jim clapper who is the head of the overall the director of national intelligence, all 17 agencies. a 53-year veteran of intelligence services for the united states of america through all administrations. if he says it, you can take it to the bank. he's about the least partisan and most straight shooter i've seen in washington. so, to dispute and blow off what he said, i guess if you blow off what jim clapper is telling you, you do at your peril. >> the same agency told america that there were weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of 2003 turned out to be wrong. why should they believe him now? >> well, there is a difference. and what we're talking about here is not the agency. there is a lot of, i think we need to -- there is a cia. but the intelligence community which jim clapper speaks for is 17 different agencies that reached a consensus position, including the fbi. so, to say, well, that's sort of confusing to say, well, the cia made a mistake. of course, people make mistakes. i have to tell you, i read a lot of intelligence briefings. that statement they put out in o

secretary to an important statement that you made with the director of national intelligence jim clapper on october october 7 and i'm just going to read a brief excerpt from this because it really sets the stage for what we are now dealing with. on october 7 mr. clapper said the u.s. intelligence committee is confident that the russian government directed a the recent compromise of e-mails from u.s. persons in a situation including from u.s. organizations. these thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the u.s. election process. we believe a we thought it was important to inform the american public about what we saw and to declassify what we are in a position to declassify. we were very careful and it took some time. we reviewed the evidence and the intel and we reached a point where we were prepared to issue that statement and we felt it important to issue that statement before the election because of what we saw was going on. now somebody is always going to criticize you, what did you say on october 6 through september 2. that was the moment at which we reach the point whe

can tell you there's an absolutely incredible powerful memo that was released on october 7th by jim clapper, the head of the national -- director of national intelligence who is a 50 year nonpartisan prags nal and it said three things, the russians are behind this, number two, the russians are leaking it, number three, it is intended to influence or interfere with our elections and number four, it was approved at the highest level of the russian government. that is i find pretty astounding. >> he did issue a public statement with jeh johnson in early october making those points. but the argument was that they interfered with the democratic national committee. they hacked the dnc e-mails. they hacked apparently -- you can confirm this through wikileaks they hacked some top officials from the hillary clinton campaign, john podesta the campaign chairman but never concluded that there was actual russian involvement in trying to interfere with election systems, voting booths, stuff like that. you haven't come up with any evidence of that right? >> in that same memo they do talk about the attempt

. >> rose: jim clapper the director of national intelligence -- >> has in the last presentations to the congression on the major threats to the united states ranked cybersecurity number one. it's not the case the country has treated it as the number one threat. we have far more resources and emphasis in mine share and attention to counterterrorism which is appropriate and homeland security than we were in terms of a range of dimensions really underfocussed on the cybersecurity challenge and there were a number of things to do to enhance it and that's how the commission came about. >> rose: what did do you? >> i was the private sector counterpart and looked at areas to focus on. primarily in broad terms the issues around the security of the internet itself identity management and other things and the area where it's no longer your phone or computer it's cameras and sensors and traffic monitors and health devices. all those things now are potentially devices for a hack or some issue could occur. so in addition to that we were asked to look at government itself and the processes and how go

jim clapper, the director of national intelligence, has the last three or four years in each of his presentationso the congress, on what the major facing the united states, has ranked cybersecurity number one. it's just not the case that the country has treated it as the number one threat. we have far more resources and emphasis and mind share and attention to counterterrorism, which is appropriate. and homeland security. but we were, in terms of a whole range of dimensions, really kind of underfocused on the cybersecurity challenge. there were a number things that we could do that would enhance cybersecurity and that's how to commission came about. charlie: what did you do? >> basically what we did, i was honored to serve with tom as the private sector counterpart to this. we looked at areas that we were -- in the executive order looked to focus on. primarily kind of -- in broad terms, the issues around the security of the internet itself. identity management, internet of things, which is the area -- it's no longer your phone and computer, it's cameras, it's sensors, it's traffic monitors, healt

jobs and in addition there is one key cabinet level job, the director of national intelligence, jim clapper, who has played a fundamental role in this administration in assessing security threats both to do with terrorists and geopolitical threats like russia, cyber attacks, that kind of thing. clapper announced he would be resigning at noon on january 20, inauguration day. some people took that as a signal he did not want to serve for a moment under donald trump. be that as it may or not trump is going to have a vacancy in that crucial post from the get-go and has not put forward a candidate for that job. so there is a lot of work to do and i don't have to tell you how important it is that you have a smooth transition when it comes to national security when you have threats from countries like iran and russia on the cyber side as well as isis and al qaeda still out there so really important to get this right, to stick the landing, so to speak. >> and, michael, add to the mix, boeing and lockheed. think about the business they do with the federal government. think about the business boeing

mapping agency, and now are greatly respected and much beloved director of national intelligence, jim clapper has agreed to join us for discussion about pdb's. with that, i would like for you to join me on stage so we can talk a bit of shop. [applause] mr. clapper: hello. mr. brenner: thank you so much for joining us today. you are better posture than anybody else to talk about how the pdb exchange since the early years. we will talk about the pdb's or the nixon and ford administrations, but i thought it might be worthwhile for you to spend a few comments reflecting upon how the product has changed? back then, it was a hard copy delivered to the president. in the process in terms of support for that product has changed. i want to get your perspectives since you are the one who goes into the oval office to meet with the president and to talk about the pdb. if you believe the pdb is still enters theial president's thinking on these issues? mr. clapper: thanks, john, and thanks for the honor of being on stage with you. as i wasecond time invited to participate in the roll out at the johnson libr

nationaldirector of intelligence, jim clapper, who represents 17 intelligence agencies announced publiclyhat the russian federation directed from the government itself was involved in hacking. you had admiral mike rogers come -- cyber command, that's right, say the wall street journal conference say you had a country and it was clearly russia that had interfered, tried to interfere in the election to get specific effects. thisussians deny all of and say we don't engage in cyber attacks. that of course is just not true. my own judgment, i have not seen the intelligence, but as a broad matter, there's no doubt based on what we've said publicly that the russians are trying to interfere with the elections here and it is part of a broader strategic approach by the russians. this is information warfare. espionage happens. the information was acquired and then made public for certain purposes. intent withge the specificity, but clearly, some intent was intended with respect to the elections and it's part of a broader confrontation we are having with putin's russia. charlie: there's no doubt in t

there's one agency that has gone back and looked at information that jim clapper put forth on november 17 that there's no link. cia has gone back on its own, my judgment is that the anonymous source that called "new york times" was an attempt to involve itself in domestic politics. otherwise you see nsa and fbi saying on these dates we observed these events. you're not seeing that. you're not seeing transparency as the democrats keep saying, there's no transparency. >> i want to give them all of that. for the purpose of argument say russia was behind it, if russia alone was messing up our electoral process, no one has taken the next leap to say it effected the outcome. what they all seem to be saying including governor richardson, we just want the electors to be aware. that's a line of bunk. you want them to switch their vote. you want to plant a seed of doubt to switch their vote, even though you cannot prove it switched the outcome of the election. you're putting doubt out there to take the election back. that's how i see it. i could be wrong. that's how i see it. what do you think?

intelligence officials told nbc news today, that james comey and jim clapper are now in complete agreement with a cia assessment that russia intervened in the 2016 election to help donald trump win the election. so that means now, donald trump must think that james comey is out to get him, the only fbi director in his thitory who reld harmful information about a presidential candidate. the person who may have done more to elect donald trump. james comey must now be out to get donald trump, according to donald trump's logic. president obama did his best today to try to explain to donald trump that cyberattacks on this country by russia, should not be a partisan issue. >> it shouldn't be a partisan issue. and my hope is that the president-elect is going to similarly be concerned with making sure that we don't have potential foreign influence in our election process. i don't think any american wants that. and that shouldn't be a source of an argument. i think that part of the challenge is that it gets caught up in the carryover from election season, and i think it is very important for us to

interfering in our elections with a statement put out by the director of national intelligence, jim clapperat the russians were trying to interfere with our election through hacking. and that there was little doubt in the minds of the intelligence community that the knowledge of this, if not the direction of it , went to the highest levels of the russian government. we know that in october the intelligence community thought that for sure. daysis new in the last few , not an official statement by the government but a series of leaks and it looks like from the leaks the central intelligence agency, the group of people i only believedot that the russians were interfering in the election but they were doing so with the intent to undermine secretary clinton and to help donald trump. it does not sound to me if the rest of the intelligence community is there yet with that judgment. it is not unusual for the cia to lead the rest of the community and for the rest of the community to eventually catch up. charlie: why do you say that? michael: it is just what has been tradition, what is typical. cia i

he pretty much was told by jim clapper, a guy named brennan and a guy named vickers to just leave becauseou're not part of the team. you're not just kind of sitting down and being quiet. so let's be very clear here. he was let go because he was trying to tell the truth to the president and the american people. and it is much worse, it's severe, it's a dereliction of duty to not have done your job as the president to listen to the intelligence community. you just went through a series of highly qualified officers, general joe dunford, my goodness sake, the chairman of the joint chiefs, he is one of the most honest men i've ever met, talking about the fact that what the president's saying is completely false. so i think we have to accept the fact that if you're the guy in charge and you're ignoring the briefings, then you're the problem, not the intelligence community. liz: lieutenant colonel, we have separate breaking news for you that iran plans to build nuclear-powered ships, meaning nuclear maritime capability if the u.s. breaches the nuclear deal. we know congress is moving to, basical

when i said to sean spicer that there's uniformity now, the president, the fbi, the cia, jim clapper, the intelligence. they all see it one way and then the outlier is the president-elect. am i accurate as far as you know when i say that? is it only trump who is an island unto himself on this issue? >> you know, it's not only trump. he has a number of supporters on, you know, avid supporters who accept his view of this and on the left, there are a bunch of people who believe that, you know, the intelligence, american intelligence agencies are warmongers and express skepticism about this. >> but they're not in the know. is there anybody in the know who is -- go ahead. >> well, i would say that there's a very strong consensus. both of the u.s. intelligence agencies and of the private independent cyber research communities that study these russian hacking groups that russia, that the russian state, you know, directed and sponsored hacking attacks on the democratic side of the election and if you think about it, putin had, you know, this is an old theme for the intelligence agencies. puti

. >> on -- >> jim clapper testified before the house intelligence committee under chairman nunez andould not conclusively state what the evidence was. this is something that's being investigated. i think it should be investigated. but i think we can't lose sight of the fact that out of 3,141 counties in this country, hillary clinton only won 57. in order to hack -- >> congressman, nobody is disputing the election results. nobody is disputing it. i think senator john mccain is concerned because there is evidence that russia meddled in the american election and that is a threat to democracy, isn't it? >> no question about it. i agree with you. i think we are all on the same page. >> so why doesn't the president-elect then reach out to the cia and -- pick up the phone and call, he's good at that, right, pick up the phone and call them and say look, guys, come out and issue a public statement bus we neecausd to know the answer to this. >> in addition to the sanctity of our electoral process, we also have one commander in chief. that right now is president obama who is in charge of this.

well, i think the public statement of the director of national intelligence that you mentioned, jim clapper, in october was a big deal. it was a very affirmative, unequivocal statement that the russians were involved, that they were trying to interfere in our elections, that it went to the highest level of the russian government. the problem is it just got lost in the noise of the campaign. >> but there were no calls for a special committee. mccain wasn't jumping up and down there. lindsay graham wasn't doing it then. it seems like it smacks a little bit of political opportunism. >> no, i don't think so. i don't think you can accuse two republicans of being politically opportune. john mccain was just re-elected. he's just being john mccain, which is somebody who takes these things very seriously. he has a very clear-eyed view as russia as our adversary. >> right. but why would you complain about something more after the period of urgency had passed? if you knew about hacking during the thing that you didn't want hacked, during that event, why weren't you loud and proud then? why would you w

he said "earlier this week i met separately director of the fbi comey and dni jim clapper and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent of russian interference in our presidential election." why do you think director brennan wrote this to his staff? >> i think it's very clear why he wrote it. there were leaks from the hill that some in the fbi did not agree with the cia's assessment that the intent of the operation, which was the news over the last couple of weeks, the intent was not just to cause chaos in our election but specifically to help donald trump win. that was the cia assessment, brennan is a fierce defender of the cia and it was his view that the leaks clearly were incorrect and he wanted to make it public that the cia and the fbi and the dni all agree now on the intent of this russian propaganda effort. look, a senior intelligence official said to me this week one thing you do not want to do is get into a leak war with the cia. this is literally what these guys do for a living and i'm not accusing brennan of playing politics here, i think he was cor

>> what i said was baffling, chuck, was on october 7, as the director of national intelligence jim clapper, jeh johnson the director of homeland security went out and said the russians are trying to interfere in our election, director comey counseled against that. he said, i don't want my -- the fbi's name on that. then three weeks later, he went out and dropped the infamous letter 11 days before the election saying that he was going to take yet another look at hillary clinton's e-mails because of the laptop that he had gotten from anthony wiener. so how can you have that both ways? i think that even in their defense, no one disputed those facts. october 7, he is saying to say the russians are involved, which the american people i think had a right to know, was too political. 11 days out, he drops this bombshell into the election and then just a week later says, we looked at it and there's nothing to it. so he had the opportunity to do that in private. he didn't do it. i think that democrats and republicans who have served in the justice department krilt size e criticized him at the time.

john brennan, jim clapper have been incredibly supportive and focused on this issue and really leading on this question, not because we need to be checking boxes who is sitting in which seat around the table but, if we do not increase the numbers and quality of the pipeline, across the board, that's, it is fundamentally a national security issue. and so i think we've been very focused on it from, just harkening back to what tina said about the diversity initiative in the national security space. but you have got to have the commitment. first and foremost you have to have a pipeline which to pull from. >> you're nodding your head. >> no, i agree. not like lisa but in the national security space and you want to see more women. as lisa knows, when you go overseas you're only woman always at the table. there are no woman from almost any country you meet with. that is shocking too. we can't solve that for every country in the world but we can certainly be a model. i was going to add one other element i have experiences i don't think we do enough talking about, women can be terrible to women

but what you hear from jim clapper who is the have of the director of national intelligence we want top because argument is if you don't have concrete evidence that people say they want to get as close to concrete as possible. parts of it had been leaked. there are two key developments. in the second one that it wasn't just in general but they specifically went after dnc even though they have the capacity to look at rnc material. why did the administration but the house intelligence committee. they were not allowed to attend. they haven't testified to some extent. i understand why they did not act earlier the president did not want to suggest that somehow our democrat processes were being threatened. i think they play down something that now the democrats are playing up. it is just whining. when i think there's something bigger. i'm sure you have seen this this is the ad made by celebrities begging the republican they change sides. donald trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president. in clearly in the respect. you and other brave republican electors can give the house a blo

i know phil knows this too and jim kolbi and john clapper and are all great men, i think the president-electds to talk to all these gentlemen and see the capabilities that all those organizations bring. it is crucial to the new presidency that he trusts all of those men working hard to keep it safe. >> and that they believe he has their back as well. thanks so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> next is president-elect trump reaction to the cyber attack putting a crink on the relationship with president obama and putting a chill on this transition. we'll dig deeper into that when 360 continues. is this really ann the one you got last year? if we consolidate suppliers what's the savings there? so should we go with the 467 horsepower? or is a 423 enough? good question. you ask a lot of good questions... i think we should move you into our new fund. ok. sure. but are you asking enough about how your wealth is managed? wealth management, at charles schwab. it has long been called storm of tiny bubbles, the champagne of beers. ♪ if you've got the time welcome to the high life. ♪ we've got th

clapper. > that's always a good one, jim. fox5 news morning kicks off at we'll be right back. . this one is from channel islands national park. coronado. saguaro. you'll see there's one that's an eagle. my number one goal is getting more funds out to parks because some animals and plants are only found in one place in the world, and that's in some national parks. i find that's a great cause, and i want to support it. (avo) the subaru share the love event has donated over four million dollars to help the national parks. get a new subaru, and we'll donate two hundred and fifty dollars more. ♪put a little love in your heart.♪ > this is fox5 local news at 10 we're back now with the top stories tonight, a violent fighn caught on camera inside a maryland lunchro sent three students to the hospital. lindsay? it happened here at central high school in capital heights and we will get right to the video. it's tough to watch. school officials aree investigating whether there was a racial motivation here becausr they say it was a group of african-american students whoo assaulted a group of

jim referred to, this was the statement, let me read it. this came out in early october. october 7th, i think. it's a joint statement from the director of national intelligence, general james clapper and the secretary of state of homeland security, jeh johnson. read a couple sents encesentenc. the u.s. government is confident directed e-mails from u.s. persons and institutions s including from u.s. political organizations. we believe based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts that only russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. that was released in early october. trump says, we don't know who did the hacking, but here in this statement, the u.s. intelligence community says they are confident it is russia. >> clear what they're saying. jim pointed out, seems to be no ambiguity of the point and trump is dismissing -- bringing up intelligence failures from 12 years ago around the iraq war is demeaning and irrelevant at this point, i think. there's been a lot of reform since then. trying to distract and impugn these agencies, which really opens up other plit simple. >> he's doing that, i didn't sit on his election system, i would be amazed this was

i will give jim clapper additional credit here for his orchestration of the intelligence community, making sure we interact with each other as optimally as we can. there is in engineering issue here, you want to make sure you interact with each other as effectively as possible. >> we have time or two more questions. i want to remind you we have david trace here tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. i encourage you to attend. our second to last question. >> i am wondering if there is a difference between the information provided to the presidential nominee, the president-elect, and these -- finally the sitting president. >> not a great deal of difference. we are in the throes of that right now. this share with more media attention and controversy than ever since we started this in 1952. so the briefings for the candidates are probably a bit more general, more topically in focus and do not go into operational considerations or covert action or any of those kinds of sensitive issues. after the election, when the president-elect is known, then it is pretty much a parallel so that the oncoming president