as well, the president, the ipad, the pdb, he reads that, so we don't actually brief the pdb per se. we do have meetings, though, where we will brief other items, either that supplement or augment or update what is in the pdb, or on other issues that we think he should be familiar with, and cia, very much a part of that process as well. >> frequently it will bring you news that is not always that pleasing in terms of policy course and options and choice. i was struck by looking at some of the pdb's in the early days of the nixon administration. this was in february 14, 1969 in the pdb said there were only a handful of politicians in south vietnam with whom a small fraction of the people identified the government is likely to acquire a broader political base by bringing new faces in the are the cure is that in the cabinet. president nixon whose legacy was the vietnam war and he needs to deal with the issue supporting the self the emmys government here is intelligence bringing that news. bringing information to be president that really challenges options and courses. mr. clapper: yes.

giving candidates press my briefings precedes the existence of the pdb. the first candidate briefings were offered to general eisenhower and governor stevenson and the newly formed cia conducted these briefings. truman felt an obligation to do that because of his experience and how woefully uninformed he felt on his first day in office when he succeeded president roosevelt. in fact, he had known that had not known of the existence of the manhattan project until 12 days after he was sworn in, and he had been roosevelt vice president, so he wanted his successor to be a little better prepared. based on the nomination to be president, not on any clearance that he held or had held, that is carried over for every election and spend, since 1952. the cia handled the briefings until 2008 when the director of national intelligence assumed the responsibility. as a point of trivia, there have only been three elections in which briefings were offered to both majorrom parties. 1952, 2008, and now this year, 2016. those are the only years in which one of the candidates

as chairman you get that plus some but not in the form of pdb. we get our own daily briefs. >> you're talking about all the agencies putting information in, balanced project. one stream of intelligence reporting is more accurate than the others. as you know from iraq war fiasco, there's the danger of not connecting the dots, also group think. you get a diluted product if you pour everything together. >> maybe i missed that part. they don't get a voice. some days they don't, next day it might be all cia. that is the best most timely information given the situation of the day is for the purpose of national security decision. that's why i think it's a better product. you might get a little cia, nsa, nga, dia in there, any other acronyms. >> a few more. >> might be able to get them all. that's the benefit of it. you could have one analyst, three-quarters be for one analytical product that makes it to pdb because it's that important, that good, that fresh and that accurate on that particular day. in the old days, a historical look. the cia going to wa

rice, that the august 6th pdb warned against possible attacks in this country, and i ask you whetherall the title of that pdb. >> i believe the title was bin laden determined to attack inside the united states. now, the pdb -- >> thank you. >> no -- >> i will get -- >> i would like to finish my point here. >> i didn't know there was a point. >> you asked me whether or not it warned of attacks. >> i asked you what the title was. >> you said did that warn of attacks? it did not warn of attacks inside the united states. it was historical information based on old reporting. there was no new threat information and it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the united states. >> ultimately, nobody in the government was able to stop bin laden's plot. >>> by 9:30 a.m. thousands of people at the world trade center were fighting for their lives. brian clark and stanley were descending tower two from the 81st floor. on the 31st floor, they found a conference room with working phones, but it didn't do much good. >> brian picked up the phone and he's frantically dialing 911. >> she sa

first off, to dispel a myth, we north giving president obama's pdb or any pdb product to the candidates. in fact, we are giving the candidate classified briefings precedes the existence of the pdb. president truman offered the first candidate briefings to general eisenhower and governor stevenson and the newly formed cia conducted these briefings. truman felt an obligation to do that because of his experience and how woefully uninformed he felt on his first day in office as president when he succeeded president roosevelt. in fact, if he had known of the existence of the manhattan project 12 days after he was sworn in as president and he had been roosevelt's vice-president. he wanted his successor to be a little better prepared. based on the nomination to be president, not on any clearance the candidate held or has held. he has carried over for every election since then, since 1952. the cia handled his briefings until 2008 when the office of director of national intelligence assumed the responsibility. as a point of trivia, there have only been three elections in which briefings were off

. >> can you share any headlines from this morning's pdb? >> well, a lot of things you might imagine. we're constantly focused on the threat that isil poses, what's going on. a lot of information in the pdb, without obviously getting into the specifics, will be tailored to meetings the president may be having, issues he may be confronting. so, he is now winding his way back from a nine to ten-day trip in asia, so there will have been a lot of material in addition to whatever kind of timely or threat intelligence we have. there will be strategic pieces that the president is digesting about the issues he's meeting on. >> great. and the leaders, his meeting and that. can i mention two words that i'm guessing came up more than once this past summer in these morning sessions, and those words are cyber and russia. was russia behind the dnc hack? >> so, look, this is what i'll say. first, good try. >> i'm not done. >> yeah. look, there is a very active and ongoing investigation, as i think people know and as i have expressed, as the president has s

. >> not in the form as in the pdb. the president sees it for a little bit. as a chairman you can get all of that plus some. but we get our own daily briefs. >> you are talking about all of the different agencies together putting information in that you could get some more balance product. on the other hand, sometimes one stream of intelligence reports is more accurate than the others. and as we know from the iraq war fiasco, there is the danger of not connecting the dots. there is also the danger of group think and you get ady lewded product if you pour everything in together and say everything gets a voice. >> they don't say. maybe i missed that part. they don't get a voice. some days the cia might get in. the next day it might be all cia product because if that is the best most timely situation given what the situation of the day is for the purpose of national security decision. that's why i think it is a better product. you might get a little of this and that in there, any other about know anymores. i might be able to get them all, maybe. and, so, that's

but this is a guy who as president is going to get a pdb every morning, an intelligence briefing, every. he's got to listen to what's being presented. he can't spend a lot of time trying to figure out what the body language is of those making the presentation. >> what did you make of -- i got a comment on this but i want to hear from you, an expert, because you dealt with the world as defense secretary, as pentagon chief. what do you make of his love affair with putin? he seems to clearly respect his leadership swag as if he's like judging best dictator in the world contest. like he's not looking at him as a guy who is a potential adversary of ours, where most americans do see him as a potential adversary. what do you think he means when he says he's a better leader than obama? >> you know, i think this is the real estate developer coming out in trump, that you know, he loves to sit down with people, even though he may not like them if they're tough and they're good business people, then he loves to sit down and talk with them. he's applying that same kind of standard when it comes to s