the dnc has a lot of work to do. we have to restore public trust, democratic base needs trust, activist new trusts and the elected officials need trust. we have an attack on voting rights. the redistricting challenges, the hacking, now we're living in an allegedly post-truth society, but we need to get our own house in order first. we need radical change. yesterday before the executive directors i went through a 15 point part, some of which you have heard from my friends but we will post it on my facebook page in the coming days and you will hear exactly what it is. it is based on reform, respect,, accountability, transparency, engagement and empowerment. since there are so many dnc members are mostly everyone here is, i want to talk about what i believe we need because went to get our own house in order. before we expect the voters to trust us, we need to make sure that we put those safe measures in. here's what i'm going to do. i'm going to call it the dnc empowerment project. a unanimous vote of the other eight off

the sin of people from the empower the dnc members to be the leaders not just in the dnc here in when we are together, but when they are spread across the united states. dnc members saying we are going to conduct a listening session. we will have the chair and vice chair can't do without taking your views on what's going on and send those resources to where they are most needed because we trust our leaders to just repeat those resources in the right way. so there's more, but that's enough for now. thank you. >> i touched on this a little when i talked about restoring trust. really we do with five issues that really destroyed the trust of the dnc or democratic party. one was neutrality. i have the experience of surfing through to heavily contested presidential parties. not one instance of me not being completely new show. you can ask anybody who worked on one of those campaigns. when somebody says they are natural, they'd they'd better be natural for real. the fundraising agreement was highly controversial. if the entire executive community had a role in that conversation, we might wan

the dnc declined. bi did not do everything perfectly here but there was a little bit morrow bust response than podesta makes it out to be. >> some spinning coming from the dnc why this wasn't their fault. owe des ta suggested the fbi should have investigated the hacks by the russians with the same intensity and manpower that it used to investigate hillary clinton's private email server. is that a fair charge? are the cases too different to compare? >> they're very different. one case we're talking about the clinton and her staff being the targets of an investigation, of a criminal investigation, and then the other the dnc, they were victims of a crime. you could only go so far to encourage a victim to cooperate. if they decline there's not much more they can do. they didn't call the security company that she should have done and look at it from the point of view of the dnc, they don't necessarily want the fbi in their business. we can understand perhaps why this went this way. >> interesting, thank you

at the dnc, got a call from the fbi that they were being hacked and just sat on it.n the fbi never gotten a taxi or whatever and drove over to the dnc. only 15 or 20 minutes way. it was so weak. the failure of the dnc kid or whoever it was to bring the attention to the chair or the failure of the fbi to show any earnest in take caring of the matter. >> this has real consequence answers clearly the dnc i.t. guy did not take the threat seriously enough. the mostly because he first get's a telephone call that comes in to the front desk and gets passed to him and at first he doesn't believe he is speaking to an fbi agent because the fbi agent can't e-mail him because if he e-mails the i.t. guy he will reveal to the russian hacker that fbi is on to them. sew simply calls them and said look in your sift aenl tystem a. guy thinks it is a hoax. the fbi guy keeps calling him again and again and again. it goes on for two or three months. and this drags on for months unfortunately. >> is this person, this i.t. guy, a political person? a political person would know this is very

and then the fbi never got in a taxi or whatever and drove over to the dnc. it's only 15, 20 minutes away and told them what was going on. it was so weak, the effort at communication. i wonder who's responsible, the failure of the dnc kid or whoever it was to bring it to the attention of the chair, or the failure of the fbi to show any earnestness in pursuing the party? >> i think it's a collection of missed opportunities that has real consequences. and i think that clearly, the dnc i.t. guy did not take the threat seriously enough. mostly because when he first gets a telephone call that comes into the front desk and gets passed to him, at first, he doesn't believe that he's actually speaking to an fbi agent. because the fbi agent can't e-mail him, because if he e-mails the i.t. guy, he's going to reveal to the russian hackers that t that the fbi is on to them. so he calls them and the i.t. guys thinks it's some hoax. the fbi guy keeps calling him again and again and again. it goes on for like three months. so he doesn't necessarily believe him and this drags

the dnc has a model for today. ave to restore public trust, democratic base needs trust, activists and elected officials need trust. we have an attack on voting rights. the redistricting challenges, the hacking and now we are living in an allegedly post-truth society, but we need to get our own house in order first. we need radical change. yesterday before the executive directors i went through a 15 point part, some of which you have heard from my friends, but i will post that on my facebook page in the coming days and you with your exactly what it is. it is based on reform, respect my accountability, transparency, engagement and empowerment. because there are so many dnc members and most everyone here is, i want to talk about what we need to do, get our own house in order. before we expect the voters to trust us, we need to make sure that we have put those safe measures. here is what i am going to do, i will call it the dnc empowerment project. cannotmous eight offices -- cannot write any decision of the dnc chair.

fbi agent calls the help desk at the dnc, you know, we got a hack going on. >> that's amazing. for the fbi to know what was occurring, would require for them to have some suspicions which knew that atp 28 and 29, advance threat of 28 and 29, also known as cozy bear and fancy bear. it is well-known russian signatures. for the fbi to pass it off to the dnc and knowing this came from a national sensor and national security agency passing it on and the fbi being the u.s. entities. i would had a four arm fire. john mccain and barack obama were both hacked by the chinese. the fbi was late to come into that and a lot of information went out but it was not used the way russia used this information. they should have had a task force go out to each of the rnc and the dnc and say hey, russia's national sensor as are scanning your network. turns out, it was september when the fbi went out there. they were in there for a year which means the russians had a highly focused target results that they wanted off of the dnc. they were a national target and now the fbi is going to have to explain wh

or into the private e-mail accounts of many others around the dnc. nk we have to declassify the information, make it available all over everywhere. and hope that most of the people who get it will believe it and will join in the outrage. i think secondarily, the obama administration, i hope, will respond. now they are not going to announce a response. that's not the way it is done. i hope there is a response so that the russians, the chinese, iranians and others will understand that there is a price to pay when you invi vievade th. this is a cyber invasion of the sovereignty of the united states of america. we all ought to be angry. i'm saddened that mr. trump who will be president of the united states shortly won't believe his own intelligence agencies. >> let's talk about the democratic party now. you faced a tough fight during the last election. you stand to face another one during the midterms and another in 2020. who were you going to have to lead the democratic party? right now there are names floating around. congressman keith ellison is facing

eventually he got routed to a young cyber security consultant who had been hired by the dnc which is run pretty much on a shoestring budget -- >> but david given the history we've seen hacking. president obama himself knows first hand what chinese hacking looks like. why was this handed down from a low-level homeland security person to a low-level person at the dnc? >> great question because as you indicated in 2008 the chinese and russians got into the elections of president obama and senator john mccain. it was president obama's homeland security advisor who was then at the justice department who had first called dennis mcdonough to warn him of the hacking in 2008. these are people -- we have a u.s. government very aware of the threat here. what happened was the fbi person contacts the dnc and the person who takes the call doesn't believe they're from the fbi and takes seven months not moving quickly to alert anybody senior at the dnc they have a problem. during that time the russianing hacking efforts spread. that's the period of time when the chairman of secretary clinton's campai

they hacked into the dnc. into john podesta's e-mail. didn't hack into the actual voting machines and voter counted. but at a minimum they hacked into the dnc and john podesta. that is getting into this campaign. the one person who hasn't said he agrees with it yet is president elect donald trump. isn't it important for him to address this head on? >> he can address it as he sees fit. what you don't want is if that are to occur. but the way to stop is not to say cut it out or anything like that. the way to do it is to go after their weakness. and their weakness is oil and gas. the fact that that is really all their economy does. so if we come up with substitutes for petroleum products, say gasoline at the pump, so everyone can drive on something else like methanol or electricity or both. then you have a real opportunity to have the russian government sit up and take notice and you don't have to do a dang gone thing about what you are doing. you can do it and smile at them. >> at a minimum on this alleged russian hack into the campaign. a

consultant at the dnc at first does not believe that he's talking to an fbi agent. because the guy the on the phone. he doesn't want to e-mail, worried if he e-mails him he'll alert russian hackers. for a matter of months, no real action taken to determine if the dnc system was actually compromised. >> to be clear, fascinating people who work and live in washington, d.c., how close the fbi building and dnc headquarters are. a five minute cab ride here, maybe. i want to talk about something we're hearing from donald trump, because he is refusing against reason to believe that russia is definitely behind these hackings. what he said on sunday. >> if you look at the story and take a look what they said, there's great confusion. nobody really knows, and hacking is very interesting. once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act you're not going to catch them. they have no idea if it's russia or china or somebody. it could be somebody sitting in a bed someplace. they have no idea. >> so eric, i read the story you and your colleagues put together and it renders that st

months. >> they didn't go up the chain, it seems like, at the dnc. just basically stayed -- i don't understand why the fbi, i mean, as eyou point out in the articl, the dnc office is close to the fbi. >> only explanation is the fbi gets lots of reports of potential intrusions and it's charged with notifying businesses and other individuals and it has so many of these notifications that it just makes the call and attempts to tell people, if they don't respond, that's the end of it. in this case they should have known, the dnc, presidential election, previous presidential elections, you know, obama and mccain were subject to cyber attacks. debbie wasserman-schultz when i spoke to her was furious when she learned, she wasn't fully aware when i spoke to her that this has gone back to december 2015. donna brazile was also furious they questioned why didn't the fbi escalate this. >> and john podesta gets a, at one point, i guess, months later, a phishs e-mail basically telling him to change his security password allegedly from google, wasn't real. somebody

russia hacked into the dnc. and john podesta's e-mails. and the cia. and now the president of the united states says there's some evidence that putin ordered it. ordered -- >> yeah. >> -- the hackers to do that. so is that -- >> i'm not disaagreeing -- >> should president obama take some action against russia for this? >> i want to be careful in what i say there. because again this is something that we see all the time from a lot of nation states and how we respond to that -- >> the thing is from russia now. we're just talking about -- >> i know. and i'm not disagreeing with that. i'm just saying how we respond is sometimes best done in secret. it's best done in private. and sometimes i think we should announce that to disincentivize that type of activity in future. but i think that's best done between the president and his national security staff. . >> but do you think that president-elect trump might be doing that in private? he has a good relationship with vladimir putin so why isn't he picking up the phone and saying you know what's the deal with t

the root. maria: he said it's a dnc insider. dagen: many people in the intelligence community, even republicans, the republican leadership on capitol hill, they want an investigation of russia's hacking into the dnc, but this tweet is -- asks the question that the answer is -- maria: he wants to know if it's the same cyber-attack. dagen: hard question to answer. >> really, at the end of the day, what difference does it make at this point? maria: yeah. >> we know that they have interfered and hacking our emails for years and this is the first time where we have seen them overtly engage in a political process but the reality is that hillary clinton didn't lose because of those emails. she lost because she ran a bad campaign and fbi director brought back her issue two weeks out of the election and donald trump connected to voters in a different way. dagen: all the democrats are trying to get the electors to vote for hillary clinton, in fact, there are celebrities running television advertisement trying to get electors, they have got

out of the race for dnc chair. we'll look at who the next head of the democratic party will likely be. the challenges they will face. on the other side of the break. at the supermarket buying cheese. scandal alert! flo likes dairy?! woman: busted! [ laughter ] right afterwards we caught her riding shotgun with a mystery man. oh, yeah! [ indistinct shouting ] is this your chauffeur? what?! no, i was just showing him how easy it is to save with snapshot from progressive. you just plug it in and it gives you a rate based on your driving. does she have insurance for being boring? [ light laughter ] laugh bigger. [ laughter ] our mission is to produce for african women as they try to build their businesses and careers. my name is yasmin belo-osagie and i'm a co-founder at she leads africa. i definitely could not do my job without technology. this windows 10 device, the touchscreen allows you to kind of pinpoint what you're talking about. which makes communication much easier and faster than the old mac that i used to use

the former dnc official, nice to see both of you. rkable in a sense this was said by the editor of post, a clearly liberal organization willing to take this kind of stand against president obama who they championed so long. that novel or insightful? >> sam is absolutely right that president obama was very good at winning elections for himself. the power has been transferred. in 2008 when republicans lost, their in mind, they lost badly in 2006 when nancy pelosi became speaker. took a look and said how can we win again? ed gillespie, former rnc chairman, said go to the states, that is where the low hanging fruit is where we can make an impact. let's try to win there, so many decisions affect people's lives are not just made by the president or made in washington or in the state by governors, state legislators the republicans made for this smart strategic decision to focus on winning races out there. on the democratic side, you have the organizing for america organization. the obama campaign's offshoot, sort of drew energy away from oth

i have not interviewed anybody from the dnc since the election.ast question before i let you go and enjoy the beautiful vista behind you, it has been more than 150 days -- i think actually it was july 27th that president-elect trump, then just candidate trump, had a full-fledged press conference. is he planning on having one before the inauguration? >> yes, absolutely. he stated that very clearly. look, let's also not kid ourselves. he sat for an hour and a half at "the new york times." he came out yesterday and spoke to the media several times. we have a daily press call every day at 10:30 that folks from cnn are on. let's not act like we're hiding anything. the president has been engaged in building one of the most successful cabinets in history. he's gone out and talked to the media several times, took numerous questions. i get the media wants to harp on how many times how many people have to be in a room and how questions he has to take. to answer your question, yes, in mid-january, we will do a press conference. we look forward to having you

election by hacking the dnc, and the hillary clinton campaigns, chairman john podesta?i understand of course the gravity and concerns of all countries that try to hit our systems and cyber attacks that are carried out on us every day. they're troubling to me, whether it is an election or it is something that is critical infrastructure, or it is a campaign of misinformation. now, i think as some of that, there needs to be clarity brought to this, wolf. you're not hacking into voting machines and with all the hype that is out there, there are some people who think my goodness, we're voting machines they're hacked into. >> sorry to interrupt but the president himself said after he spoke with putin in early september he said "cut it out" and there was, the president said this today, no hacking of voting machines, anything along those lines. there are other hacks that continue but the voting machines, the election system itself was not hacked but go ahead. >> that's right. there was no hacking into that voting system. the systems are controled pi our county, election commiss

were overlooked, not followed up by the fbi or the dnc. so the russians had seven months of unfettered access to the dnc computer systems at the beginning of this whole episode. what has this taught us and what concerns do you have? >> let me say what i think i can say. i have tried to be able to tell you the number of times i have received classified briefs and from home. i'm told i can't say that because it's classified. but assume that that's the case. and assume that a gnu of top people have briefed a number of members of the senate. i'm sure members of the house. i can tell you what my belief is. i believe this is an incident of foreign espionage. i believe it is a classic covert operation which russia has performed before on other countries. i believe it is interference in our election and i believe it is an effort to dirty up one of the candidates. that's a quote and that candidate was the democratic candidate for president of the united states. it was e-mails related to democrats that were released to the tune of 18,300 a day over a

the hack of the dnc, and the hack of john podesta. not much happens without vladamir putin. >> reporter: and the cia and fbi agree as to why. director john brennan telling the cia workforce in an internal message that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of russian interference in our presidential election." u.s. intelligence and law enforcement assess that moscow had multiple possible motives. undermine confidence in the vote. weaken hillary clinton. and help donald trump. today, the president said he delivered a stern warning to putin in september at the g-20 summit. >> when i saw president putin in china, i felt the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut out or there would be serious consequence it is he didn't. >> reporter: still tonight, u.s. officials say that russia's hacking of u.s. political organizations continues unabated. since the election, one attempted breach targeted the clinton campaign, though unsuccessfully. president-elect

in fact, he claims that they did not go and alert the dnc, that their computers had been hacked, that they made a phone call and left it on some sort of i.t. help line. here's what he wrote in his op-ed. he says comparing the fbi's massive response to the overblown e-mail scandal, and the seemingly lackadaisical response to the very real russian plot to subvert a national election shows that something is deeply broken at the fbi. comey justified his handling of the e-mail case by citing intense public interest, yet he refused to join the rest of the intelligence community in a statement about the russian cyber attack because he reportedly didn't want to appear political. what's broken in the fbi must be fixed and quickly. tom, your response? >> well, first of all the fbi did warn that the fbi would be briefing the white house continuously through the process of what type of hacking is going on against the u.s. systems, or involving the political process of the campaign. we've seen this repeatedly the hacking of opm believed to be by the chinese. the sony attack by north korea. so you

whether russia hacking into the dnc and releasing john pesodests e-mails. the campaign is trying to get past this and they don't want this to be an issue. obviously, there is electoral college voters who are saying that they want to get a full intelligence briefing before they officially cast their votes and they're calling on more information to be released and so there are many members of the american public who wanted that as well including the democrats and donald trump may won the electoral college but he did lose the polls by millions of people. >> and as you bring up that important point. >> it is not necessarily the russians tipping up the scale and had so many concerned. the fact that they were able to get in. that's what should be taken very seriously, regardless of the secondhand of it which is that they were trying to potentially according to intelligence officials trying to get donald trump in office. >> rahimi, you are on-site there of trump tower. who are the folks you are seeing and carly fiorina made a slash at trump tower. >> reporter: yes,

adam hodge is with the dnc. >> this is unprecedented. acked the entire democratic party with one goal, and that was to help donald trump. >> reporter: the u.s. intelligence community is split on whether the hacks were intended to help mr. trump, but since at least 2010, u.s. intelligence analysts have been warning of russian cyber intrusions and information warfare. a 2013 threat assessment concluded russia is among three countries focusing on using internet content that might contribute to political instability and regime change. agent first noticed the suspicious activity earlier this year. he called the dnc and was transferred to a help desk. his calls went ignored. it took several months before the dnc realized that it had been contacted by the fbi >> to verify the authenticity of the fbi agent who said that-- that said who he said he was. >> reporter: several months? >> it's hard to believe, but that's the reality. >> reporter: president-elect trump has brushed off allegations that the russians were trying to boost his candidacy. he

it turned out to be a hacking of the dnc. the democratic party destroyed the only significant challenger to hillary clinton. they collude and they are a corrupt organization. they losted the top officials for democratic party. but they have got a place for the top one and it was in the clinton campaign. >> we know debbie wasserman-schultz rigged the process. her office is 4 blocks away from the cia and they couldn't detect her. how good could they be. lou: donald trump is about to kick off his thank you rally in orlando, florida. that's rick scott, the governor of florida. ways your sense of the cabinet and your reaction to those peopling what will be the donald trump administration? >> i think it's a tremendous cabinet but i don't like the secretary of state. i want to see what he says during the hearings. i'm very, very suspect of that. but the other picks have been spectacular. this has been world class, particularly in the prime position. and some of the stuff outside the box that he's done. i don't like tillerson, i don't

an update on the story we brought you last night, the evidence trickling out about russia hacking the dnc and then something different for the holidays tonight. comedian chuck nice and an all-star panel reflecting on 2016, our stories and politics and culture and reasons to be hopeful for the holidays. >>> we begin with a major development, though. president obama taking decisive action today to block donald trump from creating a muslim registry. while obama has mostly focused on paving a smooth transition, today's move reflects the first use of his powers as president to thwart trump. the message from obama today is clear. he is still president and if donald trump's even thinking about religious profiling, president obama is going to make that not a smooth transition at all. obama is basically blocking potential religious profiling by ending an obscured government registration system. we'll explain it to you. basically, the obama administration issued an official notice today and it states this registration system ends now, with an immediate effective date. that means the program is dead

the hack of the dnc and the hack of john podesta. not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. >> reporter: and the cia and fbi agree as to why. director john brennan telling the cia workforce in an internal message that "there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature and intent of russian interference in our presidential election." u.s. intelligence in law enforcement assess that moscow had multiple possible motives -- undermine confidence in the vote, weaken hillary clinton, and help donald trump. today the president said he delivered a stern warning to putin at the g-20 summit in china in september. >> when i saw president putin in china, i felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn't happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn't. >> reporter: still tonight, u.s. officials say that russia's hacking of political organizations continues unabated. since the election, one attempted breach targeted the clinton campaign, thoug

the fact that the cia has told us that they have both the dnc and the rnc but only released the dnc, not release the rnc. one of the things that nobody is talking about is they clearly have the goods on somebody there. why do you want to risk a president in the white house that could be blackmailed by whatever they discovered at the rnc? >> i will know "the wall street journal" is reporting today that perhaps they didn't get into the -- it's not clear. there's reporting today in "the wall street journal" that they didn't get into the rnc because of security measures. that said -- >> to believe that we have to believe the republicans, the grand old party is so up on their technology that they had firewalls in there and the democrats of silicon valley didn't. >> there's a broader question about the implications more broadly about this entire thing once people start pulling on the threads of where this investigation goes and what else happens to the possession of whoever pulled this off which appears to be the russian state actors. >> listen, we're hours away now from the electoral colle

the dnc underreacted. its top leadership or the young cyber security people who heard this warning from the fbi that they didn't believe fully at the beginning. didn't tell anybody senior at the dnc until april of this year. and that is the period of time that allowed the russian hackers to actually go wild, not only inside the dnc systems but then to move on and attack mr. podesta's private gmail account. so there was lost time. the fbi didn't escalate it. >> can i stop you there, david? that's what -- just the bit on the fbi, listen, i understand they have a massive job to do but we're talking about the presidential election. we're talking about the dnc. why didn't someone show up and bang on the door and say, hey, listen up,ing this's awry? >> especially because the doors aren't that far apart. you could walk between the fbi headquarters and the dnc headquarters on your way to get a cup of coffee so it's not as if this was a distant target. it's a great question because the fbi didn't escalate it, they g

the dnc was hacked. >> let me stop you right there. i've never said on this program the election was hacked. in fact, we've been careful about the wording here. we're looking at two things. the dnc was hacked and john podesta, cam pair chair for hillary clinton. criminal intrusion and what appears to be political sabotage with the intended affect of hurting hillary clinton and donald trump. that's different from saying it's definitive in the outcome but my question is does the trump world accept that that is what happened? >> listen, that's what's been reported. i don't know, i'm not an intelligence officer. right now i think that's what the facts -- here's what i do -- >> wait, finish that sentence. right now i think that's what the facts -- >> that's what the facts relay. the intelligence agencies of the united states will clearly come, i believe, eventually to the correct conclusions. what is important i think, though is that our election -- and this is what's important. this today was a highly politicized move if for no other reason

they spent much more time combing through e-mails, and instead of walking up the street to notify the dnc, they were calling on the phone leaving message wz a low level tech aid, a contractor, and obama said he didn't know about it until the summer which is nine months after the first calls to the dnc, and the scrutiny was not there like looking into hillary clinton's e-mails. >> and does the clinton campaign believe they could have won the election if it were not for russia's interference, or do they take any responsibility for losing? >> i think they probably thought they could have won, and they are in a situation of facing no campaign we know of has ever dealt with and i think hillary clinton thought she was going to win the race and these things kept happening, and one clinton campaign aide felt like the hacks were a low-grade fever they could not shake. if it does not cause them to lose the election, it did not help on top of all the other factors. >> and trump's administration dismisses what the fbi says after the administration backed it up. >> more details will be released. trump

who should be the leader of the dnc moving forward? h ellison or some of the other names that governor dean mentioned? what do you think? james, start with you. >> okay, great. look. i think we have still trying to figure out this emerging field for the democrats. i think it's fascinating right now is that if donald trump had lost this election, the republican national committee job would have been one of the first real litmus tests into the future of the republican party. people were ready to go. reince priebus would have been the first-ever natural party chair to lose two presidential elections in a row. ideological fight for trump. i don't think we see that playing out in the democratic party. democrats are shell-shocked three weeks now and what exactly happened and what direction. i think in a mode right now where this kind of conversation about, you know, leaving some with nancy pelosi reelection is not happening other than keith ellison making the argument in this race for democratic party chair and hard for a lot of people to get

the fbi first went to the dnc with a warning in the fall of 2015. and yet the dnc didn't get -- the dnc leadership didn't figure out what was going on here until april. the president said in his press conference the other day he knew about it in the early summer. that was an awful long time for the gru and the other russian intelligence agencies to do a lot of damage, including the break-in into john podesta's e-mail. so there is a little bit of culpability here on the part of the united states and the dnc for leaving the door wide open when we know, of course, we're a regular target of russian, chinese, north korean, and iranian hackers, among others. >> mark halperin? >> david, what do we know about what the possible covert moves were or will be by the u.s. government? >> we don't know a whole lot about this. all you saw yesterday were the public elements. and frankly, to tell you the truth, i think, mark, the public stuff here is more valuable than the private. because if you're trying to establish deterrents for actors in the future, russia incl

the fbi in 2015 was trying to get a hold of the dnc's i.t. people. d the main switch board on the first call and asked for, who should we talk to that's running your i.t. program, and when they finally got to the people that were running the program, they said, you're being hacked by russia. their response was, no, we're not. we see, you know, the various signatures that show that you're being hacked. no, we're not. they offered full assistance, much like what the fbi did in the sony north korea hacking case, where the fbi actually embedded technicians, which sony invited them to embed technicians in their i.t. department for several weeks to help them stabilize it and create the procedures to block further hacking. they offered to do that in the dnc case. they were denied. they said, no, we don't need you, we don't want you. then later last summer, the dnc finally, finally hired crowdstrike to provide security for their cyber system, long after the hacking had begun and was carried on in full steam against them. so, no, they did not take the assistan

, at fbi headquarters called the help desk of the dnc. perts to shut it down. seven months, the russians had access of all of that as john podesta claims today, shocking. >> as promised here, katy tur, is here in new york. walk us through where is donald trump on the record and has there been any change of the message or furtherance of that message today. >> donald trump has not been happy of this idea that russian could have hacked into our american system so he's been force full in denying this for quite sometimes and today he's not necessarily denying it but he's talking about the content of what it was released. so to bring us up to date with donald trump's tweets, that's generally how we can follow the president-elect trump because he has not had press conference with reporters now for over 130 days since the middle of the dnc which he did call for russian to hack into hillary clinton e-mails and release them. today he's tweeting about the hack saying not not necessarily running against that russia was behind it. he's not disputing th

at the beginning of the summer, we were alerted to the possibility that the dnc has been hacked, and i immediately order law enforcement as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly, to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the house and the senate and the relevant intelligence committees, and once we had clarity and certainty around what, in fact, had happened, we publicly announced that in fact russia had hacked into the dnc. and at that time, we did not attribute motives or any interpretations of why they had done so. we didn't discuss what the effects of it might be. we simply let people know, the public know, just as we had let members of congress know, that this had happened. and as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened and then you interpreted why that might have happened and what effect it was going to have on the election outcomes. we did not. and the reason we did not was because in this hyper-partisan atmosphere, at a time when my

as you point out the dnc is close to the fbi. why didn't the fbi show up at the dnc? d to explain. the only explanation is that the fbi gets lots of these reports of potential intrusions and it is charged with notifying businesses and other individuals. and makes the call and tells people to if they don't respond that is the end of it. in this case they should have known. the presidential elections previously were both cyberattacked. this they should have done. and they questioned why didn't the fbi escalate is this. >> and john podesta gets a phishing e-mail telling him to change his security password allegedly from google. it wasn't real. and somebody on the team sent it to the i.t. guy and they knew it was a unreal thing. it was not a real e-mail. but he sends back a note saying it is legitimate. but he made a mistake. so they change the password and that is how -- >> incredible. the consequences of a small error. and the decades worth of the john podesta's e-mails. the hillary clinton speeches. all kind of snod remarks that then became public, criticizing her in pu

that kind of thing could really take off in the wake of the success of the hacking of the dnc. there's a lot more people that will look at this and say, here is a way to get back at my enemy. >> ieamon javers in washington, thank you. >>> the new president will have a gop majority at the fcc on his first day of office, paving the way for potential policy reversals including one involving so-called net neutrality which forces broadband providers to treat all internet traffic equally. >>> the president-elect wants a bump in infrastructure. and airports are in his sights. coming up, which terminals are in good shape and which could use a face-lift. >>> the nation's homebuilders are suddenly feeling the best they have in more than a decade, which is kind of surprising, given rising interest rates. diana olick explains why the unexpected swing. >> reporter: homebuilders haven't felt this confident since before the epic housing crash of the last decade. a monthly sentiment of builder confidence in december took an epic leap, thanks to optimism for trump-anomics. >> the women and men w

entities and the dnc. people are mad in the democratic world, they should be mad at the dnc it department. >> one of the things, you knew this in the cycle before he went tothe transition before donald trump one area what do you know , the rnc was hacked. do you explain the situation? >> there's two things important to know. got a call last friday night from a couple insiders of the washington post. and they said they thought we have sources in the intel world that are saying that because both institutions were hacked, and they only allowed information to go out on the dnc that clearly russia intended to influence the outcome of the election. i said okay, well, we didn't get hacked so if we didn't get hacked then the premise is wrong and the conclusion must be false. so we got the washington post, we explained some stuff and they said there enough. the new york times went ahead with it and now we see it reportedfrom cnn and washington journal saying our son was probed but our systems were such that we were

and he's saying that the investigation into the hacks of the dnc was substandard. that's clearly what he's saying. do you agree with that characterization? >> i don't. i don't. first of all the investigation isn't even over so i think it's impossible to characterize it in either one way or the other. i don't know where mr. podesta is obtaining information. >> he said "new york times". there's a big long "new york times" story. >> this involvement with the campaign he'll have a certain interest in this and certain view of that. so, again, i allow him his opinion. everyone has a great deal of respect for him so i allow him that opinion. but i disagree with that if that is in fact the characterization he's trying to make. you got to look at every investigation privately. you got to look at every case privately. you got to allow for the fact that the way in which someone may be contacted isn't indicative of the full relationship that they develop or the response that they may have gotten initially from that organization as well. >>> coming up the attorney general on wha

so that is the -- you see it play out in the dnc fight right now. ink obama would probably in his heart of hearts argue for the demographics because he's a numbers guy but in 2008 he was in indiana and won that state. he did it because he showed up. again, it's a push and pull. >> the truth is the policies he pursued have not been aimed at the people he's talking about, there they have been aimed at his coastal liberals, the rising electorate. i was out in wisconsin a couple of weeks ago and there was a conference at the university of wisconsin and there's a q and a with one of the professors there, catherine cramer who has done a book and spent years going around wisconsin talking to people. somebody got up in the audience what can democrats say to people in these rural areas. she said first democrats have to listen to people. it's not just showing up and giving a message, it's understanding what it is that drive those people who voted overwhelmingly for donald trump. >> speak in a way, explain your policies that they relate to. speaking of hillary

the hack of the dnc and the hack of john podesta. but again, i think this is exactly why i want the report out, so that everybody can review it. this has been briefed and the evidence in closed session has been provided on a bipartisan basis not just to me, it has been provided by the leaders of the house and the senate and the chairman and ranking members of relevant committees. what you have already seen is some of the folks who have seen the evidence don't dispute, make a basic assessment that the russians carried this out. i think what i want to make sure of is i give the intelligence community the chance to gather all the information but i make a larger point which is not much happens in russia without vladimir putin. this is pretty hierarchical operation. last i checked, there is not a lot of debate and democratic deliberation particularly when it comes to policies directed at the united states. we have said and i will confirm that this happened at the highest levels of the russian government, and i will let you make that deter

threean: so far there are of them running for the dnc. i like the idea of new blood.far, the only candidate who fits the bill is jamie harrison. i don't think we can have a two-chair dnc. .e tried that it did not work well. i don't think we can have a sitting congressperson as chair of the dnc. that did not work well. i want to see younger people run the dnc. chair. have to be the but it's got to be done right. if we are not doing the grunt work, we are not going to be better off than we are now. mark: should the dnc continue to raise money from wall street interests? raise money should from anybody who we can raise money from. cnn: there is a story up on today about keith ellison that talks about something we have known about that has been part of the public record for a while, which is his long defense of the nation of islam and defending louis farrakhan, in particular against accusations of anti-semitism. do you think it is problematic at all, this history that ellison has in terms of defending farrakhan in the nation of islam? a lot.n: i like keith i campaigned wi

where as in information gleaned from the dnc was given to wikileaks. his context, the release from the trump transition is troubling. in a prepared statement, not an off the cuff remark at a rally, donald trump just cast doubt on an intelligence community with which he's going to have to work. and it is trump despite now having access to all the nation's intelligence who is reportedly receiving only one intel briefing per week. the situation to me is reminiscent of the reluctance of the bush administration and then house speaker dennis that's ert post 9/11 to fully investigate fearing the information gleaned would be used for partisan gain. ultimately facing pressure, that administration relented and we got that report. this situation is a similar case of national security. and what a shame that partisanship runs so deeply in this country that we no longer even unit against a common enemy, russia, but instead see ourselves as republicans or democrats first instead of as americans. mr. trump, if these stories are based on bad intel, as you accuse, a pres

every other moment i will be at the dnc working very hard. the day after announced, i went straight to talk to the dmo. then went to california to talk to delegates. then went to the district next to mine in minnesota. went to michigan, then new york. i went to 30 states in the last year. i have raised millions of dollars. i appeared in the media regularly. i absolutely will be fighting to advance the dnc and make it my first priority. but the truth is, that is -- the job number one that the -- is to be defeating trump and getting back into the majority. but i am hearing from you and listening carefully. [applause] >> this is it. this will be my only job, my only focus outside of my family. each day, every day, 24/7. i have known key for a long time and when he first said he was going to run i said, i love you and know you have passion and energy, but i am telling you that the members of the committee want someone who can do this twice 24/7. fighting donald trump on the house of the representative when it he is appointing jeff sessions to be o

. >> meaning that they hacked into the dnc and john podesta. >> right. not votes but released those e-mails through wikileaks, et cetera. there's disagreement as to why they did it. our reporting is there is growing confidence in the intelligence community that the goal was to help donald trump. that's based in part on the fact that republicans officials and organizations were also hacked but not nearly as much information was made public. a former senior law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the inquiry tells cnn the investigation discovered russian hacking of republican entities, not just the democratic national committee and hillary clinton's top aid john podesta. cnn is told that hackers got hold of information from some republican house members, pundits, a third party entity that held data for the republican national committee and nonprofit groups tied to the party. most of the information relating to the republican party was not released by hackers. that in part led the intelligence community to assess that russia could have been acting

the hacking of the dnc, the hacking of john podesta. you don't believe -- you and donald trump do not believe russia was involved in that at all? that's what your statement said friday night. >> what i'm asking you, chuck, is tell me what the specific source that you have other than a "new york times" article that claims that through unnape eunn sources who they say was inconclusive, what source are you using to be so adamant to get a response from me on something that doesn't have a source to it? what's your source? >> what you are saying is, until the cia comes out and produces somebody on the record, you are going to dispute this the entire time? >> no, i'm not -- i don't know whether it's true or not. if it is true -- >> you don't -- that means you do not believe the assessments of the u.s. intelligence community. >> wait a second. now you are circuitous here. >> i'm saying -- i'm asking you -- you guys have the sourcing. you are getting briefings on this. you have been briefed. the president-elect was briefed on this. it's clear yo