was the united states attorney. robert mueller cannot because he is protected by those special council regulations. although it is theoretically threw are circumstances he could be proved by the acting attorney general which at this time is me, your insurance is his integrity, robert mueller's integrity, my integrity -- >> sir, if i may, the greater assurance is not that we believe in if mr. mueller's i integrity, it is that you put in writing, an indication with your authority as acting attorney general that he has fl

independence in regar to the investigations before him. aryou willing or not willing to give him the authority to be fully independent of your ability, statutorily and legally to fire him. yes or no, sir. >> he has the full independence as authorized with those -- >> will the senator suspend. >> the chair will exercise the right to allow the witness to answer the question and the committee is on notice to provide the witnesses the courtesy, which has not been extended all of the way across, the courtesy for questions to get answered. >> mr. chairman respectfully i point out that this witness has joked, as we all have, with his ability to filibuster. >> would you like to thoroughly answer the question. >> i'm not joking. i have a lot of experience with

these issues, and i can speak for a long time, i appreciate the 5:00 limit, that is not my limit. but this originated as you know, but i work as an independent council when independent councils were appointed by authorization of the senate. they were appointed by federal judges and they had the attorney general. that sunseted. and it was independent councils that was a determination made by the legislature. i know folks that drafted this under janet reno. it was because of unusual events, it was appropriate to choose someone, like pat

fitzgerald that could be trusted to conduct this investigation appropriately and could be given an appropriate degree of independence. under the regulation, he has, a new investigation, and the ultimate check is number one integrity of the people involved in the investigation, but if he was overruled or fired, we would be required to report to the congress. i believe that is i am confident that director mueller, mr. mccabe, i, and anyone that that may fill the positions in the future will protect the integrity of that investigation, that is my guarantee to you and the american people. >> so is that a no? >> well, seems to be one thing

that we all agree on so far based on the questions and the comments and that is that 702 is an important tool for the intelligence community. and one that needs to be preserved and i agree with senator cotton that it should be extended without a sunset provision as currently written. but i wanto ask director coates and maybe admiral rodgers if you want to comment on this as well. it is to intentionally not target american citizens. it is to target foreign persons and not collect information from american citizens except by way of incidental collection. i think you described admiral rodgers and the extensive procedures that they have in

place to minimize the access of anyone in that intelligence community to that u.s. person, and you talked about purging incidental collection that was made in the course of a 702 investigation. so it strikes me, the question that was asked of you, to intentionally target american citizens, to generate a number, is just the opposite of what the structure of 702 provides. the idea is no not collect or gather information except in the incidental course of collecting nichgs against a foreign intelligence agent. >> it is an essential's of

information, of fact, that caused me so come to the conclusion that this would do just exactly what you said. you're breaching someone's privacy to determine whether or not they are an american person. >> to generate a list for congress. >> it could, potentially, yet. that wasn't the only basis on which i made the decision, but that was an essential basis. >> thank you, i want to ask a little bit more about the minimumization procedures and the importance of those and a little about unmasking of u.s. persons names that admiral rodgers and others have -- director coates you talked about the procedures in place to make

sure that it is not done casually. we are extraordinarily protective of the privacy of u.s. citizens that it might be collected against. the internal policies of the nsa when it comes to collecting information. perhaps this is a question for mr. rosenstein and director mccabe. if someone is to use the unmaskiunmas unmasking process for a political purpose, is that potentially a crime? >> yes, senator. >> and director mccabe, deputy attorney general rosenstein, for

someone to leak the name of an american citizen that is unmasked in the course of incidental protection, to leak that classified information, is that also potentially a crime? >> yes, and i think that is the most significant point. unmasking is done in the course of ordinary legitimate intelligence gathering. when the identity of the other person on the phone may be relevant, to understand the significance of the communication, leaking is a completely different manner. it is a crime, disclosing information to something is legitimate nap will -- that will be prosecuted, and we have to determine there was a violation of law, and prosecutions have and will be brought. >> and mr. rosenstein, not to pick on you, but i think there is confusion when we talk about

russian informativestigations. we described the role of the special council, but that is to investigate potential criminal acts and counter intelligence committees, is it not? >> the answer to that is yes, it is, the idea of the russian investigation has broader significance to many of you than the piece that director mckcabe are referring to. >> that is helpful to me, because when people salespeople generically of the russian information, they're including things like our responsibilities in the intelligence committee to do oversight of the intelligence and the potential counter measures that we might undertake to deal with the measures of the campaign of the russian government that were clearly documented in the intelligence

community assessment. but there are multiple, including the senate committee, it is our job to do the information and write legislation. we're not the fbi, we're not the special council, we're not the department of justice, and i'm afraid in the conversations that we have been having, people have been con flflating those. >> director, on may 11th you testified that director comey enjoyed broad support and that you hold him in the highest regard, is that still the case. >> it is, sir. >> i'm trying to understand the rational for your unwillingness to comment upon your conversations with director comey. first, you have had, i would people, and correct me if i'm

wrong, conversations -- you had those conversations? >> yes, sir. >> you're fully familiar with the scope of the investigation since you dealt with mr. mueller and -- >> i am, sir, but i think it is important to note that he and his team are currently in the process of what that scope is. the fbi maintains a broader responsibility to continue investigating issues relative to potential russian counter intelligence activity and threats posed to us from our russian adversaries. so determines exactly where the lanes in the road are. where does director mueller's scope overlap into our pre-existing and long running russian responsibilities. i am trying to be respectful of his efforts and not take any

steps that might compromise his investigation. >> getting back to the rational, there is, it seems to me, that what you said is that either that is part of a criminal investigation, or likely becoming part of a criminal investigation, the conversation between the president of the united states and mr. comey, and you cannot properly comment on that, is that accurate, sir? >> that is accurate, sir. >> what about director coates, is that likely to become part of an ongoing criminal investigation. >> i could not comment on that sir, i'm not familiar with that, and it would not be, for the same reasons, it would not be appropriate to director comey's investigations. >> are you aware of the possibility of the investigation and conversations that director

coates and admiral rodgers had -- >> my is liemited to what we hae here today. >> have you had any contact with the special prosecutor or any -- >> i have not. >> have you been advised by any of your councils, private or public, that this conversation that you had with the president could be subject to a criminal investigation? >> i have not. >> rodgers, same question. >> to the last question, no i have not. >> let me return to the points that i think senator king made very well. which is this unwillingness to comment on the situation with the president, but to characterize it in a way that you didn't feel pressured, yet refusing to answer very specific and nonintelligence related

issues, i don't see how there is an impact on the classification and our status, whether or not you were asked by the president to do anything, do you still maintain that you can't comment on if you're asked or not. >> nothing has changed since the initial response. >> i stand by my previous answer. >> the impreion that i have is that if you could say that you would say that. no further questions. >> senator mccain? >> well, gentleman, you're here at an interesting time. this morning's "washington post" top intelligence official told associates trump asked if he could intervene with comey on fbi and russia probe. it goes into some detail, i'm sure you have read the article.

and it is more than disturbing, obviously, if it's true, the president of the united states is trying to get the director of national intelligence and others to bond a investigation into russian sosmt that is pretty serious. i also understand the position that you're in. it is classified and here it is on the morning's washington post in some detail. i'm sure you have read it. so, i guess if i understand you right, director coats, in a closed session you are more than ready to discussion this situation, is that correct? >> i would hope we have the opportunity to do that. >> i hope question provide you that opportunity.

you know, it is just showing what kind of an orwelian existence we live in. it is de as you know reading the story as to when you met, what you discussed, et cetera et cetera, yet here in a public hearing before the american people we can't talk about what was described in detail in this morning's "washington post." do you want to comment on that? >> are you asking me? >> comment on the integrity of "the washington post" reporting. >> it is pretty detailed. >> i guess i have been around town long enough to say not to take everything at face value that is printed in the post. i served on the committee here and often saw information that we had been discussed had been reported, but it was not always

accurate. but i think this is the response i gave to the suppose that but we did not want to publicly share what we thought was private conversations with the president of the united states. i did not think it was appropriate for the post to report what it reported or to do that in an open session. >> it's an unfortunate situation that you're sitting there, because it is classified information, and this morning's washington post describes in some detail, that the times, dates, and details.

>> just because it is published in the washington post doesn't mean it is now unclassified. >> unfortunately whether it is classified or not, it is out to the world. it is not your fault, but it describes dates and times and who met with whom. and so, we'll, do you want to tell us any more about the russian involvement in our election that we don't already know from reading "the washington post." >> i don't think that is a position that i'm in. i do know that there are ongoing investigations. i know that we continue to

provide all of the relevant negligence to allow them be carried out with indegty and with knowledge. >> it must be frustrating to you, you have my sympathy and i expressed that at your confirmation areaing. so if you anything to say about it -- >> sometimes i witch i was still on the bridge of that destroyer. >> i understand, i feel the same way. >> senator, i can't speak for anyone else, but i'm proud to be hire, proud to be here with director mccabe, and i'm sure he feels the same way. >> i do. >> whatever that might mean,

thank you, the chair st goi-- i going to recognize senatorwideen. >> this one, director coats, i would like a yes or no answer on. >> i'm andrea mitchell in washington where top intelligence officials are stonewalling the central intelligence committee asking about reports to try to get fired fbi director james comy to back off of the russian investigation. >> is there an invocation of executive privilege, is there or not? >> then why are you not -- what you feel is not admirable. >> is it an invocation of executive privilege, if there is not, let's know about it. >> i'm not interested in repeating myself, sir. i don't mean that in a

contentious way. >> high drama on capitol hill. you have been watching all of this, and most recently on services chairman, john mccain said are you suggesting the conversation reported by the washington post today and others were classified, and there was a suggestion they were, but if the investigation was being backed off of then it is not classified, right? >> correct, it is clear from the witnesses today there is no claim of executive privilege and no basis for them to refuse to hans. the fact that they may not, or the white house may prefer they don't answer, and they don't want to have to invoke executive

privilege, that is not a legal basis for them to decline these very important questions. it is also enough in my view to try to hide behind a closed system. the american people have a right to know if the president is interfering with their testimony to congress or investigation with the fbi. we will get to the bottom of them in closed session. >> let me ask you to old on just a second. we are going back to hear comments from senator warner. >> for me, but if there is any credible allegation that anyone seeks to sub instruct a federal investigation it will be investigated appropriately by me or mr. mccabe. >> i thank the chairman for the fact that we have been working on it in a bipartisan way. >> director coats, know you need to go. >> tt was a follow up trying to find out if they can hear

about it in closed session, but if it is discussed in closed session they cannot reveal it to the public. it would be part of a classified conversation. >> it may not be classified, but if the expectation is that it will be kept confidentbial, tha is something the senator wills not want to breach. i will ask in a closed environment, but i think at the end o of the df the day it is i for the public to know about this. they will claim privilege or they will not and if they are not they should not be able to hide behind closed doors. as senator warner eluded and the same experience we had on the house tide, there are other witnesses we believe we can go to if necessary to corroborate or refute some of the allegations that had been out in the public, but i don't think that is a substitute for having the witnesses who were the direct participants in these

conversations testify before the public about them. >> let me ask you about something you tweeted just to clarify where we stand on all of this after a day of questions and nonanswers. you tweeted directors rogers and coats felt pressured is not issue, if potus taught to interfere is. public seeks the answer and we will get it. the question is not if they felt pressures, but if they were asked at al >> the carefully worded statement by director rodgers, that was scripted out in advance. it was very carefully worded nondenial. the issue, whether there is obstruction of justice or interference in the investigation, doesn't go to if they felt pressured, if they felt they could resist pressure, if they were directed to do something. the question is is is this whae

president said or did. and they will unwilling to answer those questions today in public session, but they're going to have to do better than that and we'll have to get to the bottom of this. i thought they were very carefully scripted nonanswers that don't go to the heart of what we need to find out. >> at one point, they said they had been in touch with the white house, is that with white house council? >> i assume with white house council, and i think you can get a hard answer, are you evoking privilege, are you instructing us not to answer, or are you not? and unless that privilege is invoked, they will have to answer those questions. if they're not willing to do so in a voluntary setting, we will

have to find a means necessary to convey those answers. i think it is a compelling case, thatven if there was a claim of privilege, it has been waived by the president talking about this, but also by their opening statements when director rodgers tries to leave the impression that he has not been direct thd to do something improper, it is a attempt to mislead, but he can't have it both ways. >> as the hearing adjourned, the republican chairman chiding them saying don't come back here with no answers. they're clearly going to have a closed session on all of this. where does your own house investigation stand? >> we routinely have both of those directors come before our committee, and this hearing today was on section 702. we're going to have our own hearing on section 702, but you

can bet those questions will be front and center in the house investigation as well at their very next appearance before our committee, we need to exactly know what conversations took place, and there are other people that we can go to if necessary to either corroborate, refute, or as a substitute if they're unwilling to be more forth coming. >> thank you so much, congressman adam schiff for standing by with us today on the preview day. the day ahead of the james comey testimony. for more on the headlines coming from the hearing, pete williams, kaci hun on capitol hill, and david cohn. first to you, pete williams, a lot of news breaking on your beat. we're expecting jim comey tomorrow. you saw what happened today with the very carefully coordinated answers and nonanswers from the intelligence chiefs. at the same time, the announ

announcement on twitter by the president for a new nominee for the fbi. >> very unconventional way to announce it, i went back to how the previous presidents announced it and they had ceremonies in the rose garden. the president saying christopher wray has impeccable credentials. he was a u.s. attorney in atlanta. he worked with local fbi agents and then he came up here to washington in the republican administration under george w. bush. he had positions of justice including the criminal decisiiv, and he would have dealt with the headquarters part of the fbi.

that person just happened to be james comey. bob mueller was fbi director art the justice department. he has that experience, he has law enforcement experience, and he is among the younger people that the president was looking at. he is 50 years old. one of the hard things about getting someone to take this job, it took a two-year campaign to get jim comey to be fbi director is you assume you're signing on for ten years nap is the nominal term, so it is a big change in life for someone to take one of these responsilities, not mention the fact that you come a an unconvention time right now. >> and kaci hunt, i think you're outside of the hearing room, and all of this is transpiring on a day that we expect the comey

hearing, tell me what you're hearing from members. >> well, andrea, the tone here seems to be one of frustration and just how much frustration you feel as a senator in that room. but senator collins came out, you know her well, very measured as usual, but did say she wasn't entirely satisfied with the answers that these intelligence chiefs did or didn't give. on the questions they have. senator mccain saying he was is partly satisfied. the deferenifference between why said in public or the justification for this. senator collins focused on the

fact that she tried to press them on what they could say. there is no executive privilege exerted here, but they have a responsibility to answer to congress. so i think that is the immediate theme coming back here, does it set the done for tomorrow, i think it is clear that jim comey is more willing to be forth coming since being fired as the fbi director. i don't think there is an expectation of a repeat performance. many. >> thank you, kaci, and kristen welker at the white house. tweeting the ninatio for the i director, the president is going to say something about obama care. the day that anthem insurance is opting out for the whole state.

>> they're doing a lot of counter programming. as you point out the president is expected to make remarks about health care when he touches down, and then he will make remarks about infrastructure. we expect him to call for federal, state, and local governments and private industry to invest a trillion dollars in infrastructure projects. that message aimed as trying to put the know discuss on the agenda, what is one of his toughest weeks yet. the white house behind the scenes digging in in terms of today, and braces for the testimony of james comey tomorrow. instead of that war room that we have been talking act, the rnc is handling all of the rapid response. that is where we're getting the reaction from. i asked one official if we expect the president to tweet tomorrow and they said of course

it is the president's decision. so it seems there is not real clarity yet. he delivers a big speech, so the white house and the staff here trying to keep him occupied if you will, because there will be a number of different things he will want to respond to tomorrow. >> and joining me is david cohn. very interesting what they did not say in their carefully scripted answers. >> right, these are skilled, experienced witnesses that know exactly what they want to say and don't want to say. their refusal to say they were not asked by the president to involve themselves in the investigation, saying they don't feel pressured, but they didn't say they were not asked. to my ear, that sounds like confirmation they were asked and that to me is troubling.

it means that the president asked the chiefs to involve themselves and their suggestions in a domestic and political issue. this investigation into the russian involvement and the trump organization, the trump campaigns, you know involvement in that. that is not the role of the intelligence committee. >> and they're not supposed to be involvemed not just legally, but political issues. >> one of the things that the cia and the intelligence community tries very hard to do is not be politicized. to not be involved in political issues. to provide the analysis of the issues at hand. noto g dragged into destic political disputes. and we have seen this before. there are historic precedents. the most notable one is when

president nixon asked director helms in the court of the water gate fiasco right after the break in to have the cia intervene with the fbi to stop the investigation. i don't know if he felt pressured or directed to do so, but the problem was that the president asked him to do so. and if that is the case here, i'm not saying this is watergate, but it is similarly disturbing situation. >> in fact just the asking, and your suggestion is, and you know the job, you know the role they are playing, you're a lawyer, but you're saying the fact that they scripted it, leaving out the issue of whether or not they were asked is confirmation they were asked. >> to my ears, that is what is

sounded like. i think it will be important to get an answer to that question and not have to imply it from what they said, but there is very carefully scripted response, he said he was never asked to do anything that made him feel uncomfortabl he may not have felt uncomfortable, but the duo me, and i think what is important for the intelligence community is whether or not they tried to involve the leaders in a dispute. there is a fire wall they try very hard to maintain. the domestic political scene or politickis all together.

if that firewall is breached, that is a problem. >> and you just mentioned watergate, robert costa, msnbc political bob, the whole issue of watergate, the comparison, well, the form e dni, james clammer, a 50-year intelligence veteran, said to his ears, this is worse than watergate, because the underlying "crime" or issue is russia attacking our election, which is a lot more serious than a burglary at the watergate with one file cabinet. >> true. when you think about a country interfering in u.s. elections versus a break-in at the watergate hotel, they are certainly different in scope. what made watergate so important was not the actual crime, but it was the cover-up and it was the president's own team, his counsel, john dean and others,

turning in effect on the president in testiny on capitol hill. and we have not seen that yet from the trump ministration. we have seen some of these officials stone wall investigators and lawmakers, and the big question still remain unanswered when it comes to collusion and with regard to the accusation of obstruction of justice. we've seen a lot of accusations, but so far mueller has not brought forward his case and the federal probe is ongoing. >> in terms of your -- all of the scoops that have been coming out of "the washington post," obviously this was "washington post" story about what was said by the president to coats and what was concerning to both him and admiral rogers, according to "the post" reporting, which is still unrefuted, when you've been reporting on the president's mood, the tweeting, the frustration, and his frustration with the attorney general, jeff sessions.

>> if you contrast the caginess of some of these military officials to the president himself, you see quite a difference. the president i'm told from numerous people inside and outside the white house is defiant, somewhat isolated inside of the white house in terms of his strategy. he wants to punch back at his critics, whether it's former director comey or others, through twitter, not necessarily vetting all of his statements through lawyers and advisers. >> and -- and robert, when we talk about -- what the president will be doing tomorrow, now, one of his tweets just in the last 24 hours was incredible upsetting to the pentagon and to the diplomatic community, because he tweeted in support of the saudis against qatar, a huge dispute that's erupted in the middle east, and doing that, really was disruptive just as secretary tillerson and secretary mattis were reassuring

qatar that we have upward of 11,000 service members on a crucial base that is used against afghanistan and against isis. so his determination to tweet, as he tweeted his nomination for the fbi director today, is absolutely sa lly sacrosanc. >> we've seen president trump destroy the political norms of political life in america. it's not that surprising anymore that he's using social media in an unvetted way to get his message through. this is alarming to people in the republican party, some even privately within the administration, they think the president is being distracting his own agenda and maybe hurting his own presidency by stepping on things like the travel ban with certain statements that could be a problem in court with. the foreign policy statements, it's highly unusual for a

president to make these extemporaneous remarks. >> our thanks to david cohen and bert costa. of cose, kristen welker, kasie hunt and pete williams. and as you look at live pictures of cincinnati, air force one has just landed, the president is going to be speaking about the health care issue, what he claims are people suffering because of obamacare. here with me on the set is dr. zeke emanuel, the author of a new book "prescription for the future." congratulations on the book. >> thank you very much. >> we'll talk about the book in a moment. but just to get you to talk about the president's take, which is people are victimized by obamacare and now you have seen anthem, the insurance company, saying they're going to leave ohio next year. take it from there. >> look, the big problem at the moment is huge uncertainty about the exchanges. and that uncertainty is not because of president obama and the affordable care act. that uncertainty is because of president trump and the policies

that he and the republicans in congress have created. they have not made clear whether they're going to do these cost sharing subsidies to the insurance companies to help people pay for co-pays and deductibles. they have not made clear what they're going to do on re-insurance and all this means that insurance companies have to figure out whether they can be financially viable. that's the big problem. uncertainty is not good for insurance companies. >> and the president is about to speak, and i think he's going to present a very different point of view. let's listen. >> hello, everybody. thank you. i want to tha you. i'm joined today by two american families, greatfamilies, just met them on the plane. they've had their lives completely up-ended by the disaster known as obamacare. rya wellen from ohio, dan

withrow from kentucky, two great states, and their very beautiful children and families. thank you both. and i want to thank you very much for being here. >> yes, sir. >> great families. for being here and sharing your stories today, and giving voice to millions and millions and millions of americans who are going through turmoil right now, absolute turmoil. and these are americans like you, like you, like all of us. health care is about so much more than dollars and cents. it's about real people, ray and dan, honest americans who work hard to take care of their families and give their best to our wonderful country. rea and her husband, michael, live in dayton. rea had a great affordable health care plan that worked for her family. she loved the plan. really loved the plan. then came obamacare. rea liked her doctor. wanted to keep her doctor but

she could not keep her doctor. she wasn't allowed under the rules and regulations, unless she paid an additional $50,000 in out of pocket expenses for the birth of her precious little rl, jt born, colette. the monthly premiums have quadrupled. their deductible is a staggering $15,000, meaning they won't even get to use it, and hopefully i have to say it, but they won't get to use what they're paying so much for. dan's story is just as bad. he owns css distribution group, a small business in louisville, kentucky. fantastic state. great people. before obamacare. his 11 employees enjoyed multiple options for high quality, affordable health care. everybody was happy. is that right? everybody was happy.

then came obamacare. and now they have fewer choices, premiums are 150% higher -- it's amazing -- but you're not alone by the way. i see in alaska, it just went up over 200%. alaska, over 200%, just announced. and creating new jobs is no longer really an option for dan, because the health insurance is so expensive. rea and dan are just two of the many victims of the obamacare catastrophe created by congressional democrats. across america, premiums are skyrocketing, insurers are fleeing, and the american people are paying much more for much worse coverage. the coverage is horrendous. it's horrendous. since the law's provisions took effect, premiums have exploded by an average of 86% in ohio, and 75% in kentucky.

and those states are minor compared to some others. just yesterday, we learned that one of the largest insurers is pulling out of ohio. that could mean another 20,000 counties and 19,000 people will have no plan available to them. in kentucky, seven carriers have exited the state since obamacare was implemented. i've been say thing for a long time. as a result, nearly half of the counties in kentucky had only one choice in 2017, and if trends continue, and i think they definitely will -- we don't have to think they will continue, but we will come and we will do something great. we're in the process of doing it. but if trends do continue, they'll have no plans in kentucky in 2018.

so 93,650 families, think of that, 93,650 families paid $16.5 million in penalties instead of purchasing unaffordle obamacare heah plans that didn't meet their need obamacare is in a total death spiral. and the problems will only get worse if congress fails to act. obamacare is dead. i've been saying it for a long time. everybody knows it, everybody that wants to report fairly about it knows. the house of representatives has done its job. it sent a plan to the senate and the senate is working it over. we spent a lot of time yesterday with mitch mcconnell and a lot of the great