how do you as national security adviser think responsibly about how you're going to tehelp them take custody of the nation's most sensitive intelligence, including intelligence on this matter about how they maybe got to the white house in the first place. i mean, the president decided, the outgoing president, president obama, decided, after the 2016 election, that the u.s. government had to take action against russia, had to punish russia for the way they interfered in our election, including hacking into state voting databases and all the rest of it. the obama administration decided they would kick out several dozen russians working here for the russian government and seize russian diplomatic compounds that the u.s. government believed were being used by the russian government for intelligence purposes. and as they were contemplating these actions against russia for what they had done with this unprecedented interference into our election, it seems clear now that the obama administration thought they knew what to expect from russia when they punished russia in this matter -- but it a

i'm here to talk about elections security of the national security issue. i'm here to talk about things we have been doing in partnership and support of the state and local elections community to take and elevate the importance of your security of elections in the face of a national security challenge. this is something that we talked about a lot collectively over the last couple of years but let me just start with and take you backwards for a second. clearly, what we saw in the department of homeland security in the spring of 2016 what we saw working with the u.s. intelligence community, the fbi, other folks involved in national security. there was an elevated threat to your election system. in 2016 we were not fully aware of where the threat was coming from and what else was going on but we saw during that period there was an elevated threat to the election system. during the run up to the 2016 elections working with others and the intelligence community and the fbi worked hard to get out as much information as we could. that's when the partnership with th

> i'm concerned this shows an ongoing pattern of failure to take seriously the protection of national security concerns by the very inner circle in the trump administration be because there are overlapping personal and professional and national concerns. >> let me get your thoughts on hope hicks, white house top adviser, aide to the president, close to the president. hope hicks appearing for more than seven or eight hours behind closed doors before the house intelligence committee answering questions about the campaign and answering questions about the transition but refusing to answer questions what about has gone in the white house over the past 13 months of the trump administration, what's your reaction? >> previously both steve bannon and corey lewandowski refused to answer questions claiming executive privilege and was seen in a clip from adam schiff on this show, that's an executive privilege that's not there to exert. hope hicks may also find yourself in some trouble with the committee about why she's refusing to answer questions about her role in the trump white house. >> if the white

this is a national security threat for all of those reasons. it's really interesting tonight that we bring the executive branch, the department of homeland security to the panel, but also a representative of the legislative branch to really answer the fundamental question -- what is the u.s. government -- is this is a national security threat, if you are persuaded by my argument -- what is the branch of government, the level of government responsible for dealing with national security? the federal government, what is it going to do about it? i'm a just if you're might colleagues that i. onight. rick: it is an honor to be here. i'm the deputy assistant secretary at the cyber security office at the homeland security. our department is responsible for eliminating threats to the nation's critical infrastructure of theh a designation election system. as was pointed out by both the jake, wer and understand that russian activities to undermine the 2016 presidential jake, election hasn well documented. we know those threats are out there. we know they a

so imagine you're the national security advisor while this is happening. you know all of this is happening. you have access to this intel. the election ends. the side russia was trying to help, how do you responsibly prepare to help that campaign transition itself from a presidential campaign to the next presidential administration? how do you as national security advisor think responsibly about how you're going to help them take custody of the nation's most sensitive intelligence including intelligence on this matter about how they maybe got to the white house in the first place. i mean, the president decided, the out going president, president obama decided after the 2016 election that the u.s. government had to take action against russia, had to punish russia for the way they interfered in our election including hacking into state voting databases and the rest of it. the obama administration decide they would kick out several dozen russians working here for the russian government and seize russian diplomatic compounds that the u.s. government believed w

sides, i frequently show in , thesay in this book american perception of national security, i show how history, memory, and ideology shape perceptions of what policymakers regard as realpolitik. protecty must do to tangible economic interests. ,he audiological perceptions were beingfelt they encircled by capitalist nations. this was a fundamental axiom that they believed. you know what? historical experience suggested they had reason to believe it. that theirers felt ideologically suggested to them that capitalism and fascist hours would extinguish communist nations if they have the opportunity to do so. that was inaccurate assessment. the result of that was dramatically shaped. ideology, history, and memory shaped realpolitik. so it did in washington as well. what i have shown in my essays on the american perception of the national security and what i showed in my book for the soul of mankind is to the degree and about theican memory interwar years, american assumptions about the inherent ideological expansion and ruthlessness of totality and totalitarianism. with memories shaping the

his responsibility is to deal with the national security of this country, his national security adviser. what he said at the munich conference was that what we have determined is that it is incontrovertible that the russians conducted this attack on the united states. he's not there to make political comments or to try to engage in the political dispute about collusion and no collusion. that's not his job. he's a united states military officer, a general whose responsibility is to deal with national security issues. the president ought to recognize that. >> i was surprised he slapped him down like that. as you know, the president has been tweeting fervently on this whole issue of the russia investigation since mueller's indictment indictments when the russians came down on friday. how do you think foreign governments are viewing all those presidential tweets? >> i think there's no question that russia reads weakness into how the united states is responding to this issue and, very frankly, i think our allies across the world are reading the same kind of weakness into our response. we hav

when you have a national security problem of this sort, and it is a national security problem, to learnhat russia was interfering in 2014, and we know they are planning to do so again. to have the president remain totally silent, other than to use this issue somehow to attack the fbi and to avoid a discussion of gun control in florida is kind of astounding and what is astounding is the rest of the administration is no longer willing to be quiet about the threat. they are talking openly about the facts, while the president is talking really about false things. and so you do have a disconnect. some republicans are finally saying something. that said, will there be any more forceful response to the president's silence from the gop? we don't know. >> tom, the president's allies and staff there at the white house have said consistently that the president's criticisms of the fbi is directed at leadership. how do you read this tweet about the tip line and missing that call or following up on it? do you read that as criticism of leadership as well? no, absolutely not. there is no senior leaders

national security advisor h.r. mcmaster learned that jared kushner has had contacts with foreign officials that he did not coordinate through the national security council and he did not officially report them. the issue of foreign officials talking about their meetings with kushner and their perception of his vulnerabilities was raised in mcmaster's daily white house briefin briefings. the meetings with kushner and vulnerabilities was a subject raised in mcmaster's meetings and he was naive and being tricked with officials some of whom said they wanted to deal only with jared kushner directly and not with more experienced personnel. so this is operating at a couple of levels. the personal drama here is that it's not just that jared kushner can't past the background check to get a full clearance. there is some hangup at the fbi in terms of clearing him through. that's no longer the story. the personal drama here is with this breaking news tonight in the washington post, this means that the problem is inside the hou

embargo. >> the whole year of any president's turn but this president has seen a huge range of national security issues. whether it's the issues of iran, russia, there's a range of issues that come across the president's desk every single day. there are interim security clearances opinion it clearances. it's not out of the ordinary to hold it briefly. that might be a year or longer. for a senior position in the white house it would be extraordinarily uncommon, if not heard of, for someone to not have a final security clearance. that person either gets a clearance or they don't. to have this drag out for so long, i agree with bill. i have never seen anything remote likely that in my experience. >> we're seeing a defiance or ignoring of norms when it comes to facts from day one, the size of the crowd. proclamations from the podium and these things matter. they should matter to the american people. why? you've served in government under different political regimes. >> i try to put my politics aside but from being a national security professional, facts matter because they drive policy decisions. yo

ensuring the electoral system process is secure is a vital national interest. we have confidence in the overall security of the electoral system and voting infrastructure as diverse, as subject to local control, and as many checks and balances. as the threat environment evolves, the department will continue to enhance the understanding of the threat and provide tools and resources available to the public and private sectors to increase security and resilience across a particular space. i appreciate the opportunity to be here and i will turn it over. greg: thank you. my name is greg bales. i'm here from u.s. senator dick durbin's office. you may have seen them in the news lately. [laughter] greg: he was on the view this morning. i have not watched it yet. he is the assistant democratic leader, number two ranking member in the democratic caucus of the u.s. senate. voting rights, voting issues, electoral issues are a top priority for him. something we have been looking at is illinois in specific. i think it is helpful for the audience and those watching at home to

, now suddenly national security is sacrosanct.des of the left squealing about j. edgar hoover and his unjustified wiretaps and now we are told that unjustified wiretapping is a nothing burger. the press has done nothing for this past year but whine about how donald trump has slapped them back and forth. now when it comes to releasingge information, it in no way damages the public good and damages the national security, the press -- the people who are supposed to speak truth to power and spin it to make it less important. it's appalling. it brings that old latin tag, who will guard the guardians? if we've lost the press that doesn't care about the truth, to hold any powerful h person to hh standards, then we have lost the people who are supposed to guard us. >> tucker: how does someone who calls himself a journalist a default position of who we would always think there would be more information as long as there is no downside --ho how does that person argue against things the public is entitled to see? >> i think it's a holdover fr

we need to make sure we are not revealing sources and methods to protect our national security. the more transparency be better so that the people of this country can see their civil liberties are being protected and the constitution is being followed. that is why we think sunshine, transparency and accountability is the correct antidote for this. that is why the legislative branch of government conducts its oversight over the executive branch. thank you. >> you can overrule that, mr. speaker. >> u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley spoke thursday at the gop annual retreat. she talked about foreign policy and national security objectives. this is about 20 minutes. [applause] amb. haley: thank you so much. i appreciate it very much. i am excited to be here. when we heard about the train derailment yesterday, the country took a breath. and they quickly set of prayer. prayer.-- said a many of you did what you do every day, gave service. but at this point you are heroes. i want you to know having been in public service, you do a lot of sacrifices and you give a lot, but

you just said on my air, on my show you are imperiling our national security. that? am i going to be arrested for that? i don't know. it seems like something a man could be arrested for. >> yeah. these are important times in our history. either you are supporting those undermining the independence of the department of justice and the rule of law or you are standing firm in saying this is wrong. tucker, i wish you were on my side because i think you know better. >> tucker: i'm not sure what the hell you are talking about. i only wish. >> i think you don't like what i'm talking about. >> tucker: i definitely don't like what you are talking about but more profoundly i don't understand it and when you accuse someone. >> read our memo when it is released next week. >> tucker: game it out for me. tell me one thing that i have said that you think makes all americans, including my children less safe? >> you continue to support the idea that we should give suspects in criminal cases the evidence against them before we ask them any question. you also believe there is not

that is a national security issue, obviously. who does national security? the military, homeland security, and so forth. ok, that is it does national security, but who administers elections? state and local governments. -- ifk the great line is the russians invade, we not going to call out the illinois national guard to fight them off, we're going to be calling nato and everybody else. so if the local election are administering elections, and want to keep it that way, we don't want dhs to administer elections. but where not going to local administers securing threats, and how you make this thing work? i will go to you first, rick. how do you, without imposing, undue restrictions? how do you secure elections? >> is a complex issue, no doubt about it. it is context because the election is so distributed and there are so many coordination points even in one state, let alone getting down to the county and local township level. it is a very complex from that perspective. this is why the designation of the election if researcher as a critical infrastructure allow

national security.ur military remains capable, but our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare. air, land, sea, cyber, and space. under frequent continuing resolution and sequestered budget caps, our advantages continue to shrink. the combination of rapidly changing technology, the negative impact on military readiness resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history, and insufficient funding have created an overstretched and under resourced military. during last week's state of the union address, president trump said weakness is the surest path to conflict. for those who might suggest that we should accept a year-long continuing resolution, it would mean a disastrous sequestration funding level for the military. in a world of change and increasing threats, there is no room for complacency. history shows that no country has a preordained right to victory on the battlefield. president trump's national -- framed within president trump's national security strat

he's the paper's national security correspondent.id, welcome from washington. >> great to be back with you. >> this is extraordinary. it really did grab all the top headlines here overseas over the weekend with people wondering whether this is an excuse to maybe one day even use a so-called low-yield nuclear weapon. >> well, it's a serious debate about there question because what's happened over time is that conventional weapons have gotten all the more powerful. weapons that could fly for an hour from one part of the world to another and hit, say, an underground nuclear location or missile location with a nonnuclear weapon. and meanwhile, it's been easier to dial up and dial down the power of nuclear weapons. so you end up with these sort of, you know, half caffeinated weapons, right, that are a lot like standard weapons but also have nuclear characteristics. and of course the radiation that goes with them. and the question is if you have a lot of those, is the president tempted to use them. we have to remember that the russians are

in the last few weeks that the justice department got its own assistant attorney general for national security paul, who sometimes thinks similarly to the way that trump does on these questions of american influence and the russia issue. rand paul had a hold on korv confirmation of the top security official at the d.o.j. and played a significant role in slowing that down. so, of course, is there absolutely criticism and frustration within the ranks of career national security officials when it comes to trump? yes. but these issues are complex. they're not going away. and after trump is gone, it's possible some of these tensions will percolate some. we have >> we have to pay attention. the burden of donald trump's national security staff. michael steele, i'm coming to you. it says, you can have an hour-long conversation with someone serving in a national security billet and they can tell you about problems without mentioning the name of the president they are serving unless i bring it up. it's almost as if they are trying to serve this country in spite of their president rather than threw him r

-- compromise national security? guest: we could try. the president has the final say on these kinds of classifications and declassification questions. if he really wanted to declassify the underlying application to the fisa court with appropriate reactions. with blackout passages to hide sources and methods, he could try to do so. he could instruct the director of national intelligence to take a shot in that direction. not hearing ae clamor from either the president or house intelligence committee either to release the underlying application or that they cannot release the application, i think it is further proof that this whole parade has looked to do with transparency and a lot to a preset andlling rather partisan political narrative. host: stephen vladek joining us from the university of texas. he is joining us from austin, texas. if you want to asking questions about the release of the memo, what it does for the larger aspect of the mueller investigation and other matters, 202-748-8000 for republicans --202-748-8001 for republicans,

john mclaughlin, acting director and msnbc national security analyst. alen rosenstein and national security attorney at the justice department. first of all, to you, peter alexander, we assume that jared kushner is on the job today as they say. >> yeah. he is on the job. the question is whether he is able to do his job the way he was. this vast portfolio that includes some sensitive topics, not the least of which is leading this administration, this president's effort to pursue peace between the israelis and palestinians. remember the president called him out and said if anyone can do it, i believe jared can. diplomacy with mexico and canada and china, trying to help oversee some of the trade deals taking place around the globe. with him, losing effectively this top secret clearance he had at an interim level, it means if it's to be executed as such, he wouldn't be able to attend a lot of the national security meetings, he wouldn't be there alongside the president to see the presidential daily briefing, which basically means according to the folks i'm t

national security. you see what's happened with our steel and aluminum industries, they're being de-- dumping and destroying industry and destroying the pafamilies of workers. we can't let that happen. secretary ross admitted the result of the investigation, last month my administration is now reviewing the reports and considering all options. and part of the options would be tariffs coming in as they dump steel, they pay tariffs, substantial tariffs, which means the united states would actually make a lot of money. and probably our steel industry and our aluminum industry would come back into our country. right now it's dessimated. it will make a decision, and i will make a decision that reflects the best interests of the united states, needing to address overproduction in china and other countries. other countries are so overproducing and they're dumping it on us. look at empty steel factories and plants, and it's a very sad thing to look at. i've been looking at them for two years as i went around ca

they also recently voted on a number of issues related to fisa and other national security issues. there hasn't been a consistent concern about abuses by the fbi or the doj. it's very important that overall we look at issues to make sure that security apparatus aren't misused to spy on individual citizens. but this doesn't seem like that. this is coming in the context of what's clearly a partisan attack on an ongoing investigation. >> can i just -- to add, we have to think about what it would have taken for this to be a legitimate abuse of power. in order for this to be a legitimate abuse of power, you would have need the director of the fbi, the deputy director, as well as the lawyers who review applications and the judge to all have been deceived and to think that this dossier was enough evidence. or you would have needed a conspiracy on the part of all of those individuals to say -- to stand against president trump and to do that by surveiling carter page. >> let's be clear. the fbi has had a history of undermining civil liberties. google hoover and martin luther king junior and

he is focusing on national security. what they are trying to do the sidetrack us with some political game. >> where do you stand on the cr? could something come up for a vote in the house question mark speaker ryan: we have been both talking about the cr. the reason we are having this in the first place is because the democrats have been holding this cap agreement hostage for an unrelated issue. if we would've had the agreement in place by now, we would not have been having to do this. having said that that i think we , are making progress on an cap agreement, and even if we get everything figured out by tuesday, we have to have a cr because we have to give time for the writing of an anonymous appropriations bill. that has to be one to have time to write an appropriations bill there we are still negotiating the content and the duration of that. sen. mcconnell: one tool that has been eliminated, i don't think we will see the government shutdown again over the subject. one of my favorite country kentucky sayings is that th

national security adviser h.r. mcmaster was in a security conference in munich and he was asked about this. listen to what he said this morning. >> as you can see, with the fbi indictment, the evidence is now really incontrovertible and available in the public domain. whereas in the past it was difficult to attribute for a couple of reasons. first, technically, it was difficult, but then also you didn't want to divulge your intelligence capabilities. but now that this is in the arena of a law enforcement investigation, it's going to be very apparent to everyone. >> i did want to bring up the president's tweet, fred. there are two things to point out here. first, the president writes that the trump campaign did nothing wrong, there was no collusion. that's still not conclusive. if you listen closely to what the deputy attorney general said yesterday, he said in this indictment, there were no americans named who wittingly worked with russians to interfere in the election. but it doesn't say that there are no more indi

to talk more, msnbc national security contributor matt miller and alan rosenstein, law professor at the university of minnesota and former attorney in the justice department's national security division. alan, i want to start with you. we touched on this a little bit with ken, but what does the role of a lawyer like van der zwaan potentially bring to the table in an investigation like this? what does a lawyer like that know, not know, be able to potentially say? are there any limits on what he could say based on any privilege that may have been part of his conversations? >> well, it depends on what he's being asked about. if he's being asked about questions relating to his representation of certain clients, then there may be some privilege issues that have to be dealt with. if he's talking about other issues, if the charge, for instance, is lying to investigators, tlahere's reallyo privilege issue there. i think what's notable about mr. van der zwaan and the charges against him is twofold.

now dan coats says it's a threat to national security.u agree with that. >> our debt is important and we need to get rid of it, no doubt about that. as speaker ryan said consistently and said on fox business this morning we have to address it through mandatory spending. this budget are biggest part is entitlements. this addresses billions in medicare savings. it is a start but. trish: no one wants to touch entitlements, tom. that is sacred territory. understandably so. you think about social security. you paid into the thing for the whole career. you ought to be able to get that money back but how long can we afford night we can't afford it there is economic and political risk to the strategy. the trump budget essentially is proposing 4 trillion. that's huge that will be another trillion dollar debt. we can't keep spending like this. this big, not only the national security risk, my god, we have north korea. we have iran, who are really threatening us almost every day. we need a reserve cash supply in case we need to use it. we can't keep

this is a national security threat for all those reasons. to follow on the intro, it's interesting tonight that we bring the executive branch, the department of homeland security to the panel, but also a representative of the legislative branch to really answer the fundamental question, what is the use government, is that this is national security threat, if you are persuaded by my argument, what is the branch of government, the level of government responsible for dealing with national security? the federal government. what is it going to do about it? i'm anxious to go and hear for my call extract. >> get evening everybody it's an honor to be. i'm the deputy assistant secretary at the cybersecurity communications office of the department of homeland security. our department is responsible for eliminating threats to the nation's critical infrastructure and with the designation of article of election infrastructure as critical infrastructure. group that includes the election systems as well. as was pointed out by both the ambassador and jake, w

charles: coming up, we'll tell you what, not who is being called the greatest threat to our national securitying. lp >>> i'm concerned that our increasing fractious political process, particularly with respect to federal spending is threatening our ability to properly defend our nation, both in the short term and especially in the long term. the failure to address our long term physical situation has increased the national debt to over $20 trillion and growing. this situation is unsustainable as i think we all know and represents a dire threat to our economic and national security. former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff mike mullen first identified the national debt as the greatest threat to our national security. charles: dan coats calling the national debt our greatest national security debt and urging congress to address. rebecca, we've heard this sort of thing before but to hear it today, particularly the day after a budget is released that we're going to see a massive increase in the federal debt, there's no political in-fighting. everyone agrees in congress at least, let's spend a

with national security, most of the work i performed as a federal prosecutor, all of the work occurred in federal criminal courts. a significant component of what i do as the deputy attorney general involves national security, things that do not occur in courts, other than in the five courts. that has been my responsibility in large part because our assistant attorney general for the national security division was only confirmed last week and in his absence, a lot of the work is performed by the deputy a.g. it can only be approved by the deputy attorney general, or the assistant attorney general for national security. so, whoever is the lowest on the totem pole and in office does that work. i spent about a half hour every day between april and last week working with our national security experts on foreign intelligence surveillance matters. that he has at long last been sworn in. taken over that responsibility. but in terms of the work of the deputy, that is what is the most different with this job relative to other jobs in the department. in this room, there are leading banks and comp

and i want to bring in our cnn national security analyst to talk more about it. sam, i'm interested in your perspective, i have to image nan -- imagine that the kremlin is watching this play out. is this part of what they were hoping for when they got involved in the election? >> i think vladimir putin is doing cartwheels right now. there's been so much politicization of the process for one which feeds into his mission which is again open source information to sow divisions in the united states and it's very clear from reading the document that vladimir putin's successfully targeted members of the trump campaign and that's not surprising. the russians want to target people who have access and influence so that they can spread their agenda. so again, it shows that he infiltrated the campaign. then we have this whole process play out that further cements the fact that the president himself is cementing divisions with his statement today when he talked about this being a political -- political operation. so all in all, this works in vladimir putin's favor. we have n

a tweet from president trump taking his national security adviser to task. this morning, what may have prompted the late-night rebuke. >>> again on twitter, this time the president takes on the fbi. what he said about russia and the florida school shooter. >> you need to make actual change. there's only so many words that can be said before things move on. >> it's time for victims to be the change that we need to see. >> we are going to be the kids that you read about in textbooks, not because we are going to be another statistic about mass shootings in america, but because we are going to be the last mass shooting. >> student survivors make their voices heard about the massacre at their school. why they could be the key to getting affecting change. >>> and new this morning, president trump going on a tweet storm and targeting the fbi in his own national security adviser over the special counsel's russian indictments. in one tweet late last night, saying, very sad that the fbi missed all of the many signals sent out by the florida school shooter. this is not

are connected, which was the intention of president eisenhower when he said it is a -- it is a national security issue for us to be nationally connected. with that, i'm sure my colleagues will be happy to answer any questions you may have on this subject. reporter: did you get any commitment from speaker ryan along the lines that you were speaking yesterday? if not, will you vote against the bill? rep. pelosi: i'm happy to get to that, but on this subject here, because this is very important to our economy, to our environment, to our future when we talk about broadband and the rest of that because so many times people see that as their path to the jobs of the 21st century. reporter: considering the budget deal has money for transportation, can you talk about that in the context of what you guys will do? rep. pelosi: i can. but this is a major proposal at our caucus and i'm happy to answer any of those questions. and i will more fully but we , have tremendous intellectual resources here who have worked on these issues. they made brief presentations. we could make them longer. you know that. rep.

our national security panel.. it's time for the 'ultimate sleep number event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort your sleep number setting. and snoring? does your bed do that? right now during the ultimate sleep number event, our queen c2 mattress with adjustable comfort on both sides is only $699, save $200. ends soon. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you. >> 25 pbr unleash the beast series. >> it is week 5. >> with the can do attitude. there it no denying dirt eater. >> 4 events down, 4 different winners. >> davis in the big one. and ramon wins. >> who will seize the tune in southern california. >> with the world's toughest bulls, standing in the way? >> pearl harbor, just too much. >> bruiser's campaign begins. >> the championship round

let me talk about the national security implications. i have not been a fan of either memo being released for this reason. this is not the type of issue that you want to litigate in public. i've worked on fisas. i no there is very sensitive information that goes into them. i understand the implications of releasing this type of information. what i'm a -- chairman mike rogers, the proper venue for these discussions and this debate is the fisa court in a classified proceeding. where the harmed party the fisa court it's being alleged that the fbi did something wrong, that's the proper venue for having such discussions, not to be going tit for tat with various memos. >> once you've gone down the road of releasing one memo, which the fbi asked the white house not to do, the white house went ahead anyway and the fbi made the rare public statement saying, you know, i don't want to misquote chris wray, but essentially saying there were material omissions of fact. >> no, you're right. again, i was not a fan of the gop memo. in fact, i think it wa

it's in violation of national security and intelligence protection protocol. we fertile that already. what we are hoping to do right now in the immediate is to read this thing. >> harris: really quickly and we are going to kind of toggle between you but what do we know about this democratic memo? doing of the length of it or anything? >> i know nothing about it. >> harris: we will come back. thank you very much. now, let's go back to chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge. you heard me reading that excerpt, and i hope i didn't force you to put your cup of coffee down because it's your work in your writing but john and i were just talking about it, john roberts about admitting to that doj employee that he had some pretty strong feelings about candidate chop becoming president. >> there are two key players that really matter to this part of the memo. there was this former it is by christopher steele. he was the one who is tasked together the research for the trump dossier and then his justice department official bruce ohr, and based on our reporting

he attacked the democrats, tacking the fbi, attacking cnn his own national security adviser. here's what he had to say about democrats. this is the tweet. he says this. just like they don't want to solve the daca problem, why didn't democrats pass gun control legislation when they had both the house and senate during the obama administration? because they didn't want to. and now they just talk. well, after the newtown school shooting, both democrats and republicans did try to pass some gun control legislation, and it was thrust to the obama term agenda and that failed under pressure from nra and other gun lobbyi lobbyists. his national security adviser said yesterday in munich that evidence of russia's interference in the 2016 election is beyond dispute, the president then responds to mcmaster on twitter saying this. general mcmaster forgot to say that the results of the election were not impacted or changed by the russians and that the only collusion was between russia and crooked "h," the dnc and the demes. and then lastly, david t president tweets this. you read it at the

will compromise our own national security. >> stunning. let's actually play part of his speech that director wray gave back in september. we need to remind the audience, christopher wray is not an obama holdover. >> right. >> he was selected by president trump. he is a trump guy. take a listen. >> our mission is simple but profound. to protect the american people and uphold the constitution. that mission hasn't changed, and it won't change, not as long as i have anything to say about it. we're going to abide by the rule of law and our core values. we're going to follow the facts independently, no matter where they lead and no matter who likes it. >> so besides possibly regretting that he took this job, christopher wray is a law enforcement kind of guy. i actually turn to you, ari. if christopher wray is saying, no way, jose, not just democrats, doesn't this clearly look that it is entirely politically motivated? politically motivated and putting us at risk. >> i think that's the problem. fbi director wray is speaking about what he says is

having national security perspectives weigh in. >> why not the same -- sec. sanders: we did not release the memo prior to that review process being complete, and we are not going to do that this time. >> what about john kelly and his comments, indicating some dreamers are lazy. does that kind of rhetoric help get a bipartisan deal done? sec. sanders: like i said, the administration is focused on actually solving this problem, not taking it down the road. we will focus on those conversations. >> capitol hill, chief of staff kelly said he did not think the president would be likely to extend the daca march deadline from the 5th. in davos, the president said if we need more time, we will take more time on daca. he said, "i might do that. i am not guaranteeing it, but i have the right to do it if i want." which is it? sec. sanders: we are hopeful we are going to get to a deal. we had laid out a generous offer offer thatgenerous meets the demands of the democrats. it meets the pillars that we have laid out. elizabeth warren, chuck schumer -- all of these individua

and national security and other issues this year. but this is a president who came here -- and you are right. many people here do not support him for president. but they support him as president. and they share an agenda that's really making america more prosperous and more secure and more accountable. ainsley: yeah. kellyanne, what is he doing for unemployment and job creation. i know he said yesterday that paul ryan picked up the phone and called him and said that he has never seen a republican party this united. we have come a long way, baby. because at the beginning of the year that was not the case. thank you so much for weathering the cold weather for us. brian: kellyanne, not only is it cold. >> it's 8 degrees here but thanks, yes. god bless. go eagles. you said my name is front of herschel walker. it was on my bucket list. thank you. brian: do you have a prediction, kellyanne. >> heisman trophy winner 1981982. ainsley: great guy. >> great man. eagles all the way it will be fun there. ainsley: where are you going to be watchin

that member, in this case david nuÑez, is a legitimate voice on national security issues. speaks to this. he is also a republican. he speaks his mind on issues to the public. committees ishe that you are supposed to rise above partisanship when it comes to matters of national security. there is a debate going on now. not?his unduly partisan or time will tell. we have a lot of interesting things coming out. we will see the democratic memo, i predict. doje is the dlg -- inspector general report that is going to come out. there are a lot of shoes left to drop. lot more stuff to examine before we come to some final decision on whether the overstepped its bounds. host: i want to talk about david nuÑez. he recused himself from the russian investigation for a. of time. time.eriod of what you think about his ability to lead this investigation? >> i'm worried about the committee in general. i do not think the democrats on they are not -- immune from partisanship or political motivations. they are politically active. the democratic party is very upset about tom -- donald trump. ther

that's not an ideal situation in national security to have people with access to very sensitive documents who were operating on an interim security clearance. >> former homeland security chief jay johnson raising questions about ousted white house staffer rob porter's security clearance. now we have the assistant director of counteragainst from 2011/2013. he worked under bob muller. with a big welcome to you, how does this happen? does interim security clearance mean that an individual cannot pass a background check? >> no. first of all, glad to be here, but interim clearances are not meant to keep people in their positions for entire time they're with an organization. they're usually granted just to have people come on board and then work into the accesses. but in any type of position where you're seeing highly classified information, it is not a good idea and quite frankly in my time in the fbi and going to the national security counsel a lot, did you ever have people sitting in those clearance, they're usually up to the top secret fbi compartmentalized level and it's not a good idea. >

so this tension between national security and the kind of nationalism is inherent so my question to you is to going a word, is the communication unprecedented here? is there something really new and what's happening now or do we just have a rerun of things we had when dubai ports world for example was investing in us ports or us technology the last 15years or more ? is the administration any different? >> that's a very good question and i think the short answer is it remains to be seen. it has been hard to sift through this process to get investments by chinese companies approved. probably more than in past administrations. as you know, and you're right, this debate about national security versus using it for other purposes is a long-standing debate. the city is committee is headed by the treasury department and that was probably done quite consciously bypassed treasury departments because they wanted to be sure that we had an open investment regime, generally tempered by the need to deal with national security problems rather than something for inward foreign investment which jumped of