career people like gina haspel would have said so.e know it was shared with the president in the pdb. john bolton reportedly briefed the president. robert o'brien briefed the president reportedly. so the other question i have, according to the times reporting, some of these pdb articles appeared in late february of this year. remember, joe mcgwire, the then acting dni, was actually fired by president trump on february 21st. and ric grenell was put into the job. that's the ambassador to germany who was the president's political operative who he put in, installed as dni. ric grenell is now covering for the president because under grenell's watch, he's responsible for the pdb, under his watch, these articles were given to the president. there's a lot of questions that need to be answered. finally it's important to note there are families grieving in our country tonight because they sent people into harm's way, believing the commander in chief would protect them. and if you think about the families of staff sergeant chris slotkin from new

gina haspel called it tactical reporting, reports from the field, and said there's a process under wayit. and members of congress who got a briefing on this yesterday, none of them dismissed the intelligence. some of them said if it proves to be true there needs to be a strong response from the united states. this information was shared, we are learning, with u.s. forces in afghanistan so that they could take protective measures, and it was deemed credible enough to share with the british government. the british government is taking this very seriously. and one official told me that it's clear that americans and afghan civilians died as a result of this. as to when the president was first briefed, there's controversy about that. there's a report unconfirmed that this information was in the president's written materials back in 2019. the times is saying there was another written briefing this year. of course, we know that trump doesn't read his written materials and officials are saying he wasn't briefed orally. and so it raises the question y not? since they know he doesn't read, why d

to my listening, is playing all sorts of games with, well, it was not finished intelligence, and gina haspel has put out a statement from cia that actually indicates they were taking it seriously, they did warn the allies, and they did do force protection. so they did take it seriously enough. no intelligence is ever absolutely finished. >> well, of course that's exactly right. and jeremy i think will remember this, so brett, when the president, president obama was presented intelligence about where osama bin laden was, he was told it was i havea 50/50 c. he took action based on obviously incomplete intelligence. very rarely can you have completely definitive intelligence. you have to make judgments, you have to make decisions based on threads of information and take action or not take action accordingly depending on your judgment on it. i thought what liz cheney just said there in that clip was and, something we haven't heard from the president. she's saying if anybody thinks they could do this, they ought to think again, laying down the sort of warning you would expect to hear from a presi

david: let me quote the cia director, gina haspel who spoke to the point what the leak might have doneinary force protection information is shared throughout the national security community and with u.s. allies as part of our ongoing efforts to insure the safety of coalition forces overseas. leaks compromise and disrupt the critical interagency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability. she is saying our national security was harmed as a result of this leak. how do you plan to figure out who leaked it? >> well i have requested and i think that they're going to have some, the department of justice and others investigate this because a leak is a serious thing here. because what happens is, if you have sources giving you information, good or bad, or you're working through intelligence sources, and a leak comes out, guess what, those sources roll up, they're not available anymore. you keep our folks in harm's way. you can't even assess the actual threat. that is the shame on the leaker. shame on "the new york times" for publishing it. shame on joe biden making those allegations. it

in fact, gina haspel, the cia director, said in her statement tonight that it was briefed to allies and other national security officials. so definitively the president was briefed and the question tonight is what did he do about it? if it was nothing, he has a lot of answers to provide the american people and the families of those who lost their lives in the taliban attacks. >> that is the other question here then, because i was talking earlier on the air with our pentagon correspondent, courtney kube, who was saying from the folks she was talking to, she was getting mixed signals on what exactly the intelligence committee -- the intelligence community was looking at here. some felt pretty confident that russia had done exactly what's described. others felt this wasn't as solid. in terms of what lands on the president's desk, do you have any sense what the confidence level was that was conveyed to him? >> don't know, but all i would say is that it doesn't have to be 100% confidence or even high confidence for it to be included in the presidents' daily brief. the presidents' daily brief

through the senate nomination process including neal gorsuch and mike pomp pompeo, jerome powell, gina haspel, and on and on. since moving from the trump white house over to the state department, mary elizabeth taylor's job has been pretty high profile as well. she's basically the liaison from the state department to congress as the assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs. that's a job for which she has a good background. she's a former staffer to mitch mcconnell. always handy to have those kinds of personal connections. tonight "the washington post" was first to report that mary elizabeth taylor has resigned as assistant secretary of state for reasons that people who are still in the administration may find unnerving, particularly if they themselves have considered resigning and haven't for some reason because unlike all of these other folks who have left the trump administration without saying a word or left without saying much of a word until they decided to put it in a book, unlike all these other resignations where we've had to wonder if maybe they were resignations in prote

>> so, i agree with phil, but at the same time, we know from gina h haspel's statement the other dayhat not just the white house brief, but she says that it is widely shared and briefed to the u.s. allies and i have a hard time that the white house would not have known about a briefing that was to the white house coalitions and not just u.s. military members, but we owe them a response as well. so back to what elissa slotkin was talking about the voracity of the information and the verification, and the disagreement within the nsa, i know from my experience nsa really speaks to their own collection. they are not going to talk about whether or not they necessarily agree or disagree where the collection of the cia and what they will talk about is that we only have collection on x-y-z. we can't verify what the cia is saying, and the collection we do have, and we can say, with medium confidence we believe it is accurate. and so there is not a dispute they are trying to display. >> okay. nada and phil, thank you. >>> the one governor who says he is not closing the state down again even th

. >> reporter: top officials also blasting the leaked information including cia director gina haspelriting overnight, leaks compromise and interrupt the agency work to collect, assess, and ascribe culpability. it all comes as calls for answers bipartisan in just hours adam schiff will be among nine democratic lawmakers briefed on the matter at the white house >> is this another situation where the president either was told and just rejects it or his people are too scared to tell him because it contradicts this narrative of vladimir putin being his buddy? >> reporter: now, overnight a spokesperson for john bolton said no comment when asked by nbc news about the reports that bolton had briefed the president on the russia matter last year meanwhile, veteran reporter carl bernstein who helped break the watergate scandal reports based on hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign leaders president trump was so, quote, consistently unprepared for serious discussions that a number of his former senior officials believed he posed a danger to national security. now a white house o

now, these claims from the national security advisor were reiterated yesterday by cia gina haspel byional intelligence john ratcliffe. none of the three has yet to clarify whether or not president trump was briefed in writing several months back opt russia banbounty.will up ainsley thanko much, gillian. they get so much information. that's why we have 16 intelligence agencies. they get so much information about other countries and what they are trying to do. they put it all together. they slave it. -- they verify it. they give it to the vice president and president. rick glenn said he wasn't aware of it. it didn't get up to that level. the president said he was not briefed on this whether or not it was in the briefing book, we don't know yet. some are saying it is, some are saying it isn't. many have said that all -- the presidents don't have time to read the entire book and that's why they have people that do it for them and let them know what stories they need to be aware of. brian: as much as it seems fool hearty for the russians to that i can this risk. not surprising that they t