nunes: no. i'm not going to get into specifically the conversations i had. i had with the executive branch and the appropriate agencies. but i will say that we long have had a very good process in the congress here where we have the gang of eight. when counterintelligence issues arise, they brief us on those counterintelligence issues. and we keep them because they oftentimes involve american citizens. and it's important that we keep it that way when those investigations are ongoing. but in this case as it relates to any campaign officials dealing with the russians, we don't have any evidence. reporter: you have been told there is nothing there. why are you specifically investigating whether there are any links between the campaign and russian officials? mr. nunes: unlike what's been reported, we have had a long ongoing investigation into russian activities. i would preferred for that not to be talked about in public, you may remember for the last several years we have been concerned about russi

nunes: no. we're putting together a scope, working with bipartisan with my counterpart, mr. schiff, so we make sure that we're on the election as it relates to the election, but, look, we've always been very, very interested in what the russians are up to so this is basically part of app ongoing investigation that i was hopeful would not have been out in the press like it is but it is but we're expanding the scope of the investigation to include what in terms of the election. some evidence we have. some evidence we do have. if you know american citizens that you know are talking to russian agencies, if you want to be whistleblowers and have those names, come. reporter: you expect to obtain more evidence or information, you could say, as the week goes? mr. nunes: we will continue to take evidence and follow it where it leads. reporter: the obama administration's wiretapping of the trngsition team and the campaign, wases it just flynn or do you think thises was a regular process of listening into

nunes: no, no, no. it was just, this person wanted to talk about "the new york times" story in the got the number and called the reporter. reporter: i am not sure i understand the distinction between the ukraine sanctions and the sanctions that president obama imposed. mr. nunes: look, let me describe it bluntly, ok? reporter: for these sanctions on individuals -- if general flynn telegraphed to the russian ambassador that those sanctions, whether or not you thought they were strong enough, would be lifted, would that not be -- mr. nunes: let me be very clear. so, i think that, just when i apply common sense to this, those were not sanctions. those were petty. they were not taken seriously. every conversation i have ever had about russian sanctions with any of our allies, it has always been about the russia sanctions dealing with the invasion of ukraine. reporter: but you realize there were sanctions imposed. mr. nunes: you guys can call them that if you want. but i would not call them that. reporter: t

nunes: not that i am aware of. [inaudible] mr. nunes: i think that is a good point. look, i think that is a good point. you guys were the ones that were there. i think i spoke to you when that story was breaking. i was very clear with what i thought about that "new york times" story. this was way in advance of the white house sending the one phone number. still don't understand the problem of the white house sending me the phone number of a press person to call. isn't it the point of the press to be transparent? you guys normally wanted to talk to me and that is why wanted to create this press availability today, so i could talk to all of you, so it is more organized versus you guys chasing me around. no, no, no. it was just, this person wanted to talk about "the new york times" story in the got the number and called the reporter. i am not sure i understand the distinction between the ukraine sanctions and the sanctions that president obama imposed. mr. nunes: look, let me describe it bluntly, ok? reporter: for these sanctions on individuals -- if flynn telegraph to

that's pretty much the same question from devin nunes. which is he says that there is absolutely nothing he has seen that indicates any contacts that are of concern and that he thinks there is no there there. you hear from adam schiff. he says there are still a lot of open questions. and so the investigation should continue before anybody makes any conclusions. and i think that's the most important part of this, briana because here's what we do know at this point, we know, and cnn has reported, that there are contacts that have been found by investigators in the intelligence community. we know that it's being looked at. these were contacted by people who were outside the trump campaign but people associated with the trump campaign, and people who are either russian nationals, people who are connect towed the kremlin. some of them are people who are known to u.s. intelligence. now, we have not reported that there were any russian intelligence people in touch with the trump campaign. that is not known. that is very much what the fbi is tryi

devin nunes basically said repeatedly there is nothing to see here. i have been told there is nothing here. is he right? >> i don't think that any of us on the tell convenience committee could reach any conclusions about the evidence yet because frankly we have heard from no witnesses. we have only started reviewing documents since the very beginning of the investigation. so we shouldn't be reaching any conclusions about what we're going to find and it concerns me that you have the white house talking to the fbi and potentially the cia and asking them to push back on stories. it's appropriate for the white house to reach out to republican or democratic members of the house but not on the subject of the investigation and i don't think we ought to draw any conclusion before we've seen any of the evidence. >> is it responsible, in your view, for the chair to be at categorical as he was today? >> i don't think we can be categorical at all. certainly not on the basis of any private conversations with intel officials. the committee is doing the investigatio

i asked the same question to congressman nunes. on that particular point, has that possibility been investigated and answered already? are you saying that's something that is still being investigated? >> i'm saying in our committee as part of our investigation we have not investigated that yet. that will be investigated. we don't know the answer. we shouldn't prejudge it. and any conversations that individual members of the gang of eight or others have with ic officials are not the conclusion of our committee. they are not the end point of the investigation. they can't be. and just as -- well, just as any other credible investigation, when you are just in the beginning stages, you don't reach conclusion on one of the key issues. so all i can tell you is from the committee's point of view that's obtain no witnesses, heard no witnesses, and not been given any testimony by the fbi what they have investigated -- there is no basis to draw that conclusion. one way or the other. and i don't think that conversations with intelligence lead

chairman nunes spoke very clearly today when asked over and over and over again about all of this and said he's seen nothing that leads him to believe that there's there. >> a short time ago the top democrat on the house intelligence committee responded to all of this speaking to chris hayes on this network. >> frankly, we have heard from no witnesses. we have only started reviewing documents. it's the very beginning of the investigation. so we shouldn't be reaching any conclusions about what we're going to find and it concerns me that you have the white house talking to the fbi and potentially cia and asking them to push back on stories. >> chairman nunes invoked a specter of mccarthyism today. are people getting out ahead of the facts in a way that's dangerous? >> well, first of all, i don't think there's any comparison here to the mccarthy era. in terms of general flynn, and i think a lot of his comments went to general flynn, lied to the vice president and caused the vice president to mislead the country. that's a serious business. that's not mccarthyism in my view to call him out

as chairman nunes made it very clear, he has seen nothing that corroborates that. at what point do you have to ask yourself what are you investigating? >> where's the interference? >> i think the house and senate have looked at it. you know as well as i do the intelligence community has looked at it. there's a big difference. i think russia's involvement has been investigated up and down. so the question becomes at some point if there's nothing to further investigate, what are you asking people to investigate? chairman nunes spoke very clearly today when asked over and over and over again about all of this and said he has seen nothing that leads him to believe that there's anything there. the president has spoken forcefully time and time again that he has no interest in russia. he hasn't talked to people in russia in years. yet you keep asking -- i say you collectively -- to try to find something that seemingly, at least the reporting that i'm seeing in different organizations suggests that there's nothing new that's being reported. it's the same stuff over and ove

and as chairman nunes very clear today, he has seen nothing that corroborates that, so at what point got to ask yourself, what are you investigating? >> woodruff: among those still not convinced: former president george w. bush, who told nbc's "today show" that the questions about links to russia need to be answered. amid growing calls for an independent investigation into russia's attempts to influence the u.s. presidential election, i spoke earlier with senator mark warner, the vice chairman of the senate intelligence committee. i asked for his reaction to the white house enlisting u.s. intelligence community leaders and congressional intelligence committee chairs to help counter news stories about the trump campaign's contacts with russia's intelligence officials. is>> my reaction was of grave concern and an awful lot of frustration. we are at the early stages of our investigation. we have bipartisan intelligence committee staff, today, working over reviewing basic intelligence. we have been at this now a couple of weeks. we're making progress. for anyone to try to interfere at th

nunes from california certainly a major ally for the white house. he's out in front defending the administration. but the bigger question, chris, what are these senate republicans going to do? senator burr, others on the intelligence committee who are moves forward with an investigation on russia. that the view of the white house has not stopped those investigations from moving forward. >> so it's happening. let me go to greg. you're right on top of this story, greg. where's it going, this story? what's the word for you? >> well, i think, you know, as robert just alluded to, the big question now is what happens to these investigations? there's been a lot of effort by republicans in the white house to keep these investigations confined to these two committees. and under that sort of control. and the appearance that these chairmen are operating with the white house to some degree makes it harder to keep that contained and fend off that pressure to have an independent investigation that's more bipartisan. >> these -- these select committees on intellig

i have the same question of , has thatn nunes possibility been investigated or answered? rep. schiff: as part of our committee investigation, we have not investigated that yet. have not investigated yet. we should not prejudge it. any conversations that the individual members of the gang of eight have is not the conclusion of our committee. not the endpoint of the investigation. they can't be. just as any other credible investigation, when you are just in the beginning stages, you do not reach conclusions on one of the key issues. so all i can tell you is from view,mmittee's point of no documents, no witnesses and it has not given any testimony by the fbi what they investigated, there is no basis to draw a conclusion one way or the other. i do not think conversations with intelligence leaders are a --stitute for doing their doing a thorough investigation. >> are you concerned that the chairman in any way may have compromised the investigation by downplaying any sort of contact between the russian government and the trump campaign. are you concerned he may have compromised this

so nunes' comments could be true and misleading.as adam schiff made clear, the fbi hasn'ten presented evidence to the committees. they don't as a habit read out skrl investigations to the intelligence committees and carry over physical evidence -- >> the bottom line, it's unclear the breath of the investigation say that there is no evidence, right? >> that's right. and so, you've got parallel investigations. you've got a federal investigation and then congress is trying to do their own investigation. they rely on the executive branch to deliver documents and evidence and that hasn't happened so far. >> premature to make those assessments. they have investigating still to do. the other thing that came up in the story is the back and forth about a "new york times" story and whether or not the white house asked the fbi and chairman nunes to knock it down. pete williams is reporting that jeff sexes said he did not know in advance about the white house efforts to get the fbi to knock down these reports. what more are you hearing from tha

as chairman nunes made clear today, he's seen nothing that corroborates that. what are you investigating? and i think both the house an senate have looked at it. you know as well as i do that the intelligence community has looked at it as well. there's a big difference. i think russia's involvement and activity has been investigated up and down. the question becomes at some point if there's nothing to further investigate, what are you asking people to investigate? chairman nunes spoke very clearly today when asked over and over and over again about all of this and said he has seen nothing that leads him to believe that there's there. the president has spoken forcefully time and time again that he has no interests in russia, he has spoken to people in russia in years, yet you keep asking -- you collectively, keep asking about this, the reporting i'm seeing suggests that there's nothing new being reported. it's the same stuff over and over again that we've heard for six months this equestion becomes, what do you need to further investigate if there's nothing that

according to nunes, he hasn't seen any evidence of that. doubtful that you ever will. >> neil: you might be right. but you're the lawyer. you know. but here's what sticks out like a sore thumb. you have president obama kicking 35 russian diplomats out because they intervened in our election. not that it could have turned the results but they were trying to hack our election. lo and behold, the tit for tat response out of the country that getting their diplomats kicked out, they didn't respond in kind. some people said that was weird and must have involved some conversations. look, we're not going to go crazy on sanctions against you. all of the rumors began to fly and looked weird that we didn't see the russians respond. that alone warranted, you know, talk and gossip that maybe only an investigation could confirm if there was an investigation. what do you think? >> it makes sense. if you're vladimir putin, you want to wait and see what the new president will do. you keep your powder dry. the accusation has been that michael flynn violated

reporter: on that note, schiff met with nunes yesterday and he came out othe meeting saying nunes was ok with expanding it in the way the senate might have you spoke to nunes about that? ms. pelo: in our letter, we say we fully expect the committee's inquiry will contribute to our full understanding. so that's a reflection of that conversation. we'll see. again, it's public sentiment is everything. lincoln said it. i say it every week. public sentiment is everything. to the extent the president -- look, would we like this -- i sh they could find something expulpatory and it will go away. you can't do that until you find out theact and truth. so i'll leave you with one question. wh are the republicans fearing in the truth? again, the russianonnection. the ameran people have a right to know. thank you, all. bye-bye. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning peormed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> we' expecting house speaker paul ryan at 11:30 eastern or so. we'll have that liv

we continue our conversation with chairman of the house intelligence committee devin nunes. mr. chairman, i wanted to get back to you to what you said about those who had burrowed in in the intelligence agencies, maybe holdovers from or supporters of president obama. is that something you are going to look into with your committee in terms of those who are burrowed in? >> no, no, we won't, but one of the things on this russia issue, john, that is important is that the house intelligence committee has long been conducting ongoing investigations into russia, and, in fact, a year ago i publicly stated that the biggest intelligence scare since 9/11 was our failure to understand putin's plans and intentions, at the time the administration balked at that, the ic ignored it and it wasn't until after they lost an election that they started to pay attention to russia so i am happy they are paying attention to russia now, i am happy the american people are paying attention to russia. there are russia hawks now, i think there are more russia hawks in congress than there are congressmen and

south carolina senator lindsey graham and house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes, plus maryland democrat elijah cummings and there is, as always we will have analysis on all of the news, coming up on "face the nation". >> dickerson: good morning and welcome to "face the nation". i am john dickerson. it has been another bracing week in washington and we talked about it earlier with president trump's chief of staff reince priebus. >> mr. priebus, welcome. i want to start with a little business before we get to the substance of things. there has been a debate about when to take the president seriously. he recently tweeted that the press was the enemy of the american people. should we take that seriously from him? >> well, i think you should take it seriously. i think the problem we have got is that we are talking about bogus stories like the one in "the new york times" that we have had constant contact with russian officials, the next day the "wall street journal" had a story that the intel community was not giving the president a full intelligence briefing, both stories grossly in

most of you probably saw chairman nunes' comments this morning. he was clear that, number one, he reached out to us to say i have been telling reporters that the allegations and descriptions in "the new york times" are not accurate and then we shared that information with him. he came to us to share that he equally had that issue fwraut up to him. he was -- brought up to him. he was briefed and said that was not accurate. >> take you now live to the floor of the house. gaveling back in and debating several bills debating with national parks. hen you were eedf hope and vision. may h words propheticords guide us still. nd your spit upon this nation and this congre that we may b opened to hearing your word andctively seekhe salvation you alone can bring. make of us a peop of compassionnd

. >> devin nunes is the first g.o.p.awmaker to come out and say he has not seen any evidence of inappropriate communications between trump's aides and russia. the intel committee which is investigating the allegations. here he is. >> as of right now, i do not have any evidence of any phone calls, that does not mean they do not exist but i do not have that. t what i've been told is by many, by many folks is there is nothing there. >> he also rejected calls to request the president's tax returns, which democrats believe might contain information of trump business deals with russia. the congressman added the intel community quickly responded. reminding congressman devin nunes at the investigation is in its infancy. watch. >> from the committee's point of view, they contained no documents were no witnesses and not to give any testimony by the fbi what they have investigated, there is no basis to draw that conclusion. >> he is also accusing the trump administration of using intelligence officials and top lawmakers to knock do

nunes is saying there's nothing to look at. i beg to differ. there needs to be a more substantial investigation into this. there's too many red flags. >> what's your biggest red flag. >> the president never criticize vladimir putin. he has never flat out criticized the russians for one. so to me those are incredible red flags that needs to be investigated. given we know putin himself, did involve himself in our electoral process. >> do you know democrats who do nopt intend to go not happy with the white house in not attending, anyone not attendin >> i did not think of anyone. >> who will not attend. >> i haven't heard of anyone specifically who is not attending. >> in terms of the reception is going to give, do you can expect him to get a warm reception from the democratic side of the aisle? >> he will get polite response. >> do we have guidance from leader pelosi? >> no. we do have incredible high remark for the office of the presidency and the system that we have. >> thank you for joining us. >> thank you, greta. >>> congressman doug -- serve

nunes is out in front defending the administration. the biggest question is what are the senator republicans are going to do who are moving forward with an investigation on russia. the view of the white house has not stopped the investigation from moving forward. >> let go to greg, where is it going? >> as robert eluded to, what happens now with the investigation. the appearance that the chairman are operating with the white house to some degree makes harder to keep that contained and fend off that to make it more bipartisan. >> they are supposed to be non-partisan, right. >> yes, by tradition. it's become partisan over past ten years or so. >> explain that, one of the bids of news we picked up, russia had thumb on the scale against hillary. they wanted hillary. >> you cannot say there's nothing there if you have not asked three basic questions. why did you keep michael flynn in place two half weeks after you said he was a risk. why have you inside pages where he went and when he went there. thirdly, if you don't turn over the tax retu

devin nunes confirmed tonight he had spoken to at least one reporter on this matter "at the request of the white house communications aide. senator burr also acknowledged that he had conversations about russia-related news reports with the white house and then engaged with news organizations. this is incredible. it's one thing to have the white house chief of staff leaning on the fbi about this investigation. the other investigations are supposed to be run by the house and senate intelligence hit in tease. the chairmen of those two committees have been enlisted by the white house to call reporters off the record and tell them, hey, there's nothing to this, russia and the trump folks? don't report on that, there's nothing there. trust me. i've got access to this intelligence. these are the guys who are supposed to be leading the investigation in congress. greg miller has this story tonight in the "washington post" and he notes with admirable restraint "the decision to involve these officials could be perceived as undercutting the credibility of the ongoing congressional probes." you thi

and i think, you know, i think chairman nunes said it's interesting how we literally were engaging with the press saying, if you have a question about the sourcing on this, obviously when brought to our attention we said, it's not accurate as far as we know. but then most of you and your

reminding congressman devin nunes at the investigation is in its infancy.ch. >> from the committee's point of view, they contained no documents were no witnesses and not to give any testimony by the fbi what they have investigated, there is no basis to draw that conclusion. >> he is also accusing top lawmakers to knock down media stories about trump associates and their ties to russia. devin nunes admitted that he called out reporter on behalf of the trump administration but for transparency. the administration is simply ensuring that reporters got the answers they needed. but house democrat leader nancy pelosi said she believes congressman devin nunes is "stonewalling" the investigatio investigation. >> tucker: up next, a bunch of congressmen are defined president trump's immigration agenda inviting illegal immigrants to tomorrow's speech before the joint session. we talked to one of those congressman next. which is such a dad thing to do. after he gave his name the woman from capital one said "mr. garner, are you related to jennifer?" kind of joking with

was asked to defend the campaign: >> i'm not going to discuss what we did internally. >> reporter: nunes argued the probe is probably a dead end anyway. >> from what i've been told by many folks is that there's nothing there. >> reporter: is he right that there's no evidence? >> well, first of all, we have not obtained any of the evidence yet. >> reporter: adam schiff is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. >> we can't draw any conclusions, nor should we. we shouldn't be prejudging where the facts lead. >> reporter: schiff added that f. is not convinced yet that the information it gathers with congress. scott, cbs news has learned that it's the f.b.i.'s counterintelligence division that is leading this investigation. >> pelley: nancy cordes on capitol hill. and at the other end of pennsylvania avenue, our chief white house correspondent major garrett. major, we learned some details today of the president's domestic agenda. >> reporter: yes, on the political front, scott, the white house and top republican leaders trying to put some muscle back behind the now-stalled effo

. >> reporter: nunes argued the probe is probably a dead end anyway. that there's nothing there. >> reporter: is he right that there's no evidence? >> well, first of all, we have not obtained any of the evidence yet. >> reporter: adam schiff is the top democrat on the house intelligence committee. >> we can't draw any conclusions, nor should we. we shouldn't be prejudging where the facts lead. >>> if father of the u.s. navy s.e.a.l. in a commando raid ordered by president trump is demanding an investigation. he said his son died "in a stupid mission." jan crawford has that. >> his family was there. incredible family, loved him so much, so devastated. >> reporter: president trump earlier this month described meeting the family of navy s.e.a.l. ryan owens when his body was returned to the u.s. but owens' father bill declined commander-in-chief. in an interview with the "miami herald," he said, "i told them i didn't want to make a scene about it, but my conscience wouldn't let me talk to him. he asked, why at this time did there have to be this stupid mis

nunes' stance puts him at odds with other republican lawmakers, including former house oversight and government reform chairman darrell issa, who on monday called for an independent investigation. a new investigigation by t the guardian has revealed that leaked court documents allege honduran envnvironmental activit berta caceres' murder nearly one year ago was planned by honduran military intelligence members who are linked to the country's u.s.-trained special forces. caceres was murdered by armed gunmen just before midnight on march 2, 2016. at the time of her murder she , was fightingng hydroelectric dams threatening the ancestral land of the indigenous lenca people. the guardian investigation, published today, reveals that at least two men who have been arrested in connection with caceres' murder, mariano diaz and douglas giovanny bustillo, received military training in the united states. honduran prosecutors say phone records reveal extensive communication between diaz, bustillo, and a former honduran special forces sniper who has also been charged in the murder. prosecutors sa

most of you probably saw chairman nunes' comments this morning. he was clear that, number one, he reached out to us to say i have been telling reporters that the allegations and descriptions in "the new york times" are not accurate and then we shared that information with him. he came to us to share that he equally had that issue fwraut up to him. he was -- brought up to him. he was briefed and said that was not accurate. >> take you now live to the floor of the house. gaveling back in and debating several bills debating with national parks. hen you were eedf hope and vision. may h words propheticords guide us still. nd your spit upon this nation and this congre that we may b opened to hearing your word andctively seekhe salvation you alone can bring. make of us a peop of compassionnd holiness. pursuing the avenu of justice for all, may b -- may we be a sign to the community of natio help us to workowahe completeulllmt othe epest human hopes and your inspiring promis. with humility, let us embrae our calling to be truly prophetic as ur servas of o

and nunes admitted the same. kelly o'donnell is going to join us live from the white house, and big report overnight. clear conflict here sh, and wha are you hearing? >> well, it appears that white house in trying to tamp down the stories which are obviously politically damaging and talking about the connections between the trump-related officials in the campaign era and officials in rusrussia, and the question if those figures were part of the russian apparatus there. and nbc's reporting says individual russians and not necessarily russians involved in intelligence on the russian side. that is a small distinction in words, but a big distinction in the impact. because of that, the white house which wants to say that there is nothing to see here has engaged allies on capitol hill in richard burr and devin nunes is who do have responsibility as chairs of the respective intelligence committees, and also they have the same intelligence that the department has to peer into the investigation, and it is my understanding

that was from chairman nunes.eeting with the top insurance companies, he is promising to repeal and replace obamacare. that's press availability is still going on right now on capitol hill, this is life, let's take you back there now. >> the community beginning, presenting evidence to you. is that being turned over to the committee or housed in the intelligence committee? that is one of the contentious issues right now. but it's where the information is housed. we will probably have some here, some may remain at the agencies. >> do you have any evidence at all about anybody in the white house directly discussing the issue, any issues with the russian ambassador, anybody in the white house doing that? >> no, i think the whole issue with general flynn, he is an american war hero, one of the dutch putting together one of the greatest military machines in our history. if providing intelligence to get al qaeda away from iraq, and he was a national security advisor designee. he was taking multiple calls a day from ambas

congressman nunes is right. and i saw senator rand paul on earlier. these are crimes.e people must be prosecuted and go to prison. the whittle blower i brought forward. i got him immunity. he turned over 600,000 pages of information. this investigation has been going on for a year and a half. i don't know what they are doing. montgomery will testify these agencies are been harvesting the confidential information of the supreme court justice roberts and other chief justices, 156 judges and donald trump himself and yours truly. this is extremely dangerous baits can be used to blackmail people. i'm not scared, but there are other people who could can blackmailed with this. we have an alternative government which is potentially more powerful than the president himself. liz: i want to recap what you just said. you are saying the nsa is wiretapping and harvesting the supreme court justices? >> that's correct. that's what this whistle blower told the f.b.i. he provided documentation and i was able to obtain by going through a federal judge and working with the general counsel

. >> reporter: but house intelligence chairman devin nunes said he isn't interested in investigatinglynn, telling reporters, "it just seems like there is a lot of nothing there." and utah republican jason chaffetz, whose committee examines government wrongdoing says he won't investigate flynn either. >> when it gets into sources and methods, it really is the purview of the intel committee. >> reporter: maryland's elijah cummings is the top democrat on chaffetz's committee. >> our committee held three or four emergency hearings on hillary clinton in the matter of a week or two, and if there is any emergency at this moment in the history of this country, this is the moment. >> reporter: senate republicans showed more interest than their house counterparts, calling on flynn to testify. intelligence chair richard burr. >> we intend to cast as wide a net to get answers to all the questions. >> reporter: arizona's john mccain warned that flynn is the symptom of a larger problem. >> i think there is significant dysfunction in the national security apparatus of the trump administration. >> r

i think most of you probably saw chairman nunes's comments this morning. very clear, number one, that he reached out to us to say i've been telling people, reporters, that these allegations and descriptions in the "new york times" are not accurate. and then we shared that information with him. but he came to us to share that he equally had that issue brought up to him. he was briefed and saw, quote, no evidence that the story was accurate. so the answer is, you know, we have continued to give reporters information and sources that went to the accuracy or lack thereof of a report that was in a newspaper. and you know, i think chairman nunes also said it's interesting how we literally were engaging with the press saying if office question about the sourcing on this. wasly when brought to our attention we said it is a not accurate as far as we know. but then most of you and your colleague

>> reporter: intelligence chair devin nunes, is leading the investigation of possible collusion betweenmp campaign officials and russian operatives. but he insists there was nothing wrong with him and richard burr making a few calls at the request of trump aides. >> all it was was a white house communications person passing a number and name of a reporter over for me if i would talk to them. >> reporter: but that, combined with reports that white house officials made similar requests of the cia director and fbi officials prompted fresh accusations from democrats about white house tampering. >> we have to do this investigation bipartisan. >> reporter: virginia's mark warner is the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee. >> we have to not let a white house or any other political interference get in its way, because it's too important. >> reporter: white house press secretary sean spicer would not confirm or deny that cia director mike pompeo was asked to defend the campaign. >> i'm not going to discuss what we did internally. >> reporter: nunes argued the probe is probably a de

joining us now, devin nunes is with us.good to see you again, isn't it a crime in fact to leak this information? isn't it in violation of the espionage act? >> there could have been multiple crimes here committed to, sean, but for sure. leaking classified information is punishable by law. it needs to be looked into by the appropriate agencies, our committee is going to be requested, to try to bring these perpetrators accountable and hold them under the law. >> sean: i want to go back, to this piece. in the waning days of the administration. the obama administration expanded the power of the national security agency to share globally intercepted personnel communications with the government's 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections. does that mean the list of potential leakers is that much bigger or not? >> if that is the case, we were never notified of that at the house intelligence committee. what i will say is that it's not just about what leaked, the transcripts that leaked on general flynn, the