senator collins: director coats. director coats: my answer is exactly the same. senator collins: deputy attorney general rosenstein. mr. rosenstein: i have not had any conversations with the white house. director mccabe: i have not had any conversations with the white house about executive privilege today. senator collins: admiral rogers, the f.b.i., c.i.a. and n.s.a. jointly issued an intelligence committee assessment on russian involvement in the presidential elections. the -- you've testified today that the i.c. relied in part on 702 authorities to support its conclusion that the russians were involved in trying to influence the 2016 elections. can you provide us with an update on n.s.a.'s further work in this area? admiral rogers: in terms of the russian efforts, yes, ma'am. we continue to focus analytic and collection effort trying to generate insight as to what the russians and others are doing, particularly with respect to efforts against u.s. infrastructure, u.s. processes like elections. we continue to generate insights on a regular basis. if my memory i

the only reason we know why coats, you know, that coats had expressed concern about what had transpired is because he goes and basically seeks advice and shares the experience with other officials. and i have no information to suggest that pompeo does the same. and so i think there are questions about whether or not the president, you know, i think the takeaway here, as what happened before, in previous stories, is this president does not have a lot of washington experience, as we all know. and, you know, he maybe either doesn't understand these dividing lines that are supposed to separate the intelligence agencies from the political leadership. either he's unaware of that or he doesn't really care about those dividing lines that are supposed to separate the investigators, the intelligence community from the politics. and so he is frequently crossing that line in ways that make people feel uncomfortable. and that's, i think, what this is -- potentially an example of and potentially something more, if coats were to offer a full recollection of the conversation that he had with the presid

so i'm not sure we'll get a lot out of coates today. but it certainly fits in, it doesn't make sense, in other words. >> so you see that pattern that the president was angry at jeff sessions, attorney general for recusing himself led to the special counsel president that dan coates was asked to intervene and that the president asked james comey or said i hope can you fine it in you to let this go. if you did nothing wrong the obvious question is why this happened. >> well, all the reporting points to the fact that comey, at least, believed that president trump didn't understand the inappropriateness of his comments. comey tomorrow is not expected to accuse the president of obstruction of justice, not expected to accuse the president of pressuring him to drop the investigation, but he is expected to outline comments that he found inappropriate and i think zach is right, coates has denied this "the washington post" story through a spokesman and has previously been reluctant to speak about it. we won't expect any revelations in today's tes

manu, dan coats will be there to testify. the washington post reports the president pressured him to back off the michael flynn investigation. what are you expecting today? >> yeah. that's right. in fact, he's going to make an opening statement on behalf of the four intelligence officials who will be testifying at this hearing and expect those questions about what president trump asked dan coats to do and whether or not he asked him in any way to back off that michael flynn investigation. expect that to come right at the top particularly when mark warner, the top democrat begins his questioning. the question if whether or not coats will reveal anything, his spokesman put out a statement earlier this morning saying he does not want to discuss these private discussions with president trump and does not feel pressured in any way to back off of the investigation. the question is whether or not members of this committee will be satisfied and they'll have a chance to ask ron white, a senior democrat on the committee whether or not

i want to go to you, director coats. when you appeared, you said, and i quote, if called before the investigative committee, i certainly will provide them with what i know and what i don't know. i have great respect for you. you served on this committee. i remember, as well, when we confirmed you, and i was proud to support your confirmation. you said that you would cooperate with this committee in any aspects that we request of the russia investigation. we now have press reports, and you can lay them to rest if they're not true, but we have press reports of not once but twice that the president of the united states asked you to either downplay the russia investigation or to directly intervene with director comey. can you set the record straight about what happened or didn't happen? >> well, senator, as i responded to a similar question during my confirmation and in a second hearing before the committee, i do not feel it is appropriate for me to, in the public session, in which confidential conversations between the pres

dan coats' spokesperson putting out a statement to nbc news that reads in part, it says director coats does not discuss his private conversations with the president. however, he has never felt pressured by the president or anyone else in the administration to influence any intelligence matters or ongoing investigations. stephanie. >> well, james comey did stop the investigation. he got fired. real quick, what are we expecting tomorrow in that testimony? >> reporter: so this is the political super bowl as we wait for the former fbi director, james comey, to testify. we understand from sources close to him that he's likely to detail a pattern of what he believes to have been inappropriate conversations with president trump during his term as the head of the fbi, but we are told that he i nsot expected to accuse the president of obstruction of justice. ultimately that decision will be in the hands of others. >> i've got a great panel here this morning. i want to bring them in. three msnbc contributors. two schmidts, two mike also. michael so michael schmidt, steve shut in and michael lupi

all set to testify today. >> overnight dan coates at the center of breaking news. "the washington post" reporting president trump asked coates if he could intervene with james comey to urge the fbi direct zwror back off of his investigation of former national security adviser michael flynn. unnamed officials pell the "post" private interaction came after a white house briefing on march 22nd, two days after comey told congress the fbi was, in fact, investigating whether the trump campaign colluded with rush. >> the

this one, director coats, i'd like a yes or no answer on. can the government use fisa acts, section 702, to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic? >> not to my knowledge. it would be against the law. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator warner? >> again, i want to thank all the witnesses. but i come out of this had hearing with more questions than when i went in. gentlemen, you are both willing to somehow characterize your conversations with the president that you didn't feel pressure. but you wouldn't share the content. in the case of admiral rogers, we will have independent third party that will at least provide some level of contemporaneous description of that conversation and obviously why there was concerns enough to commit that to writing. i'm pretty frustrated that there is this deference to the special prosecutor even though the special prosecutor has not talked to you. i'm concerned with the deputy attorney general also deference to the special prosecutor but there doesn't seem to be and this committee and the chai

that includes dan coats. the washington post is reports that coats told them if president trump could intervene in the russian probe. this comes as the issue builds to tomorrow's testimony from fbi director james comey. he is expected to refute the claims that comey told him multiple times he was not under investigation. >>> sources say jeff sessions offered to resign after a series of heated exchanges with the president. we have a cnn exclusive. u.s. officials suspect russian hackers planted a fake news story that caused a rift with american allies. we have the stories covered with jessica schneider live on capitol hill. >> reporter: chris, the senate intelligence committee is gearing up for two days of testimony. it starts with officials testifying and tomorrow fired fbi director james comey. today's hearing is scheduled to focus on the reauthorization of the fisa. senators will delve deeply into the controversy and the russia probe. america's top intelligence official dan coats set to testify today amid wa

today they are going to hear from the top intel official dan coats. coats told associates the president asked him, too, if he could intervene in comey's michael flynn probe. >> and, chris, the main event tomorrow, of course james comey on the hot seat. comey is expected to refute the president's claims that comey told him on three separate occasions that he was not under investigation. we're also learning that attorney general jeff sessions offered to resign at one point after heated exchanges with the president. we have all this for you. live on capitol hill with our top story. jessica. >> reporter: president trump trying to steal back a bit of the thunder that will be happening on capitol hill over the next two days. president trump this morning announcing his fbi director pick and of course doing it only in the way that president trump does, on twitter. president trump tweeting this just a few minutes ago, saying i will be naming christopher a. wray to be director of the fbi. details to follow. so the president there teasing ahead to what will be h

chairman and thank you, senator coats -- excuse me, director coats and admiral rogers for your testimony and with all due respect to my colleague from virginia, i think you have cleared up substantially your direct testimony that you have never been pressured by anyone including the president of the united states to do something illegal, immoral or anything else. thank you for that. let's go back to section 702 which is what this hearing was supposed to be all about. it's becoming obvious that those of us that work in the intelligence community that we're in a different position than europe is. europe is -- their risks are obviously very high and they're suffering these attacks on a very regular basis and becoming more regular. so let's talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts particularly as it relates to section 702. obviously, we hear in the media frequently about spats between us and the europeans regarding intelligence matters, but we all know that there is a robust communication and cooperation between our european friends and ourselves. so i want to

that coats should try to stop the fbi's investigation. so ask the question, right? director did you hear the president ask you. did the president ask you if you could do that director pompeo did the director ask you about intervening in the fbi investigation? actually, i should tell you that last one, the senate judiciary committee did ask mike pompeo about that in writing last month. we reported last week that he blew them off. he blew the deadline for responding to the written question from congress. he just never sent a reply. well now tonight, we have this new reporting from "the new york times" about the other red hot controversy at the center of this scandal where mike pompeo has a central and as yet unexplained role. it's about trump national security advisor mike flynn. it was very soon into the new administration, less than a week after the inauguration when the acting attorney general sally yates came up to the white house personally to give the white house a very serious warning about their national security advisor mike flynn.

that includes dan coats.hington post is reports that coats told them if president trump could intervene in the russian probe. this comes as the issue builds to tomorrow's testimony from fbi director james comey. he is expected to refute the claims that comey told him multiple times he was not under investigation. >>> sources say jeff sessions offered to resign after a series of heated exchanges with the president. we have a cnn exclusive. u.s. officials suspect russian hackers

this would be to director coats and ag rosenstein. has the odni or the department of justice position changed at all since the time of the february 2012 letter? >> no. n we strongly support the 2012 letter and request. >> we agree. we agree 100%.and >> this is to admiral rogers anm to director mccabe. since congress last authorized this authority in 2012, again, have the been any instances involving a deliberate or intentional compliance violation? >> not that i'm aware of. >> director mccabe? >> no, sir. >> admiral rogers, this is to you. fisa 702 statutory authorities were to end or even be diminished, what would be the impact on our national security? >> i couldn't generate the same level of insight that the nation, friends and allies around the world count on with respect to counterterrorism, counter proliferation. i could not be able to re-create the insights on the russian efforts to influence the 2016eli election cycle.on without seven t two we could not have produced that level of insight. >> this is a jump ball. april 26, 201

trump asked everyone to leave the room, except for coats and cia director mike pompeo. and tomorrow, director of national intelligence, dan coats, is testifying to the senate intelligence committee. there are now three people who we know about who can testify about that president trump tried to interfere with the fbi investigation. those three people are, the director of national intelligence, cia director mike pompeo who was a witness to the president's conversation with dan coats and, of course, the man who we'll hear from on thursday, former fbi director james comey, who says that president trump used that same method on him that he used with dan coats, the president asked everyone to leave the group so that it could speak at the end of the meeting in the -- including vice president pence and attorney general jeff sessions sent them out of the room so that he could speak to mr. comey alone. he said i hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, letting flynn go. he is a good guy. i hope you can let this go. here is the moment that convinced democrats -- instru

why is it inappropriate, director coats? >> i think conversations between the president and myself are for the most part -- >> you seem to apply that standard selectively. >> no, i'm not applying it selectively. i'm just saying i don't think it's appropriate -- >> you can clear an awful lot up -- >> i don't share with the general public conversations that i have with the president or many of my colleagues within the administration that i believe are -- should not be shared. >> i think you're unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes. >> it's not a matter of unwillingness, senator, it's a matter of how i share and with whom i share it to and when there are ongoing investigations, i think it's inappropriate to involved -- >> you don't think the american people deserve to know the answer to that question. >> i think the investigations will determine that and you're part of the investigation. >> mr. rosenstein, did you know when you wrote the memo that was used as the primary justification for firing director

i want to go to you director coats. if called on, i will certainly provide on what i know and what i don't know. i have a great respect for you serving on this committee. we confirmed you and we are proud for you to serve. you said you will cooperate and of any aspects that we request of the russians investigation. we have press report and you can lay them to rest if they are not true. we have press report of not once but twice that the president of the united states asked you to either down play the russian investigation or to directly intervene with director comey, can you set the record straight? >> sorry, as i responded to similar questions during my confirmation in the second hearing before the committee, i do not feel it is appropriate for me to in a public session in which confidential conversations between the president and myself, i don't believe it is appropriate for me to address that in a public session. >> gentlemen, i understand that. >> i stated that before and -- >> i thoughts of you brought before the i

director coats, you are recognized to give testimony. mr. coats: thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. we are pleased to be here today at your request to talk about an important and perhaps the most important piece of legislation that affects the intelligence community. i'm here with my colleagues. i would like to take the opportunity to explain in some detail section 702. given this is a public hearing, and hopefully the public will be watching, our efforts to provide transparency in terms of how we protect the privacy and civil liberties of american citizens needs to be explained. the program needs to be understood. as ireciate your patience talk through the value of 702 to our intelligence community and to keeping americans safe. intelligence collection under section 702 has produced and continues to produce significant intelligence that is vital to protect the nation against international terrorism, cyber threats, weapons proliferators, and other threats. at the same time, section 702 provides strong protections for the privacy and civil libertie

no one else's. >> dirtor coats? >> my answer is the exact same. >> deputy attorney general rosenstein? >> i have not had any communications with the white house about invoking executive privilege today. >> director mccabe? >> i have not had any conversations with the white house about executive privilege today either. >> admiral rogers, in january, the fbi, the cia and nsa jointly issued intelligence committee assessment on russian involvement in the presidential elections. you testified today that the ic relied, in part, on 702 authorities to support its conclusion that the russians were involved in trying to influence the 2016 elections. can you provide us with an update on nsa's further work in this area? >> in terms of the russian efforts, largely? >> yes. >> yes, ma'am. we continue to focus analytic and collection effort, trying to generate insights as to what the russians and others are doing, particularly with respect to efforts against u.s. infrastructure, u.s. processes like elections. we continue to genera

he went to coats. he went to yocomey to try to influence the investigation. he ended up firing him to influence the investigation. trump was obsessed with this investigation for some reason. just to add one more thing, he asked comey to lay off of michael flynn as national security adviser. you have the series of events that comey is going to lay out in a narrative. if his previous testimony is any indication, in a pretty compelling and powerful way, because he's a good storyteller. just to matt's point, i think how he lays that out and what the public and what is more importantly congress makes of this series of events and these facts is the key question after this committee -- after this hearing. at the end of the day, we're not talking about criminal statute obstruction of justice. we're in the realm of does congress view this as so serious that it rises to the political nuclear option? >> very nefarious. >> if the president obstructed justice -- >> boys will be boys. >> what's congress going to -- how does congress -- what do they think of that question?

it's dan coates, nsa director michael rogers.ll night in terms of these individuals are at the center of every major russia bombshell story we have seen over the last couple of months, aides tell me they will make that a prominent issue when it comes to dan coates and mike rogers, they want to know what president trump asked them in these private moments. obviously, you guys have been talking about the washington post report as well. democrats want them on the record, want to try to pin them down on anything they may have we heard. when it comes to deputy attorney general rod rosenstein, there are similar questions for him. what was his role? what was his influence of the president in his decision to write that three-page memo, many white house officials point to as the rationale for that firing. all of these will be front and center issues. one thing to keep an eye on, these democrats, even some of which they probably won't get many answers to, particularly in a public forum. this is laying the ground for thursday. they are keen

this centering around an investigation of dan coats and president trump. according to "the washington post" back in march, a couple months ago, the president asked coates if he could intervene with the then fbi director james skommy to get the bureau to back you have at investigation of michael flynn. well, coates told associates that he thought intervening wore inappropriate. and a spokesman said coates, quote, never felt pressured by the president or anyone else in the administration who influenced any intelligence matters or ongoing investigations, end quotes. eun. >> angie goff, thank you. >>> we're going to take you live right now to capitol hill where in just a few hours from now, director coates will appear before the senate intelligence committee. and he will likely face tough questions about that "washington post" report. the hearing could also provide new information in the russia information. the witnesses include coates and several other key people connected to the investigation. coates will likely be asked about last night's "washington post"

the same thing with coats. have all these people that have representations, and it just shows the complete and total ignorance of donald trump and his understanding of how government works and how checks and balances work. >> well, he comes to it with no background in it. there's no more complex thing a president deals with than his relationships with two people, people in law enforcement and people in intelligence. particularly on the law enforcement side, technically they work for the president, but on some issues they have to be independent. i think what you see here on all this russia stuff, on the stuff related to flynn, on the conduct of the fbi director who, of course, reports to the deputy attorney general and the attorney general, i think you see donald trump struggling to understand, these people work for me, why aren't they pledging their loyalty? why are there recusals that i'm not consulted on? that takes some getting used to if you don't understand the historic reason why you have people who work

that coats should try to stop the fbi's investigation. so ask the question, right? director did you hear the president ask you. did the president ask you if you could do that director pompeo did the director ask you about intervening in the fbi investigation? actually, i should tell you that last one, the senate judiciary committee did ask mike pompeo about that in writing last month. we reported last week that he blew them off. he blew the deadline for responding to the written question from congress. he just never sent a reply. well now tonight, we have this new reporting from "the new york times" about the other red hot controversy at the center of this scandal where mike pompeo has a central and as yet unexplained role. it's about trump national security advisor mike flynn. it was very soon into the new administration, less than a week after the inauguration when the acting attorney general sally yates came up to the white house personally to give the white house a very serious warning about their national security advisor mike flynn.

at some points these facts have with >> thank you senator coates, excuse me, director coats and admiral rogers for your testimony. with all due respect to my colleague, i think you have cleared up substantially your direct testimony that you have never been pressured by anyone, including the president of the united states. thank you for that. let's go back to section 702 which is what this hearing is supposed to be all about. it's becoming obvious that those who work in the intelligence community that we are in a different position then europe is. there are risks are obviously very high and they are suffering these attacks on a very regular basis and becoming more regular. let's talk about our collection efforts versus the european collection efforts and particularly as it relates to section 702. obviously, we think about spats between us and the europeans regarding intelligence matters, but we know there is a robust munication and cooperation between our european friends and ourselves. so i want to talk about it -- section 702 in that respect. why don't we start with director coats and

and now coats reportedly said he thought intervening would be inappropriate. a spokesman for the director said coats never felt pressured by the administration or any others to influence any intelligence matters or ongoing investigation. eun. >>> let's take you live to capitol hill in just a few hours coats will appear before the senate intelligence committee. and he will likely face tough questions about that "washington post" report. this hearing could also provide new information in the russia investigation. the witnesses include coats and several other key people connected to the investigation. as we reported, coats will night's "washington post" report that he and the head of the nsa admiral mike rogers could also be asked about a report in the post last month. that report said the president asked coats and rogers to publicly deny the existence of any evidence of collusion between russia and the trump campaign. while today's hearing is important, all eyes are on tomorrow's big hearing with former fbi director james comey. our i-team reporter scott macfarl

this one, director coats, i would like a "yes" or "no" answer on. could the government use the fisa section 702 to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic? >> not to my knowledge. it would be against the law. >> thank you. >> senator warner. >> again, i want to thank all the witnesses, but i come out of this hearing with more questions then when i went in. gentlemen, were both willing to somehow characterize your conversations with the president. you didn't feel pressure, but you would ensure the content. in the case of admiral rogers, we will have an independent third-party who will provide some level of contemporaneous description of that conversation and why there were concerns enough to commit that to writin writing. i'm pretty frustrated that there is this deference to the special prosecutor even though the special prosecutor has not talked to you. i'm concerned that the deputy attorney general also deference to the special prosecutor, but there doesn't seem to be -- we are committed to making sure that we are appropriate. we don'

this would be to director coats, and a.g. rosenstein. has the odni or the department of justice position changed at all since the time of the february 2012 letter? >> no. we strongly support the 2012 letter and request. >> we agree 100%. >> great. this is to admiral rogers and to director mccabe. since congress last authorized this authority in 2012, again, have there been any instances involving a deliberate or intentional compliance violation. admiral rogers? >> not that i'm aware of. >> director mccabe? >> no, sir. >> admiral rogers, this is to you. if fisa's 702 statutory authorities were to end or even be diminished, what would be the impact on our national security? >> i could not generate the same level of insight that our nation and friends and allies around the world count on with respect to counterterrorism, counter proliferation. i could not, for example, be able to create the insights on the russian efforts to influence the 2016 election cycle. without 702, we could not have produced that level of insight. >> this is a jump b

i want to go to you, director coates.ared before, you said if called before an investigative committee i will provide them with what i know and what i don't know. i have great respect for you. you served on this committee. i remember as well when we confirmed you and i was proud to support your confirmation you said that you would cooperate with this committee in any aspects that we request of the russia investigation. we now have press reports, you can lay them to rest if they're not true, but we have press reports of not once, but twice that the president of the united states asked you to either downplay the russia investigation or to directly intervene with director comey. can you set the record straight about what happened or what didn't happen? >> as i responded to a similar question during my confirmation in the second hearing before the committee, i do not feel it's appropriate for me to in a public session in which confidential conversations between the president and myself, i don't believe it's appropriate for me

he was wearing a lab coat and had the rifle hidden inside the lab coat. i don't know if they're magnetometers. if he was fired and much depends on when he was fired, but in a lot of buildings, commercial enterprises, i'm sure hospitals, they post a picture of the individual so if you see this individual come in, don't let him in. obviously even if they had something like that, he was able to continue in. familiarity might have been a factor. maybe people didn't know he was fired or anything was amiss there or maybe he was targeting them on his way up to his old floor whether that was his old floor. obviously the security part of this and the fact someone had been fired and either that wasn't readily conveyed or warnings had be placed. if you see this guy, don't let him in. if that was going on, it wasn't honored here what do you make of that? >> a couple things. let's assume for discussion in terms of protocol and processes, let's assume that he was fired and was identified that there may have been a disgruntled employee here and the third party security

why is it inappropriate, director coats? you can clear an awful lot up by -- >> i do not share with the general public conversations that i had with the president or many of my administrative colleagues within the administration i believe are -- should not be shared. >> i think your unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes. >> it is my belief you are inappropriately refusing to answer these questions today. >> our default position when there's a justice department investigation we do not discuss it publicly. that's our default rule. >> is that the rule for the president of the united states as well? >> i don't know what -- >> that is what the questions are being asked about, reports that nobody has laid to rest here that the president of the united states has intervened directly in an ongoing investigation and we've gotten no answer from any of you. >> i don't know that anybody had a clear expectation about what they would get from the acting director of the fbi, deputy attorney general, head of the nsa a

why is it inappropriate, director coats?> i think conversations between the president and myself are for the most part -- >> you seem to apply that standard selectively. >> no, i'm not applying it selectively. i'm just saying i don't think it's appropriate. >> you can clear an awful lot of but saying it didn't happen. >> i do not share with the general public conversations that i have with the president or many of my colleagues within the administration that i believe are -- should not be shared. >> well, i think your unwillingness to answer a very basic question speaks volumes. >> increasingly exasperated angus king pressed to get answers about the lack of answers. >> why are you not answering these questions? is there an invocation by the president of the united states of executive privilege? is there or not? >> not that i'm aware of. >> then why are you not answering the question? >> because i feel it's inappropriate,or. >> what you feel isn't relevant, admiral. what you feel isn't the answer. >> i'm not satisfied with i

i am starting to coat the globe there. coat ofrence, this is a the exact period. we usually see coats from the front, not the back. these buttons is to be way up higher during the revolutionary period. but here, it gravitates down lower and is very tapered. is now a finished photograph. sorry about that it does not chill of very well. and you say, what is this whitehead? becauseecided to do was he had such a complicated phase, a lot of subtleties in monroe's face. i was amazed at how subtle it was. i did not want to go modeling the head again on the top of this thing eight feet in the air on the scaffold. head cast the portrait that i have, and i am going to here until i have the exact detail i one and put it on the piece. see, but there is the globe, there is the sword. and this is basically a finished piece for it goes to get bronzed. what i do is i took this in a mirror. i found over the decades that you can find out a lot of mistakes on a piece if you reverse it. we don't see things sometimes when we see it in the actual positive of it, but if you reverse it,

. >> 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

this is the coat he wore when he did his confession, and i thought it was an amazing performance. i'm proud of him. and i'll start with an opening statement. i want to thank everyone who's shared their thoughts, prayers and wishes with the warmbier family during the past 17 months. the burden of our ordeal has been eased by the support we have experienced, not only from our friends in cincinnati, but throughout ohio, at the university of virginia, throughout the united states, and indeed from around the world. i'd also like to thank todd, lynn, mr. siler, mr. burke from wyoming high school. this is a place where otto experienced some of the best moments of his young life, and

the director of national intelligence dan coats, the director of the national security agency, admiral mike rogers, deputy attorney general rod rosen tine and acting fbi director andrew mccabe. the hearing was supposed to be about the foreign intelligence surveillance act but instead focused on the russia investigation extensively. the back and forth was very, very contentious at times with some of the senators bristling over the refusal of witnesses to answer direct questions pertaining to influence and pressure from the white house. here are some of the highlights from today's senate hearing starting with admiral mike rogers responding to a question about whether he had been pressured by the white house to intervene in the russia investigation. >> to the best of my recollection, i have never been directed to do anything i believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate. >> for intelligence-related matters or any other matters that have been discussed, it is my belief that it's inappropriate for me to share that with the public. have i never been pressured. i have never fel

, what looked like a doctor's coat.ccording to the reporting of "the new york times," the times is reporting fire officials, the fire department of new york saying, three doctors at this hospital have been shot. we do not know the condition of these doctors. we do know that this shooter according to the nypd is still on the loose. they're calling this officially an active shooter situation. armed units are there at the bronx lebanon hospital, which is the name of it. just about 15 blocks north of yankee stadium on grand concourse for those of you familiar. this is the mount hope neighborhood of the bronx. every neighborhood in new york city has a name. this is mount hope. again, the times reports the conditions of the doctors unknown. we're not saying at all that the shooter was a doctor himself. what we're saying is that the shooter was at least dressed like one. so take from that what you will. we can't know until the press tell us until they get intelligence on that matter. i can tell you if the chopper were to zoom

up to 65% more stain resistant than competing one-coat paints it has complete one-coat coverage.le. how scrubbable? this scrubbable. it has complete one-coat coverage. and it's oh-so durable. how durable? this durable. infinity paint from hgtv home by sherwin-williams. available at lowe's. mi'm evenarts win the kitchen. i need my blood sugar to stay in control. so i asked about tresiba®. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® is a once-daily, long-acting insulin that lasts even longer than 24 hours. i need to shave my a1c. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ tresiba® works like my body's insulin. releases slow and steady. providing powerful a1c reduction. i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ i can take tresiba® any time of day. so if i miss or delay a dose, i take it when i remember, as long as there's at least 8 hours between doses. once in use, it lasts 8 weeks with or without refrigeration, twice as long as the lantus® pen. (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during

coats, same thing what is your refusal to answer the questions today? >> the answer is what i previously explained. i don't believe it's appropriate -- >> i'm not satisfied with i do not believe it's appropriate or i don't feel i should answer. i want a legal basis. you swore that oath to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and today you're refusing to do so. what is the legal basis for your refusal to testify to this committee? >> i'm not sure i have a legal basis. >> legal experts say he doesn't. >> catherine herridge is at today's hearing, or was. joins us live from capitol hill. if you thought this was going to be highly partisan, it wasn't. republicans were getting after this, too. >> one of the big moments and very dramatic moments came when the ranking democrat, senator mark warner, really pressed the nsa director on whether there had been pressure from the president to down play the fbi russia case. >> in the three plus year that's been the director of the national security agency, to the best of my recollection, i have

it doesn't matter whatsoever whether coats felt pressure. what they feel is not determination as to whether or not the person trying oh obstruct knew there was an ongoing investigation and then endeavored to do it, improperly as he may have. >> phil mudd, welcome. >> thank you. just a moment on this. note what coats said this morning. it's critical. he said he did not feel pressure. believe it or not, this in some ways, in some respects does not look like pressure. that seems odd. >> okay. >> he didn't say he never had a conversation. i'm talking about coats this morning. >> never denied it. >> it's a very critical point here. the question should have been, did you ever talk to the president about this case? if i'm robert mueller and i work for him, then i have to go forward and say, if you did, what do those conversations include? i'm not interested in your judgment whether you felt pressure or not. i want to know whether you had a statement and the statement by the intel guys this morning, i used to be one of them, didn't say they didn't h

did either dan coats or mike rogers do the same? >> reporter: the answer is yes, when it comes to rogers. he had interaction with the president and documented it in a memo written by his deputy at the nsa, richard lajet. one congressional source i spoke to seesaw the memo said it wasn't like the comey memos. one page and doesn't offer many details of the conversation, but the memo does document it and makes clear that rogers thought it was out of the ordinary. as for coats, they not document the conversation he had with the president as far as the people i've spoken to briefed by him, we're told. >> dana, stick around. a lot more to discuss. another big story happening right where you are in washington. minutes from now senate republicans will file into a closed-door briefing in his own health care bill. then we, the american people, get to find out. cnn's m.j. lee and the rest of the cnn political team have dug up the details what is inside that bill. m.j., what are we learning? >> reporter: john, the big question, we're awaiting t

when he does the public tweeting or privately talking to coats and rogers. he thinks he's not getting enough coverage. the russia investigation is a real story. he is channelling this understandable frustration that comey and others were telling him that he's not under investigation and wants it made clear to the public. he's doing it in an inappropriate way. if not criminal, unethical. it's likely not criminal, but unethical. he trips himself up. the other part of cnn reporting about this that struck me so trump is coats and rogers asked the white house about it and whether he wanted to exert it. he couldn't answer back to them. again, feel free to exert it to give a clear answer in front of that committee and made for an awkward news cycle. in many ways, he is tripping himself up. >> it did make for an awkward cycle. i said by not answering, it kept them from saying out loud what we know to be true, the president asked them to say there was no collusion. who knows if they meant to do it or not. one of the mysteries of the white house. mary kathryn, i apolo

dan coats and add miller mike rogers were asked by the president to deny any evidence of coordinationused to do, according to those reports but when asked in open congressional hearings tailed about these conversations, coats and rogers declined to directly answer the questions. they said they never felt pressured to do anything inappropriate, but both men refused to go into any sort of detail about what president trump may have asked them to do. why? why would they not answer such basic questions? cnn's brianna keilar is here for that story. brianna, did either make a legal claim about why they weren't going to answer these questions? for instance, did they invoke executive privilege? >> they did not. one senator actually asked the director of national intelligence what his legal basis was for refusing to testify about whether president trump asked him to downplay the investigation of possible collusion between the trump campaign and russian officials and downni said he wasn't sure if he had a legal basis, an answer that frustrated both republicans and democrats on the committee. u.s

coats didn't talk publicly. rogers did some closed session . my hunch here is whatever took place in those conversations is going to be pivotal because when you look at what comey heard from trump, it raises suspicions. if you find that ultimately the president also asked coats and others to intervene with comey, i think it adds a lot of evidence, a lot of weight to the suspicion about obstruction of justice. so i think that may be the new element that we're seeing emerge. >> they're not weasels, these guys. they are men in this case who have proud careers behind them, and they'd like to have proud legacies. they're not like the weasely people run ago round that table with him in the cabinet the other day. a spokesperson for president trump's personal lawyer, marc kasowitz -- now he's got a lawyer for spokespeople. following the statement in response to "the washington post" reporting, quote, the fbi leak of information regarding the president is outrageous and inexcusable, and illegal. let's go to the guy who got the story. devlin, are you gui