roger: good evening.e begin the program with wikileaks, the anti-secrecy organization released thousands of c.i.a. documents and files today. the leaked information exposed tools the agency uses to hack smartphones, computers, and even internet connected televisions. it's believed to be among the biggest leaks of classified information in recent history. the authenticity of the documents has yet to be determined. wikileaks has indicated the source of the files is a current or former c.i.a. contractor. joining me now from washington is greg miller of "the washington post." welcome, greg. greg: thank you. roger: hi. how do you assess the importance of this wikileaks disclosure right now? greg: it's a good caveat because i actually think it might takes weeks, if not longer, to get the full measure of the impact here. but for now, i mean, it looks like the c.i.a.'s sort of cyber weapons arsenal has, to a large extent, been laid bare. we haven't seen wikileaks posting actual code that somebody could sort of ai

roger: but judge judy?athleen: i worry if they don't understand what the supreme court is supposed to do so when ask people what happens when there's a 4-4 ruling, which is possible right now without the justice in place, there's a sizable percent of the population that thinks the the federals to court of appeals. another part of the population thinks they keep voting until the tie and in a survey we did two or three years back, we actually said, what is other alternative and we put in place, it goes back to congress and congress gets to than 20% of the public said, you know, that's right. why is that important? when president trump puts forward his immigration ban the court issues a ruling and the president defers to the ruling, the public needs to understand why the president does that and needs to understand that that is part of checks and balances of our system actually working. judge,the president, only deferred to the ruling so-calledking about judges. in six short weeks, we've had ontty much frontal

rogers: no, sir. rep. nunes: state of wisconsin? adm. rogers: no, sir. rep. nunes: so you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that suggests any votes were changed? adm. rogers: nothing generated by the national security agency, sir. rep. nunes: director comey, do you have any evidence that the votes were changed in the states i mentioned to admiral rogers? mr. comey: no. rep. nunes: thank you. admiral rogers, i know that there is a leak of information regarding director clapper and former secretary of defense carter were looking at relieving you of your duty here are you ware of those stories? adm. rogers: i'm aware of media reporting of that. rep. nunes: those stories were leaked as soon as you visited with president-elect trump, is that correct? adm. rogers: yes, interviewing with the trump administration for a position, which i did. ep. nunes: did that impact the assessment you did for the committee? adm. rogers: no, if i spend time worrying about unsourced media reporting i would never

rogers? mr. rogers spst different level of confidence on one specific judgment but a concurrence overall in that judgment. mr. stewart: but that one judgment is a very important part of the report. in fact, to make the last point, this is an important point, i think. that is the difficulty of determining motive. i mean, we can go back, we can look at fact well, can look at what happened, we can often determine who did it. who they did it with. when they did it. but to determine motive, you've got to crawl inside someone's head. and that's much, much more difficult. in fact, quoting from the preamble in this report, talking about a leader's intentions, it says this objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues in which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide and obfuscate their activities. once again, we're trying to determine motive, which is very different, very difficult. do you agree with that, determining motive is one of the most difficult challenges

rogers: on the basis of exposure. cease ofu required to a person -- collection of a order, incidentals that collection or inadvertently, the collection results in the collection of communication of incoming u.s. administration official, the president-elect, or the president-elect transition team -- are you required under the minimization procedures to seek collection? not automatically. >> the reason why this is important is intuitively, we would all know that incoming administration would have conversations with those that mayintelligence community be collecting against, either by making phone calls or receiving phone calls right. it's intended to collect the privacy rights oam

admiral rogers: yes. >> and the attorney general and director clapper? those type of people are also on this list? admiral rogers: again, in general, yes. >> generally speaking. admiral rogers: i will not talk about specifics of individual or hypothetical scenarios. >> here is what i am trying to get at. if what we are talking about is a serious crime as it has been alleged, in your opinion, would leaking of a u.s. person who has been unmasked and disseminated by intelligence community officials, with that leaking to the press hurt or help our ability to conduct national security? admiral rogers: hurts us. leak,it hurts, this which through the 702 too with , which we agree is vital, you think it threatens our national security? if it threatens a crime and unmasks a person and can jeopardize this tool when we have to try to reauthorize it in a few months, if this is used against the ability of us to reauthorize this tool and we cannot get it done because whoever did this leak or these nine people that did

do you know who roger stone is? >> generally, yes. >> are you aware he was a partner of paul manaforte? >> mr. schiff, i'm wary we're going in a place i don't want to go which is commenting on any particular person. i'm aware of public accounts, but i don't want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with someone the intelligence community assessed was a russian intelligence? >> i've read media accounts to that effect. i don't want to haurt anybody's feelings in the media, i don't know if that's accurate or not. >> if mr. stone acknowledged mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming, in august of 2016, would that have been prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> i believe that's correct chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta's e-mails were going to be released. >> not something i can comment on. >> do you know that mr. podesta said at the time he was not even aware of whether his e-mails h

king. >> admiral rogers? >> i'm not going to comment on an ongoing investigation. >> that was my way of getting it on the record. i appreciate that. you were talking about the significance of leaks and how important it is we stop them, and to me and i've been here a while, i've never seen such a sustained period of leaks going back to december when not the intelligence committee but "the washington post" was told a conclusion of the report. that's number one. what it was going to be. situations in "the new york times" where they talk of meetings. they talk of transcripts. they talk about conversations. there was one in particular we spoke about trump campaign individuals meeting with russian intelligence agents. again, director comey, i don't know if you can comment but white house chief of staff said that day or the next day that mr. mccabe from your office went to the white house and told him that story was bs. any way you can comment on whether or not mr. mccabe told that to mr. priebus? >> i can't. i can

rogers? >> no. >> thank you. admiral rogers, i know that there is a leak of information regarding director clapper and former secretary of defense carter were looking at relieving you of your duty. are you aware of those storys? >> i'm aware of media reporting to that. >> and those stories were leaked as soon as you had visited with president elect trump, is that correct? >> yes, sir, i was asked if i would be prepared to interview with the trump administration for a position, which i did. >> did the leak of that information at all -- at all impact your ability and your assessment that you did for the intelligence community's assessment on january 6th? >> no, sir. if i spent time in this job worrying about unsourced media reporting, i would never get any work done. >> thank you, admiral. director comey, i remain extremely concerned about the widespread illegal leaks that you just referenced in your testimony. just for the record, though, i want to get this on the record, does the unauthorized

do you know who roger stone is? >> generally, yes. >> are you aware that he was a partner of paul manafort? >> mr. schiff, i'm worried we're going to a place i don't want to go, which is commenting on any particular person. so i don't think i should comment. i'm aware of public accounts. but i don't want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with guccifer 2.0, someone that the intelligence community has assessed was a persona of russian intelligence? >> i've read media accounts to that effect. i don't want to hurt anybody's feelings in the media. i don't know if that's accurate or not. >> if there stone acknowledged that mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016, would that have been prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> i believe that's the correct chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta's e-mails were going to be released? >> that's not something i can comment on. >>

rogers? >> yes. >> do they intend to do us harm? >> they intend to ensure i believe that they gain advantage at our expense. >> director comey? >> yes, i want to be, harm can have many meanings. they're an adversary to we want to resist us, oppose, undermine us in lots of different ways. >> so one of the terms that we hear often is hybrid warfare, and i'd like to just give a short definition of what it is. it blends conventional warfare, irregular warfare, and cyber warfare. the aggressor intends to avoid attribution or retribution. so would you say that russia engaged in hybrid warfare in its effort to undermine our democratic process and engage in our electoral process, director comey? >> i don't think i would use the term warfare. you'd want to ask perts experts in the definition of war. they engaged in a multifaceted campaign of active measures to undermine our democracy, and hurt one of the candidates and hope to help one of the other candidates. >> i'd agree with the director. >> thank you both. i actually think that their eng

admiral rogers? >> likewise, ma'am. do either of you know what michael caputo is doing for the trump effort today? >> i have no idea. >> i'm not going to talk about u.s. persons. >> all right. let's move on now to carter paige. carter paige was the founder of global energy. it's an investment fund. he has only one partner, and that partner is sergei -- who is the former executive which is a russian state-owned gasprom oil company. before that from 2004 to 2007 he worked for merrill lynch in moscow. in march of 2016 then candidate trump referred to carter paige as his foreign policy advisor to the washington post. the next day paige asserts his -- that he is an advisor on russia and energy. but then subsequently candidate trump says he doesn't know him. on september 26 he takes a leave of absence from the campaign and then paige publicly supports a relationship with russia criticizes u.s. sanctions, and nato's approach to russia, saying -- then subsequently says he is divesting his stake in gasprom in august. in 2014 he

do you know who roger stone is? >> generally, yes. >> are you aware that he was a partner of paul manafort? >> mr. schiff, i am weary to commenting on any person, and i am aware of public accounts, but do i want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with someone that the intelligence committee has said is a persona of russian intelligence. >> and i have read an account of that, but i don't want to hurt anybody's feelings in the media, but i am not aware if it is accurate or not. >> and if mr. stone acknowledged that mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016, would that have been prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> that is correct chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta's e-mails were going to be released? >> that is not something that i can comment on. >> and are you aware that mr. podesta has said that he is not aware that his stolen e-mails would be published? >> i

>> i can't answer that question. >> admiral rogers? >> i'm not in a position to answer that question. >> so in 2014 igor is sanctioned, and he laments that he no longer will be able to come to the united states to motorcycle ride with mr. tillerson. could you give me an understanding of what are some of the reasons that we impose sanctions, director comey? >> it involves war crimes or u.n. -- or it's to communicate and enforce foreign policy interests and values of the united states of america. that's my general sense, but an expert might describe it much better. >> it's also a tool that we use to attempt to drive and shape the choices and actions of others. >> so in the case of igor session, who was sanctioned, by the united states, in part, to draw attention to the fact that russia had invaded crimea, it's an effort to try and send a very strong message to russia? is that not true? >> i think that's right. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. it's never acceptable, we can all agree, for any foreign power to interfere wi

king. >> admiral rogers?>> i will not comment on on going investigation. >> i understand that my way of getting on the record. appreciate that. you were talking about the significance of leaks and how important we stop them. to me, and i've been here a while, i've never seen such a sustained period of looks going book to december when not the intelligence committee, but "washington post" was told a conclusion of the report. that is number one. what it was going to be. we have situations in "new york times" where they talk of meetings, they talk about transcripts, they talk about conversations. there was one in particular spoke about trump campaign individuals meeting with russian intelligence agents and again, director comey, i don't know if you can comment on this, but the white house chief of staff said, i guess that day or the next day, that mr. mccabe from your office went to him at the white house and told him that that story was bs. is there any way you can comment on whether or not mr. mccabe told that

rogers: yes. but we talked about today seems to be a black-and-white notion of whether there was does a russian active measure attempting to succeed at collusion -- does the person involved have to actually know? does it have to involve knowing collusion for there to be damage? i can answer generally in the world of intelligence, often times, there are people who are called co-op tees, who don't realize they are doing with a foreign power. they are doing things and not realizing it's for the foreign government. it can happen. it's a frequent technique. >> is that the aunt that to include things where the actor doesn't necessarily know what they are doing is helping that other government? dir. comey: exactly. >> what are examples of what that might include in a generic sense? often times, a researcher here in the united states may think they are peerng with appear -- a researcher in a foreign government, not knowing that that researcher is either knowingly or unwittingly passing information to an e

do you know who roger stone is? >> generally, yes. >> are you aware that he was a partner of paul manafort? >> mr. schiff, i'm worried we're going to a place i don't want to go, which is commenting on any particular person, and so, i don't think i should comment. i'm aware of public accounts, but i don't want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with gu goosef ratof, a subject of russian media intelligence? >> i've read media accounts to that effect. i don't want to hurt anyone's feelings in the media. i don't know whether that's accurate or not. >> if mr. stone acknowledged mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016, prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> i believe that's the correct chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta's e-mails were going to be released? >> it's not something i can comment on. >> do you know that mr. podesta has said that at the time he wasn't eve

. >> you talking about roger stone here? paul manafort, who? >> manafort i know for a short time he worked on the convention, i don't know the other people. >> you're saying the rest of them are irrelevant to -- >> i don't know if they are or not. but they're not in the administration. they don't work in the administration. but that's the major concern that i have right now. is people that are -- until this gets cleared up, we have this problem. >> congressman, some saying republicans on this committee care more about ton masking of flynn's identity and incidental collection than the russian's hacking our democracy. what do you say to that balance? >> i say there's been one crime that's been committed and that's the leaking of someone's name. everything else we're conducting oversight on, this committee and the republicans led by me said a year ago this is the largest intelligence failure since 9/11. i warned about it. i begged them to do something act it. the last administration, i begged the intelligence agency to do something about it, they

>> goes by roger stone. >> i just want to ask you a fuel questions about roger stone. >> roger stone- >> roger stone predicted that john podesta would be the victim of a hack. >> roger stone also stated that he was in direct communications with julian assange and wikileaks. >> now in studio 57, we'll have the president's longtime friend about alleged collusion with russia. at whole foods market, we believe in food that's naturally beautiful, fresh and nutritious. so there are no artificial colors, no artificial flavors, d. whole foods market. no time for a bath? johnson's head-to-toe cleansing cloths. they're twice as big as regular wipes, so you're done in half the time. and you're off. johnson's. for every little wonder. true radiance comes from within. new radiant toothpaste by colgate optic white. whitens teeth both inside and out. for a radiant, whiter smile. be radiant by colgate optic white. and i smoked while (amanda) my i was pregnant. this is the view i had of my baby in

admiral rogers, i first want to go to you. on january 6th, 2017, the intelligence community assessment assessing russian activities and intentions in recent u.s. elections stated that the types of systems russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying. my question, as of today, admiral rogers, do you have any evidence that russia's cyber actors changed vote tallies in the state of michigan? >> no, i do not. but i would highlight we're a foreign intelligence organization, not a domestic intelligence organization. it would be fair to say we are probably not the best organization to provide a more complete answer. >> how about the state of pennsylvania? >> no, sir. >> the state of wisconsin? >> no, sir. >> the state of florida? >> no, sir. >> the state of north carolina? >> no, sir.of ohio? >> no, sir. >> so you have no intelligence that suggests or evidence that suggests any votes were changed? >> i have nothing generated by the national security agency, sir. >> director comey, do you have any evidence

and director rogers, my first question to you. the exploit that was used by the russians to penetrate the dnc, was it sophisticated. was it a zero day exploit, zero day being some time for those that are watching an tactic that has never been use to have. >> in an open forum i am not going to talk about how they executed hacks. >> if members of the dnc had not -- let me retraz this, can we talk about spearfishing? >> sure, in general terms, yes, sir. >> spearfishing is when somebody sends an e-mail. and they -- somebody clicks on something in that e-mail. >> the user thinks they are receiving an e-mail either of interest or from a legitimate user. they will open it up and they will often click, if you will on a link or an attachment. >> was that type of tactic used in the --? >> again. i'm not in an unclassified forum just not going to be able to answer. >> eye apologize. director comey, when was the first time the fbi notified the dnc of the hack roughly? >> i think august of 2015. >> and was that prior to any of the information

roger stone doesn't dispute either of these things. i want you to explain to our audience exactly what roger stone's connection is to donald tru trump. >> it's a major connection. roger stone goes back in politics to president nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. he's the kind of republican consultant who learned not only the details but also the value of kind of the dark arts of politics, how you're not just effective when you're sitting at a table negotiating policy, but you're maneuvering behind the scenes to try to advance your president or principal's agenda. by that i mean during the 2016 campaign roger stone was someone who was involved and quoted in the "national enquirer's" reports about ted cruz's father and whether ted cruz's father played a role during the jfk assassination. he organized very aggressively against republicans who might be stealing the nomination from then donald trump, candidate trump. in this case, john, he basically has now admitted he's become sort of the first person to be linked between guccifer and wikil

we say the inner circle, roger stone, manafort, page, flynn. they're all out. they were all pushed out in some way. is that correct? >> and the top foreign policy spokesperson. they are part of the president's inner circle. they helped get him elected. he's in that white house because of them. >> but if you're worried about what they may know that could hurt you, you're not going to push them out. >> okay. thank you. thank you. you do know this more than -- brabender, you are so much smarter than the game you play here. you know that trump has a problem here. >> no, i'm going to say number two -- >> you said you can't get rid of these guys unless they know so much. >> i'm going to stand up for hillary clinton. >> throwing his inner circle under the bus after they're caught dead to rights talking to russians is not saying that he's clean. it shows actually the extent of the problem here and unless he comes out and clarifies it or his ministers -- >> this is so nixonian. he was so involved with the intrigue, so much of this stuff he was involved with. it was too

rogers? >> to be specific, a different level on one specific judgment, but i concur overall in that judgment. >> but that one judgment, that one is a very important part of this report. if i could make just this last point. this is an important point, i think. that is the difficulty of determining motive. i mean, we can go back, we can look at facts, we can look at what happened, we can often determine who did it, who they did it with, when they did it. but to determine motive, you've got to crawl inside someone's head. that's much, much more difficult. in fact, quoting from the preamble in this report, talking about leaders' intentions. it says this objective is difficult to achieve when seeking to understand complex issues in which foreign actors go to extraordinary lengths to hide asand objectify skate thei activities. do you think determining motive is one of the most difficult? >> i do. i should emphasize something admiral rogers said earlier. we made no judgment on whether russians were

i'll throw that out to anybody who would like to talk back to roger. the doctor is waving his arms. >> why would they bring jesus into this? let me say something. if the medicaid expansion is taken away, it would be a travesty of unseen and unknown proportions. and it would be something that america would have to deal with, the blood of its government on its hands forever. and i'm going to say that and leave that politician alone. >> jesus cared about the poor. >> exactly. >> jesus would want poor people to have health care. so that is just such a stunning

rogers thank you for coming on. see you. >> good to see you, don. >> i want you to listen again to comey confirming for the first time the president's ties to russia. >> the fbi as partd of our counter intelligence mission is investigating the russian efforts to intervene in the 2016 presidential election. and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the trump campaign and the russian government and weather there was any coordination between the campaign and russia's efforts. as with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed. >> so you're the former chairman of the house intelligence committee. after hearing that from the fbi director, what would you be your first question? >> well, first of all i was a little astonished that they asked the department of justice if they could disclose that. in the same committee hearing one of the members asked are you going to talk about the leaks. i was a little ta

for cecily tynan, ducis rogers and the entire "action news" team. i'm jim gardner we hope you'll join us for "action news" at 11:00.

jessica schneider has more details >> reporter: paul manafort, carter page and roger stone are already under fbi investigation. for their contacts with russians known to u.s. intelligence. now they say they'll go before lawmakers. paul manafort resigned amid questions about his previous lobbying for pro-russian interests in ukraine. today a spokesman said manafort looks forward to meeting those conductsing serious investigations of these issues to discuss the facts. campaign foreign policy adviser carter page denied allegations that he secretly met with putin associates. he told the committee, i would look forward to engaging with you in the interest of finally ending this ruse. and the attorney for roger stone, an former advisor to donald trump, says stone is anxious to talk, stone told cnn i acknowledge i am a hard ballplayer. i have sharp elbows but one thing isn't in my bag of tricks, treason. >> michael flynn. >> former national security adviser michael flynn is also under fbi investigation but his

roger had two things over siskel.? >> bruce: oh yes. and he had, believe me, he had plenty of opportunities to leave. i mean, he was offered some serious dough to go to new york and go to la. >> anthony: why didn't he go? >> bruce: in chicago, favors are worth more than money and loyalty. in chicago, this is very important. roger is one of the most loyal people. he was loyal to his friends, to his family. and i just, i don't have any problem understanding why he decided to stay here. ♪ \s >>> rene: it's your first time to denmark? >> anthony: i got to be honest -- i usually try to avoid clean, orderly countries without massive social problems. i'm here for you, man. if you're not the poster boy for the entire country, you should be. >> rene: we go, no? >> anthony: yes, let's go. you are saddled with the weight of best restaurant in the world. i know this looks totally bogus. it's -- fantastic. >> alessandro: you need to work twenty hours a day in order to achieve this. >> rene: come on guys, they're waiting now. let's

so admiral rogers, i agree what you said. a public acknowledgment of this foreign meddling to be a problem as we move forward. in spotlighting on the congressman beyond the questions and based on this theme, i would like to ask you gentlemen if you can describe, what if anything russia did in this election that tear knowledge they did or they did not do in previous election elections? how were their actions different in this election than in previous ones? >> i would say that the biggest difference from my perspective was both the use of cyber, the hacking as a vehicle to physically gain access to information to extract that information and then to make it widely, publicly available without any alteration or chang change. >> the only thing that i would add, they were unusually loud in their intervention. it's almost as if they did not care that we knew what they were doing or that they wanted us to see what they were doing. it was very noisy. there are intrusions in different institutions. >> and what specifically based on th

rogers to come back in. until we can get them in a closed session it will be worth having an open session. that timeslot, we are hopeful they will be able to come in next tuesday. that is a timeslot so all the members have a chance to interview them and hold his hearing in closed session. >> it's exactly for what i said. [inaudible] >> that's nice. >> there was only one unmasked name and i had nothing to do with -- >> i'm not going to get into the specifics of that. >> were they or workday. >> we will find out when we get the information. i'm quite sure that i'm on comfortable with that and i'll leave it at that. it has nothing to do with them. as far as i know they will still come forward and we encourage others to come forward freeway. all right. i have to go vote. thank you. >> look we are just at the beginning of this. i just wanted to inform all of you that mr. manafort agreed to come in voluntarily. thank you.cost >> i live picture from the floor of the u.s. house right now where general debate on the

>> i don't know how he could not have heard of roger stone. we told the world yesterday who roger stone was and over the last few months we have put out evidence that roger stone knew these attacks against the democratic candidate was coming because he was intimating on twitter that john podesta was going to spend his time in the barrel. so it's contrary to what all of the evidence shows. >> i want to ask your reaction to the move by the secretary of state to skip a nato meeting and visit russia instead. rex tillerson will go to russia but skip the nato meeting. state is saying this is a logistical scheduling issue, they're trying to arrange it so he can go to a nato meet, the president may go as well. do you think there are signals being sent by this administration to this day of a kind of almost public, if tacit, quid pro quo? >> yes, chris. and what we tried to show yesterday was first russia is a foreign adversary. that's why having such deep ties to russia is concerning. and these deep ties not only may have extended to their interference

thank you again to our director and admiral rogers. director, would you agree that the fbi when it's considering a counterintelligence investigation views contacts between u.s. persons and, say, ruche differently than it would view contacts between u.s. persons and the uk or france or germans? >> yes, very much so. >> and that's because they're a foreign adversary? >> correct. >> so, to land on russia's radar as someone they want to recruit, being a prominent business person would be someone that's attractive to them? >> could be. depends on what industry you're in. >> could a politician be someone attractive to them? >> sure. >> how about somebody who does business with russians, would that be attractive to them? >> could be. would depend upon other things as well, though. >> and we were starting to discuss this. efforts to recruit include investing in a u.s. person, is that correct? >> efforts by russia to invest -- >> yes. >> in their trade craft? that can be one way in which they cultivate a relationship, sure. >> if you are a u.s.

do you know who roger stone is?re that he was aç partner of paul manafort? >> you know, mr. schiff, i'm wary we're going to a place i don't want to go which is commenting on any particular person, and so i don't think i should comment. i'm aware of public accounts, but i don't want to talk more than that. >> are you aware that he has publicly acknowledged having directly communicated with someone that the intelligence community has assessed was a person of russian intelligence? >> i've read media accounts to that effect. i don't want to hear anybody's -- hurt nub's feel anything the media -- anyone's feeling in the media, i don't know if that's accurate or not. >> if mr. stone acknowledged mr. podesta's time in the barrel was coming in august of 2016, would that have been prior to the public release of stolen e-mails of mr. podesta's? >> i believe that's correct chronology. >> do you know how mr. stone would have known that mr. podesta that's e-mails were going to be released? >> it's not something i can comment on

the washington times reprecipitated some of the direct messages between wikileaks and roger stone.ses this method, and one of the ways to know what's on his mind is what he accuses people is the thing he's afraid people think he did. but it does sort of work. there's no way it can't not work. he is the president so when he says something untoward, people do have to pay attention to it. and you do have to operate on the assumption that if the president of the united states says something, it must be based on something. at least that's the convention of the press corps. you can't just shrug it off. but it buys him time. and a presidency is just made up of a finite number of weeks. if any week he can get through with distracting from a scandal. for example, today bloomberg had this astonishing story about the incredible infusion of cash from -- into the kushner family from a chinese bank. the kushner family's share of the debt was going to be relieved by 80 people are describing it as a startlingly generous deal. but the health care news knocks on out of the headlines. i've referenced

rogers may not even know. it doesn't mean it's untrue just because they say it's not wiretapping. how do you deal with that? >> they can say two things. no, the former president did not wiretap donald trump. and he doesn't have the authority to wiretap anybody and hopefully they can clean up the mess that the president set off when he accused the british, our most important ally, most important intelligence community partner at keeping the american people safe, when he basically accused them of doing obama's dirty work. he can put a stake in those two absurd allegations. you've seen the white house back away. what about ongoing accusations? i doubt that director comey is going to give much, again, in the underlying substance of what this investigation is all about. >> conspiracies are very economical and fuel efficient. it takes very little to keep them going. that's why i raise those questions. on the other one, do you think that comey and/or rogers will validate the idea that they are even looking at connections between trump's staffers, associates, whatever word you want to put

joining us at the desk, roger mcnamee, and eric capoue. exciting day. >> great day! >> let's get your take on what appears to be pretty bullish action in the stock. what do you think people are responding to? >> the stock was way oversubscribed yesterday at the ipo. i think there's a lot of excitement about snap. i think snap is fun, clearly has a very engaged audience, and there's a new player that we now have a duopoly, facebook, google. i think they'll continue to do well, but now there's a new player on the scene. >> does it bust that open, roger? >> i think it's -- let's face it, the market has done way better than institutional investors this year. hedge funds are lagging. mutual funds are lagging. they need big ipos to get back into the game. snap is coming along at exactly the right time with exactly the right scale of deal. i will tell you, i think it's grossly overheated. you know, google traded under its ipo price. facebook traded under its ipo price. in all probability, snap will trade under its ipo price. probably won't take all that long to get back dow

rogers? >> yes. >> mr. comey, you indicated as of august, september, do you believe they ever came to a conclusion you know what, mr. trump is going to win? >> no, our -- the assessment of the intelligence commune was that early on they thought he might have a shot. so they wanted to mess with our election, hurt our country in general. that's always the baseline. they hated her, secretary clinton, wanted to harm her, and thought they might have a chance to help mr. trump. and later concluded that mr. trump was hopeless and they would focus then on just trying to undermine secretary clinton, especially with the european allies. >> got that. >> great. >> so up until center and through the fall, they believed that secretary clinton would win is that true? >> i think the assessment was late in the summer they concluded based on the polling, i think a lot of people, were reading, that mr. trump didn't have a chance and they shifted to focusing on just trying to undermine her. >> i tell you if you were to tell me

one of them, roger stone. and he's speaking out today, defending his controversial contact with the online hacker. last week stone admitted to communicating with gucifer 2.0, the online outfit who claims responsibility for hacking the democratic national committee. nevertheless, stone continues to deny any collusion with the russian government. >> the inference that my communication, actually my exchange with guccifer, which is entirely on the public, that constitutes exchange with the russians is absurd. >> our intelligence officials believe he was. >> i understand. they also said that hussein had weapons of mass destruction. just because the intelligence services say something as we know from history does not make it clear. >> so you're confident that -- >> let's finish with guccifer. my communication with her into entirely public, if. >> the panel is back with us, jeffrey lord and robert zimmerman. roger stone says he's being completely transparent. when he does go before that committee, what would the ques

rogers and mr. comey will be able to come in next tuesday in that time slot so all the members have a chance to interview him in both sessions. it is exactly to what i said. [inaudible questions] >> that is nice. [inaudible question] >> i will not get into that. we will find out when we get the nfrp nfrpgz -- information. as far as i know they will come forward and we encourage others to come forward freely. they can come in voluntarily. thank you. >> later the lead democrat on the intelligence committee responded to the chair's statement and decision to cancel the open hearing on the 2016 election. >> good morning, today i want to address the chairman's cancelation of the opening hearing with

roger brumback and his wife mary. 2:19 p.m., on the day the brumbacks were last known to be alive someone had tried to break into the home of a third creighton pathologist, dr. channda bewtra. >> and, of course, because of her position, again, we're right back to creighton university and specifically right back to the pathology training program. we believed that that incident as well could be related. >> somebody's gone to war against the creighton pathology department. >> it would appear that way. >> reporter: detective derek mois and his team had searched creighton's personnel files before, after the murders in the hunter home. they'd found a fascinating person of interest, dr. michael belenky. but he had an alibi, and it seemed the creighton connection was a dead end. now they looked again. and this time they went further back in time. and the second time around, from deep in the files of creighton's pathology department, a new name emerged from back in 2001, dr. anthony garcia. >> he'd been a resident in the creig